'Gay' activist to oversee public classroom 'safety'
Shared via AddThis
To restore and uphold the sovereignty and rights of the individual States as guaranteed by the tenth amendment of the United States Constitution, which states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Mr. Obama does not want to waste this crisis....
Defending American capitalism these days is a thankless job. Reckless lending by American financiers produced a crisis that has pushed the world into its worst recession since the 1930s.
Tales of greed and fraud during the boom years abound.
Small wonder that although Americans still prefer their government neat and local, they are a little less hostile to federal activism these days. Such sentiments, last November, helped propel Barack Obama into the White House and his Democratic Party to bigger majorities in both houses of Congress. As Rahm Emanuel, the president’s chief of staff, says, Mr. Obama does not want to waste this crisis. He is using it to create a bigger role for government throughout the economy, from education and health care to banking and energy. He, and Congress, risk overreaching. America has experienced a failure of finance, not of capitalism. Its broader economy remains an astonishing Petri dish of creative destruction.
Even in boom times, 15% of American jobs disappear each year. Their places are taken by new ones created by start-ups and expansions. This dynamism remains evident today, amid the most crushing economic conditions most businesses have encountered. As icons of consumer excess like Starbucks and Neiman Marcus stumble, purveyors of frugality like Burger King and Wal-Mart prosper. Americans are adept at finding opportunity in adversity.
The simple fact of the matter is this:
“Obama is the most eloquent con artist in history. No one can say that the air you breathe is dirty and tax it better than Obama. He is capable of more destruction than Mao, or any dictator in history. And the worst part? So many are so willing to believe him.”
Tales of greed and fraud during the boom years abound.
Small wonder that although Americans still prefer their government neat and local, they are a little less hostile to federal activism these days. Such sentiments, last November, helped propel Barack Obama into the White House and his Democratic Party to bigger majorities in both houses of Congress. As Rahm Emanuel, the president’s chief of staff, says, Mr. Obama does not want to waste this crisis. He is using it to create a bigger role for government throughout the economy, from education and health care to banking and energy. He, and Congress, risk overreaching. America has experienced a failure of finance, not of capitalism. Its broader economy remains an astonishing Petri dish of creative destruction.
Even in boom times, 15% of American jobs disappear each year. Their places are taken by new ones created by start-ups and expansions. This dynamism remains evident today, amid the most crushing economic conditions most businesses have encountered. As icons of consumer excess like Starbucks and Neiman Marcus stumble, purveyors of frugality like Burger King and Wal-Mart prosper. Americans are adept at finding opportunity in adversity.
The simple fact of the matter is this:
“Obama is the most eloquent con artist in history. No one can say that the air you breathe is dirty and tax it better than Obama. He is capable of more destruction than Mao, or any dictator in history. And the worst part? So many are so willing to believe him.”
national sales tax...referred to as VAT
The once unthinkable plan to create a national sales tax. In other part of the world, such as Britain, governments use this tax (referred to as VAT - or value-added - tax) as a way to capitalize on what people buy instead of what they make. But anyone who thinks this government is going to give up a tax to add another would likely be sniffing something funny. When has this government every cut back on their spending or so called services??? But for right-thinking people the notion is laughable. In fact, a couple of libs that i`ve taked to couldn’t understand what the big deal is with the concept. I proceeded to explained, “You can’t operate from the perspective that it’s their money and that they’re letting you keep some of it.”
A VAT is a hidden tax that would increase the cost of just about everything, from a carton of eggs to a visit with a lawyer. In fact, it's really a multi-level tax. Items are taxed every step of the way - from creation to getting on the market shelves. Of course, that means higher prices along the way, and taxes on top of it.
While a lot of folks in the White House might cheer the idea(of course they would, its not their money that they are taxing/spending) as something that would really stick it to the rich(HAHAHAHAHA) , VAT has been shown to be regressive, and mainly falling on the poor. On the flip side of that reality, VAT advocates say those negatives could be offset by using the proceeds to pay for health care for every American -- a benefit that would be highly valuable to low-income families.
Idiot libs, why dont they ever take into consideration that when they excessivly tax an item or service the 1st human response is to cut back....see gas, cigs, etc, etc.....Then they(in their perspective) lose money=raise taxes more=lose money=raise taxes more.......and on and on and on
If you walk away with anything from my tiraid, take this with you...THIS IS AN HIDDEN TAX ON ALL LEVELS OF CONSUMPTION. THE RICH HAVE SO MUCH MONEY IT WONT MATTER TO THEM, AND WITH THIS TAX, THE MIDDLE CLASS AND POOR GET SCREWED.....
AND WHO WILL KEEP OBAMA, OR ANY OTHER ADMINISTRATION FOR THAT MATTER FROM CONTINUOUSLY RAISING THE TAX!!!!
Its time to say to the government enough, stop, go home......get out of our lives!
Can anyone say revolution? Trust me, its coming!!
A VAT is a hidden tax that would increase the cost of just about everything, from a carton of eggs to a visit with a lawyer. In fact, it's really a multi-level tax. Items are taxed every step of the way - from creation to getting on the market shelves. Of course, that means higher prices along the way, and taxes on top of it.
While a lot of folks in the White House might cheer the idea(of course they would, its not their money that they are taxing/spending) as something that would really stick it to the rich(HAHAHAHAHA) , VAT has been shown to be regressive, and mainly falling on the poor. On the flip side of that reality, VAT advocates say those negatives could be offset by using the proceeds to pay for health care for every American -- a benefit that would be highly valuable to low-income families.
Idiot libs, why dont they ever take into consideration that when they excessivly tax an item or service the 1st human response is to cut back....see gas, cigs, etc, etc.....Then they(in their perspective) lose money=raise taxes more=lose money=raise taxes more.......and on and on and on
If you walk away with anything from my tiraid, take this with you...THIS IS AN HIDDEN TAX ON ALL LEVELS OF CONSUMPTION. THE RICH HAVE SO MUCH MONEY IT WONT MATTER TO THEM, AND WITH THIS TAX, THE MIDDLE CLASS AND POOR GET SCREWED.....
AND WHO WILL KEEP OBAMA, OR ANY OTHER ADMINISTRATION FOR THAT MATTER FROM CONTINUOUSLY RAISING THE TAX!!!!
Its time to say to the government enough, stop, go home......get out of our lives!
Can anyone say revolution? Trust me, its coming!!
Big topic of the day is obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court
While liberals are wetting themselves over the nod, the GOP already has a fight on their hands with people already swinging the hammer and sickle over the very whisper of opposition to the appointment. They seem to be forgetting that Judge Sotomayor already has issues that they can’t ignore - including her 60% reversal rate. And in a very ironic twist, the Supreme Court looks poised to overturn another one of her decisions next month - a race-based employment decision. But we’ll get to that in a minute. What was making me craziest over the appointment was that the very people that say race shouldn’t be a factor, are the same people that are going nuts over the fact that Sotomayor is a hispanic woman. Further, they want to us her skin color and gender to erase her bad decision-making skills. In fact, it could seem to some that she’d have you do the same thing.
In 2002, in a speech in California, Judge Sotomayor said race or sex does affect a judge's rulings, and said because of that, a minority woman is a better at judging than a white man. "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life," she said.
Three years later, at a panel discussion at Duke Law School, she seemed to endorse judicial activism on the appeals courts, telling students considering clerkships: "Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know - I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don't make law. I know." But perhaps more than her judicial rulings, Judge Sotomayor can expect to be asked about her temperament as a judge and about her remarks during speeches and conferences.
The Almanac of the Federal Judiciary lists a series of quotes from lawyers praising her legal ability, but she also drew barbs from lawyers who said she is abusive in the courtroom: "She really lacks judicial temperament," one lawyer told the publication.
“These people are so excited about a hispanic woman being on the bench - did they forget that being a Justice is about making decisions based on what our Constitution prescribes?”
Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed, providing a potent line of attack raised by opponents. As as I mentioned a moment ago court watchers are already predicting that a majority of justices will rule in favor of New Haven, Connecticut., firefighters who said the city discriminated against them after it tested them for promotions, then scrapped the results after it realized a disproportionate number of whites would be promoted. Judge Sotomayor was part of a unanimous three-judge panel that issued an unsigned opinion ruling against the firefighters and in favor of the city. So the city discriminated against white firefighters, she voted in favor of their decision and we’re not supposed to be concerned about her judicial mindset? Okaaay.
I do have to thank the lib nominators for one thing...
She is a roman-catholic hispanic, and she is pro-life, and against gay marriage so where she has great distain for the 1st and 2nd ammendment, I forsee the repeal of roe v wade, so much thanks to you liberals!
In 2002, in a speech in California, Judge Sotomayor said race or sex does affect a judge's rulings, and said because of that, a minority woman is a better at judging than a white man. "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life," she said.
Three years later, at a panel discussion at Duke Law School, she seemed to endorse judicial activism on the appeals courts, telling students considering clerkships: "Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know - I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don't make law. I know." But perhaps more than her judicial rulings, Judge Sotomayor can expect to be asked about her temperament as a judge and about her remarks during speeches and conferences.
The Almanac of the Federal Judiciary lists a series of quotes from lawyers praising her legal ability, but she also drew barbs from lawyers who said she is abusive in the courtroom: "She really lacks judicial temperament," one lawyer told the publication.
“These people are so excited about a hispanic woman being on the bench - did they forget that being a Justice is about making decisions based on what our Constitution prescribes?”
Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed, providing a potent line of attack raised by opponents. As as I mentioned a moment ago court watchers are already predicting that a majority of justices will rule in favor of New Haven, Connecticut., firefighters who said the city discriminated against them after it tested them for promotions, then scrapped the results after it realized a disproportionate number of whites would be promoted. Judge Sotomayor was part of a unanimous three-judge panel that issued an unsigned opinion ruling against the firefighters and in favor of the city. So the city discriminated against white firefighters, she voted in favor of their decision and we’re not supposed to be concerned about her judicial mindset? Okaaay.
I do have to thank the lib nominators for one thing...
She is a roman-catholic hispanic, and she is pro-life, and against gay marriage so where she has great distain for the 1st and 2nd ammendment, I forsee the repeal of roe v wade, so much thanks to you liberals!
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Obama and his Iranian Drama
Based on hints, feints, public pronouncements, and off the record commentary, the administration's stance toward Iran is coming into focus. Without any question, military action against Iran is off the agenda. The Obama administration will do nothing to prevent the further enrichment of uranium by Iran's mullahs, notwithstanding who is elected in that nation's upcoming vote.
The negotiations with Iran are based on the premise that Iran can produce as much enriched uranium as it wants as long as a nuclear bomb isn't manufactured. In other words, Obama seeks a "Japanese solution," the conditions for a bomb without actually making one.
For some, this is a distinction without a difference since the bomb can be made in days if deployment is in the cards. If Obama can get the Iranians to agree to this arrangement with adequate blandishments provided by our side, including the lifting of sanctions, he will announce with great fanfare that "peace" between Iran and the West has been achieved. For keen observers of the region, it will be regarded as a "Munich peace." For others, it will be seen as a significant diplomatic breakthrough.
In order to mollify Israeli leaders that this deal isn't threatening to that nation's survival, Obama will argue that the United States stands committed to employ its nuclear umbrella to protect Israel against nuclear attack. Although this offer will be made with apparent sincerity, it is hard to believe that Obama would be willing to risk the safety of New York in order to protect Tel Aviv. Moreover, it is also hard to believe any serious official in Israel will accept this proposal, albeit other options may not be available.
The Obama administration has made it clear that it will punish Israel if it decides to attack Iran unilaterally. Having failed to contain Iran, the United States is concentrating on restraining Israel. Administration contingency plans include a formal condemnation of Israel, support for a United Nations Security Council resolution that could include sanctions against Israel and suspending military aid to the Jewish state.
The big question is what the Obama administration will do if Israel, determining that Iran with the capacity to build nuclear weapons, is an existential threat and despite, U.S. disapproval, attacks Iran in any case. Moreover, how will President Obama react if Iran retaliates against Israel as well as shutting down the 29 mile wide Strait of Hormuz, through which twenty percent of the world's crude oil is transported? Would the U.S. fight back, would it blame Israel for the preemptive attack on Iran appealing to the "Muslim world" for understanding?
Iran, which has vowed "to wipe Israel off the map," and its Hezbollah and Hamas proxies would retaliate with missile launches on Tel Aviv and Haifa should any attack on Iran occur. For Israel to be even marginally successful, it must eliminate missile installations in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran -- a truly formidable military objective.
Decades of appeasement and accommodations with Iran have led to the present impasse. These policy blunders cannot be attributed to President Obama. In fact, blame belongs on both sides of the political aisle. However, what distinguishes Obama's diplomatic initiative from others is the "downgrading" of Israel in order to strike a "grand bargain" with Iran for regional "pacification." Whether Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu wants it or not, Jerusalem is now on a collision course with Washington.
Israelis may be understandably stunned by the evolution of events. They are on the horns of a dilemma. Netanyahu has responded to the emerging U.S. position by noting that he will be accommodative on any argument with the Palestinians if Obama can negate the Iranian threat. He is attempting to establish a nexus between a Palestinian accord and the elimination of this threat. After all, he contends, if Iran is in the position to build nuclear weapons, the weapons serve as a cover for Hamas missile attacks against the state of Israel since escalation could lead to a nuclear exchange and should be avoided at all cost.
The Obama administration position is 180 degrees in a different direction. It appears to be arguing that an accommodative Israel that makes a deal with the Palestinians for a separate state will have American protection against a possible Iranian nuclear attack. But the first and overarching responsibility lies with Israel to arrange its negotiated settlement with Palestinian leaders.
President Obama believes time is on his side since he has already conceded with his "engagement" drive that Iran will have the time to enrich enough uranium to build a nuclear weapon. Prime Minister Netanyahu, unable to accept the potential threat, feels time is of the essence. The closer Iran gets to the fateful "tipping point," the closer Israel is to survival issues.
Erstwhile President Jimmy Carter tried to assuage Israeli leaders in 1979 by noting that his craven concession to Iranian leaders did not pose a threat to Israel. Is Barack Obama preparing to go one step further in downgrading the importance of Israel in his attenuated negotiation with Iran? History is waiting impatiently for an answer and the world waits with bated breath.
Thanks to Herbert London
The negotiations with Iran are based on the premise that Iran can produce as much enriched uranium as it wants as long as a nuclear bomb isn't manufactured. In other words, Obama seeks a "Japanese solution," the conditions for a bomb without actually making one.
For some, this is a distinction without a difference since the bomb can be made in days if deployment is in the cards. If Obama can get the Iranians to agree to this arrangement with adequate blandishments provided by our side, including the lifting of sanctions, he will announce with great fanfare that "peace" between Iran and the West has been achieved. For keen observers of the region, it will be regarded as a "Munich peace." For others, it will be seen as a significant diplomatic breakthrough.
In order to mollify Israeli leaders that this deal isn't threatening to that nation's survival, Obama will argue that the United States stands committed to employ its nuclear umbrella to protect Israel against nuclear attack. Although this offer will be made with apparent sincerity, it is hard to believe that Obama would be willing to risk the safety of New York in order to protect Tel Aviv. Moreover, it is also hard to believe any serious official in Israel will accept this proposal, albeit other options may not be available.
The Obama administration has made it clear that it will punish Israel if it decides to attack Iran unilaterally. Having failed to contain Iran, the United States is concentrating on restraining Israel. Administration contingency plans include a formal condemnation of Israel, support for a United Nations Security Council resolution that could include sanctions against Israel and suspending military aid to the Jewish state.
The big question is what the Obama administration will do if Israel, determining that Iran with the capacity to build nuclear weapons, is an existential threat and despite, U.S. disapproval, attacks Iran in any case. Moreover, how will President Obama react if Iran retaliates against Israel as well as shutting down the 29 mile wide Strait of Hormuz, through which twenty percent of the world's crude oil is transported? Would the U.S. fight back, would it blame Israel for the preemptive attack on Iran appealing to the "Muslim world" for understanding?
Iran, which has vowed "to wipe Israel off the map," and its Hezbollah and Hamas proxies would retaliate with missile launches on Tel Aviv and Haifa should any attack on Iran occur. For Israel to be even marginally successful, it must eliminate missile installations in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran -- a truly formidable military objective.
Decades of appeasement and accommodations with Iran have led to the present impasse. These policy blunders cannot be attributed to President Obama. In fact, blame belongs on both sides of the political aisle. However, what distinguishes Obama's diplomatic initiative from others is the "downgrading" of Israel in order to strike a "grand bargain" with Iran for regional "pacification." Whether Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu wants it or not, Jerusalem is now on a collision course with Washington.
Israelis may be understandably stunned by the evolution of events. They are on the horns of a dilemma. Netanyahu has responded to the emerging U.S. position by noting that he will be accommodative on any argument with the Palestinians if Obama can negate the Iranian threat. He is attempting to establish a nexus between a Palestinian accord and the elimination of this threat. After all, he contends, if Iran is in the position to build nuclear weapons, the weapons serve as a cover for Hamas missile attacks against the state of Israel since escalation could lead to a nuclear exchange and should be avoided at all cost.
The Obama administration position is 180 degrees in a different direction. It appears to be arguing that an accommodative Israel that makes a deal with the Palestinians for a separate state will have American protection against a possible Iranian nuclear attack. But the first and overarching responsibility lies with Israel to arrange its negotiated settlement with Palestinian leaders.
President Obama believes time is on his side since he has already conceded with his "engagement" drive that Iran will have the time to enrich enough uranium to build a nuclear weapon. Prime Minister Netanyahu, unable to accept the potential threat, feels time is of the essence. The closer Iran gets to the fateful "tipping point," the closer Israel is to survival issues.
Erstwhile President Jimmy Carter tried to assuage Israeli leaders in 1979 by noting that his craven concession to Iranian leaders did not pose a threat to Israel. Is Barack Obama preparing to go one step further in downgrading the importance of Israel in his attenuated negotiation with Iran? History is waiting impatiently for an answer and the world waits with bated breath.
Thanks to Herbert London
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
SUN heats EARTH, EARTH heats ATMOSPHERE - NOT The Other Way Around
A definitive chapter on the fallacy of man-made global warming/climate change.
May 14, 2009
By Hans Schreuder
"Our understanding of the natural world does not progress through the straight forward accumulation of facts because most scientists tend to gravitate to the established popular consensus also known as the established paradigm. Thomas Kuhn describes the development of scientific paradigms as comprising three stages: prescience, normal science and revolutionary science when there is a crisis in the current consensus. When it comes to the science of climate change, we are probably already in the revolution state." Jennifer Marohasy, 2009.
After all is said and done, it will be found that carbon dioxide does not and can not affect either the global temperature or climate change. Carbon dioxide has no climate forcing effect and is not a greenhouse gas and neither is water vapour.
"To understand heat transfer we have to keep in mind that heat is not a substance, but energy that flows from one system toward other systems with lower density of energy." [1]
The only worthwhile source of warmth for planet earth is our Sun, warming all of the land and all of the seas, which then warm the atmosphere - not the other way around; the atmosphere does not warm the earth, other than during short-term exceptional weather conditions such as the Sirocco winds over the Canary Islands.
Volcanoes add a small amount of heat locally as and when they erupt and sometimes may cause temporary global cooling until the ash and other material has settled back to earth. Erupting underwater volcanoes will add some warmth to the sea, but in the bigger picture, it is only the sun that adds global warmth to our planet. The atmosphere is warmed up from the heat that radiates off the surface of the earth. During the day, the atmosphere in fact helps to cool the earth and, depending where on earth you are, during the night the atmosphere will either continue to cool the earth (at the poles) or keep the earth warm (at the equator). Water vapour helps to maintain some of the daytime warmth during the night-time, the greater the humidity, the greater the capacity of the atmosphere to maintain temperature. At no stage though does water vapour add warmth to the atmosphere and neither does carbon dioxide - only in closed test flasks in a laboratory, but under no circumstances in the open atmosphere in which we all live.
Before discussing the issue of man-made global warming (AGW) or the man-made climate change, one central definition has to be stated quite clearly.
The so-called greenhouse effect of the atmosphere is commonly explained as followed: "The heating effect exerted by the atmosphere upon the Earth because certain trace gases in the atmosphere (water vapor, carbon dioxide, etc.) absorb and reemit infrared radiation. [...] The component that is radiated downward warms the Earth's surface more than would occur if only the direct sunlight were absorbed. The magnitude of this enhanced warming is the greenhouse effect. Earth's annual mean surface temperature of 15°C is 33°C higher as a result of the greenhouse effect ..." [2]
The above definition is the accepted one by climate alarmists and climate realists alike and is the one that is referred to throughout this chapter. That definition is the "settled science" heralded by the UN IPCC. That definition is 100% wrong on all counts. [7]
"We would be mistaken if we were to think that the change of temperature was caused by CO2 when, in reality, it was the Sun that heated up the soil. Carbon dioxide only interfered with the energy emitted by the soil and absorbed a small amount of that radiation (0.0786 Joules), but carbon dioxide did not cause any warming. Please never forget two important points: the first is that carbon dioxide is not a source of heat, and the second is that the main source of warming for the Earth is the Sun." [1]
"It started with a genuine concern by senior scientists in Europe and the USA that if uncontrolled, increasing emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels, mainly coal, could have serious consequences. It is also very important to note that global climate models are unable to produce an output that is verifiable. In other words the output can neither be proved nor disproved. What grounds do those who use these models have to refute observations made by others to the effect that there is no believable evidence of the postulated dramatic adverse changes produced by the models?" [4]
"Throughout the last decade, supporters of the idea of an anthropogenic global warming (AGW) or the impact of an anthropogenic "greenhouse" effect on climate (IAGEC) have been insisting on an erroneous concept of the emission of energy from the atmosphere towards the surface. The AGWIAGEC assumption states that half of the energy absorbed by atmospheric gases, especially carbon dioxide, is reemitted back towards the surface heating it up. This solitary assumption is fallacious when considered in light of real natural processes" [1]
"If there was strong evidence of undesirable changes, then the whole climate change issue would have been resolved long ago. The tragedy is that there is a world-wide policy in the opposite direction. Not only has the observation theory route been avoided, but climate change scientists and their organisations have adopted a policy of deliberately denigrating all those who practise it. Why are they following this thoroughly unethical and unscientific procedure? [...] after 20 years of massive international effort (the overwhelming consensus), climate change scientists have still to produce solid, verifiable evidence of the consequences of human activities. They have been unable to proceed beyond claims that climate change will result in the ‘intensification of the hydrological cycle' for which there is no scientifically believable evidence. Not only do our studies completely negate the claims made by climate change scientists, but we can demonstrate with a high degree of assurance that all the proposed measures to limit greenhouse gas emissions will be an exercise in futility. [4]
"[...] atmospheric gases do not cause any warming of the surface given that induced emission
prevails over spontaneous emission. During daytime, solar irradiance induces air molecules to emit photons towards the surface; however, the load of Short Wave Radiation (SWR) absorbed by molecules in the atmosphere is exceptionally low, while the load of Long Wave Radiation (LWR) emitted from the surface and absorbed by the atmosphere is high and so leads to an upwelling induced emission of photons which follows the outgoing trajectory of the photon stream, from lower atmospheric layers to higher atmospheric layers, and finally towards outer space. The warming effect (misnamed "the greenhouse effect") of Earth is due to the oceans, the ground surface and subsurface materials. Atmospheric gases act only as conveyors of heat." [1]
"It is human arrogance to think that we can control climate, a process that transfers huge amounts of energy. Once we control the smaller amount of energy transferred by volcanoes and earthquakes, then we can try to control climate.
Until then, climate politics is just a load of ideological hot air.
To argue that human additions to atmospheric CO2, a trace gas in the atmosphere, changes climate requires an abandonment of all we know about history, archaeology, geology, solar physics, chemistry and astronomy. We ignore history at our peril.
I await the establishment of a Stalinist-type Truth and Retribution Commission to try me for my crimes against the established order and politicised science." [5]
To conclude this chapter, it is necessary to understand that the underlying drive for control over the use of energy is based on the principles set out in the United Nation's Agenda 21 [8] as well as two other relevant agendas [9], [10]. When the idea of blaming carbon dioxide came to be understood by those who wished to wield their control over global affairs, the wheels of political manipulation were set in motion via the UNFCCC. All Western governments subscribed to the ideals without understanding the deeper meaning of the hidden agendas and lured by the promise of huge subsidies, taxation and green job creation schemes.
As a final word on the matter of greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect, I quote from the most elaborate and accurate scientific paper on the subject:
"The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics, such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature, it is taken for granted that such a mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper, the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified." [3] [6]
With thanks and gratitude to Alan Siddons, Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf Tscheuschner, Gerhard Kramm and a score of imminent scientists and analysts across the world, without whose insight and encouragement I could not have written this chapter.
Hans Schreuder
Darsham, England
Analytical Chemist (ret.)
References:
[1] http://www.biocab.org/Heat_Stored_by_Atmospheric_Gases.html
[2] http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/search?id=greenhouse-effect1 ):
[3] http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
[4] http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/climate-change-%e2%80%93-the-clashof-theories-by-professor-will-alexander/
[5] Ian Plimer, Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne, author of Heaven and Earth - Global Warming: The Missing Science (Connor Court).
[6] http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0904/0904.2767.pdf
[7] Why Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant and why there can be no temperature increasing greenhouse effect in our open atmosphere
[8] http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/index.htm
[9] http://www.mdgmonitor.org/index.cfm
[10] http://www.globio.info/
May 14, 2009
By Hans Schreuder
"Our understanding of the natural world does not progress through the straight forward accumulation of facts because most scientists tend to gravitate to the established popular consensus also known as the established paradigm. Thomas Kuhn describes the development of scientific paradigms as comprising three stages: prescience, normal science and revolutionary science when there is a crisis in the current consensus. When it comes to the science of climate change, we are probably already in the revolution state." Jennifer Marohasy, 2009.
After all is said and done, it will be found that carbon dioxide does not and can not affect either the global temperature or climate change. Carbon dioxide has no climate forcing effect and is not a greenhouse gas and neither is water vapour.
"To understand heat transfer we have to keep in mind that heat is not a substance, but energy that flows from one system toward other systems with lower density of energy." [1]
The only worthwhile source of warmth for planet earth is our Sun, warming all of the land and all of the seas, which then warm the atmosphere - not the other way around; the atmosphere does not warm the earth, other than during short-term exceptional weather conditions such as the Sirocco winds over the Canary Islands.
Volcanoes add a small amount of heat locally as and when they erupt and sometimes may cause temporary global cooling until the ash and other material has settled back to earth. Erupting underwater volcanoes will add some warmth to the sea, but in the bigger picture, it is only the sun that adds global warmth to our planet. The atmosphere is warmed up from the heat that radiates off the surface of the earth. During the day, the atmosphere in fact helps to cool the earth and, depending where on earth you are, during the night the atmosphere will either continue to cool the earth (at the poles) or keep the earth warm (at the equator). Water vapour helps to maintain some of the daytime warmth during the night-time, the greater the humidity, the greater the capacity of the atmosphere to maintain temperature. At no stage though does water vapour add warmth to the atmosphere and neither does carbon dioxide - only in closed test flasks in a laboratory, but under no circumstances in the open atmosphere in which we all live.
Before discussing the issue of man-made global warming (AGW) or the man-made climate change, one central definition has to be stated quite clearly.
The so-called greenhouse effect of the atmosphere is commonly explained as followed: "The heating effect exerted by the atmosphere upon the Earth because certain trace gases in the atmosphere (water vapor, carbon dioxide, etc.) absorb and reemit infrared radiation. [...] The component that is radiated downward warms the Earth's surface more than would occur if only the direct sunlight were absorbed. The magnitude of this enhanced warming is the greenhouse effect. Earth's annual mean surface temperature of 15°C is 33°C higher as a result of the greenhouse effect ..." [2]
The above definition is the accepted one by climate alarmists and climate realists alike and is the one that is referred to throughout this chapter. That definition is the "settled science" heralded by the UN IPCC. That definition is 100% wrong on all counts. [7]
"We would be mistaken if we were to think that the change of temperature was caused by CO2 when, in reality, it was the Sun that heated up the soil. Carbon dioxide only interfered with the energy emitted by the soil and absorbed a small amount of that radiation (0.0786 Joules), but carbon dioxide did not cause any warming. Please never forget two important points: the first is that carbon dioxide is not a source of heat, and the second is that the main source of warming for the Earth is the Sun." [1]
"It started with a genuine concern by senior scientists in Europe and the USA that if uncontrolled, increasing emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels, mainly coal, could have serious consequences. It is also very important to note that global climate models are unable to produce an output that is verifiable. In other words the output can neither be proved nor disproved. What grounds do those who use these models have to refute observations made by others to the effect that there is no believable evidence of the postulated dramatic adverse changes produced by the models?" [4]
"Throughout the last decade, supporters of the idea of an anthropogenic global warming (AGW) or the impact of an anthropogenic "greenhouse" effect on climate (IAGEC) have been insisting on an erroneous concept of the emission of energy from the atmosphere towards the surface. The AGWIAGEC assumption states that half of the energy absorbed by atmospheric gases, especially carbon dioxide, is reemitted back towards the surface heating it up. This solitary assumption is fallacious when considered in light of real natural processes" [1]
"If there was strong evidence of undesirable changes, then the whole climate change issue would have been resolved long ago. The tragedy is that there is a world-wide policy in the opposite direction. Not only has the observation theory route been avoided, but climate change scientists and their organisations have adopted a policy of deliberately denigrating all those who practise it. Why are they following this thoroughly unethical and unscientific procedure? [...] after 20 years of massive international effort (the overwhelming consensus), climate change scientists have still to produce solid, verifiable evidence of the consequences of human activities. They have been unable to proceed beyond claims that climate change will result in the ‘intensification of the hydrological cycle' for which there is no scientifically believable evidence. Not only do our studies completely negate the claims made by climate change scientists, but we can demonstrate with a high degree of assurance that all the proposed measures to limit greenhouse gas emissions will be an exercise in futility. [4]
"[...] atmospheric gases do not cause any warming of the surface given that induced emission
prevails over spontaneous emission. During daytime, solar irradiance induces air molecules to emit photons towards the surface; however, the load of Short Wave Radiation (SWR) absorbed by molecules in the atmosphere is exceptionally low, while the load of Long Wave Radiation (LWR) emitted from the surface and absorbed by the atmosphere is high and so leads to an upwelling induced emission of photons which follows the outgoing trajectory of the photon stream, from lower atmospheric layers to higher atmospheric layers, and finally towards outer space. The warming effect (misnamed "the greenhouse effect") of Earth is due to the oceans, the ground surface and subsurface materials. Atmospheric gases act only as conveyors of heat." [1]
"It is human arrogance to think that we can control climate, a process that transfers huge amounts of energy. Once we control the smaller amount of energy transferred by volcanoes and earthquakes, then we can try to control climate.
Until then, climate politics is just a load of ideological hot air.
To argue that human additions to atmospheric CO2, a trace gas in the atmosphere, changes climate requires an abandonment of all we know about history, archaeology, geology, solar physics, chemistry and astronomy. We ignore history at our peril.
I await the establishment of a Stalinist-type Truth and Retribution Commission to try me for my crimes against the established order and politicised science." [5]
To conclude this chapter, it is necessary to understand that the underlying drive for control over the use of energy is based on the principles set out in the United Nation's Agenda 21 [8] as well as two other relevant agendas [9], [10]. When the idea of blaming carbon dioxide came to be understood by those who wished to wield their control over global affairs, the wheels of political manipulation were set in motion via the UNFCCC. All Western governments subscribed to the ideals without understanding the deeper meaning of the hidden agendas and lured by the promise of huge subsidies, taxation and green job creation schemes.
As a final word on the matter of greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect, I quote from the most elaborate and accurate scientific paper on the subject:
"The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics, such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature, it is taken for granted that such a mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper, the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified." [3] [6]
With thanks and gratitude to Alan Siddons, Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf Tscheuschner, Gerhard Kramm and a score of imminent scientists and analysts across the world, without whose insight and encouragement I could not have written this chapter.
Hans Schreuder
Darsham, England
Analytical Chemist (ret.)
References:
[1] http://www.biocab.org/Heat_Stored_by_Atmospheric_Gases.html
[2] http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/search?id=greenhouse-effect1 ):
[3] http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
[4] http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/climate-change-%e2%80%93-the-clashof-theories-by-professor-will-alexander/
[5] Ian Plimer, Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne, author of Heaven and Earth - Global Warming: The Missing Science (Connor Court).
[6] http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0904/0904.2767.pdf
[7] Why Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant and why there can be no temperature increasing greenhouse effect in our open atmosphere
[8] http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/index.htm
[9] http://www.mdgmonitor.org/index.cfm
[10] http://www.globio.info/
Reagan Was Right: Government Is the Problem
Reagan Was Right: Government Is the Problem
An interview of Charlton Heston:
The two-day gala event began with a special Firing Line debate, featuring host William F. Buckley, Jr., Rep. Dick Armey, actor, writer and director Charlton Heston, and former U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick for the affirmative side, adopting the resolution: “Government is not the solution, it is the problem.” Opposing this team were former senators Gary Hart and George McGovern, Rep. Patricia Schroeder, and actor Dennis Weaver. Moderated by The New Republic senior editor Michael Kinsley, the debate aired on PBS stations to an estimated audience of over three and a half million viewers.
The opening arguments of one of the participants, Charlton Heston, are presented here along with additional remarks Mr. Heston delivered on September 10 upon accepting Hillsdale College’s Freedom Leadership award.
Charlton Heston recipient of the Academy Award for Best Actor for his performance in Ben-Hur in 1959, has also received many international awards. He served six terms as President of the Screen Actors Guild, was chairman of the American Film Institute, and was a member of the National Council on the Arts. In 1978, he received the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Heston’s Opening Statement
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. David Hume, the great Scottish philosopher, said that. I am a Scot myself. He was bloody right. For more than half a century, the shining Republic created by the blood of the Continental Army and a few great men has been nearly nibbled to death by the Democratic ducks in the Congress and a warmly cooperative Supreme Court.
There is now no aspect of American life, public or private, that the federal government does not invade, instruct and finally coerce to its will. Farm and factory, home and school, university and research center, club and playground—all are overlaid with a spidery network of laws, guidelines, restrictions and Draconian penalties that stifle the spirit, the energy, the creative capacity of what was once the freest nation on earth. In this hemisphere, now that Ortega and Noriega have fallen, the collectivists’ sentiments discredited around the world fly best, I fear, in Cuba and Washington, D.C.
Of course, government is the problem. The armies of bureaucrats proliferating like gerbils, scurrying like lemmings in pursuit of the ever-expanding federal agenda testify to that amply. Tom Jefferson, the only genius we ever had, said that government is best which governs least. I am amazed you Democrats are still comfortable with Mr. Jefferson as your designated logo.
Questions directed to Mr. Heston:
Rep. Pat Schroeder:
I certainly hope that you are also going to stand strong with us and keep the federal government out of bedrooms. I know people who are on your side also like to get people into the private lives of folks. And I’ve always found it really amazing in that your side often trusts corporations and fat cats to do anything and they want them deregulated, but they want to regulate the private lives of people. I hope you clearly are against that also.
Heston:
Well, as the fellow that took down the original dictation on the Ten Commandments, I am naturally opposed to adultery.
Schroeder:
Would you have federal adultery policed?
Heston:
No.
Sen. George McGovern:
Mr. Heston, I made reference to the savings and loan crisis. This is probably the most embarrassing and expensive financial scandal in the 200-year history of the country. Some people think that a major contributor to that was the breakdown of government regulation—we actually weakened the regulatory agencies and it was the kind of an atmosphere in the country to let people do what they wanted to in the private sector. What’s your assessment of how well that theory has worked in the savings and loan industry where everybody was more or less allowed to run wild without any kind of government supervision?
Heston:
I think certainly there was grievous dereliction of duty there on the part of the government, specifically the Congress. We lost the Speaker of the House, Jim Wright; we are about to lose the senior senator from California, Alan Cranston, because of their involvement. There were certainly congressmen and senators in both parties that were involved in this. But I don’t think the handling of the program speaks well for the function of government.
Sen. George McGovern:
…as I understand your view here tonight, you would intend, wherever possible, to eliminate government supervision and government regulation. Obviously, we have a lot of scandalous behavior on the part of both the Congress and the executive branch, but is your argument that things would have been better in the savings and loan industry if we had less government regulation and less government supervision?
Heston:
Certainly it would have been better if the little cadre in Congress had not, in kind of a quiet meeting in the [Congressional] Cloak Room, said, “Well, look, let’s guarantee loans up to $100,000.” That was a little careless!
Actor Dennis Weaver:
Chuck, I just wondered—you don’t mind if I call you Chuck, do you? You said government is not the solution; it’s the problem. What do you consider to be the solution in situations like we have in our inner cities where our young people there are unemployed at a horrendous rate of [something] like 50 percent? And we have so much crime going on there because there’s really no incentive for these young people. I just wonder what your solution would be?
Heston:
I think you have to consider very carefully what kind of regulations must be put in place. I think there’s an instinct to pass a law, any law, and see if it flies or not We are both Californians. As you know, we are considering Proposition 128, which is a massive environmental control bill. Now you can’t be against controlling the environment—clean air—all that. That’s like being against apple pie. But they are just starting to figure out that that bill passed as currently worded in this fall’s election is going to cost California taxpayers $4 billion.
Weaver:
Do you realize what it would cost them if it isn’t passed? They’re life supports.
Heston:
I think that’s an example of excessive government activity without gains.
Sen. Gary Hart:
I’d like to provide three or four examples of government services and see which ones you think the government should not do: cleaning up toxic waste dumps, protecting worker safety on the job, delivering Social Security checks to elderly people, regulating airline services, or providing poor children the opportunity for advancement through a Head Start program.
Heston:
I think a good case is the minority children who are getting insufficient housing, insufficient education. I think government is going at it the wrong way. I think what we have to do is improve the schools, provide employment opportunities—not provide affirmative action programs that amount to mandated quotas in jobs, educational opportunities, things of that kind.
Charlton Heston Accepts the Freedom Leadership Award
I am delighted to be at Hillsdale College and am honored by the award with which I have been presented. I have looked forward to visiting this heartland campus for some time, especially upon the occasion of the Firing Line debate that enlivened last evening. It was wonderful to be in such distinguished company as Jeane Kirkpatrick and Bill Buckley and the opposing team of debaters, even if they seemed a little daunted by history.
I first met your president, George Roche, when we served on a presidential task force on the arts and humanities in 1981. We deliberated for some four months before completing our report and submitting it to President Reagan. I am proud to say that once our job was over, we dissolved the task force. It is no more. Anybody who knows much about Washington, D.C. knows just how rare a feat that was.
In wending my way through the imposing corridors and rabbit warrens of our nation’s capitol, on a variety of often trivial errands, I sometimes wondered whether behind some walnut door with a brass knob in an obscure corner of a marble corridor I would find an ancient gentleman with a green eye shade and sleeve garters writing with a quill pen. Likely as not, he would be finishing revisions on a report first submitted in 1910.
All the time I have known him, George has politely urged me to visit Hillsdale. And upon each occasion when an invitation was extended, I have said, “Yes, I really want to do that.” But various circumstances have prevented it until now.
You should have been more eloquent, George; I didn’t know what you had here. As another visitor to the Hillsdale campus declared a few years ago, “This isn’t a college—this is a 1940 movie set of what a college ought to be.” I absolutely concur.
I congratulate Hillsdale on its extraordinary success. I wish there were even as few as 10 Hillsdale Colleges around the country—they would be enough to transform American education overnight. I suppose God in His grace will not grant that ln my lifetime. I understand, however, why tenured professors from large prestigious universities take salary cuts to come and teach here. I understand why hundreds of thousands of people know about this little rural school and why it has been able to gain national attention for its fight to remain independent I suspect that one of the reasons why this has happened and why Hillsdale is thriving (well, you have only been at it since 1844, so I suppose you ought to have gotten somewhere) is the quality of its leadership. I believe that we live in the century of the common man, but I also believe in extraordinary men and women who make a real difference in the world. I think that some of them are leading this college and thus you are to be congratulated.
An interview of Charlton Heston:
The two-day gala event began with a special Firing Line debate, featuring host William F. Buckley, Jr., Rep. Dick Armey, actor, writer and director Charlton Heston, and former U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick for the affirmative side, adopting the resolution: “Government is not the solution, it is the problem.” Opposing this team were former senators Gary Hart and George McGovern, Rep. Patricia Schroeder, and actor Dennis Weaver. Moderated by The New Republic senior editor Michael Kinsley, the debate aired on PBS stations to an estimated audience of over three and a half million viewers.
The opening arguments of one of the participants, Charlton Heston, are presented here along with additional remarks Mr. Heston delivered on September 10 upon accepting Hillsdale College’s Freedom Leadership award.
Charlton Heston recipient of the Academy Award for Best Actor for his performance in Ben-Hur in 1959, has also received many international awards. He served six terms as President of the Screen Actors Guild, was chairman of the American Film Institute, and was a member of the National Council on the Arts. In 1978, he received the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Heston’s Opening Statement
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. David Hume, the great Scottish philosopher, said that. I am a Scot myself. He was bloody right. For more than half a century, the shining Republic created by the blood of the Continental Army and a few great men has been nearly nibbled to death by the Democratic ducks in the Congress and a warmly cooperative Supreme Court.
There is now no aspect of American life, public or private, that the federal government does not invade, instruct and finally coerce to its will. Farm and factory, home and school, university and research center, club and playground—all are overlaid with a spidery network of laws, guidelines, restrictions and Draconian penalties that stifle the spirit, the energy, the creative capacity of what was once the freest nation on earth. In this hemisphere, now that Ortega and Noriega have fallen, the collectivists’ sentiments discredited around the world fly best, I fear, in Cuba and Washington, D.C.
Of course, government is the problem. The armies of bureaucrats proliferating like gerbils, scurrying like lemmings in pursuit of the ever-expanding federal agenda testify to that amply. Tom Jefferson, the only genius we ever had, said that government is best which governs least. I am amazed you Democrats are still comfortable with Mr. Jefferson as your designated logo.
Questions directed to Mr. Heston:
Rep. Pat Schroeder:
I certainly hope that you are also going to stand strong with us and keep the federal government out of bedrooms. I know people who are on your side also like to get people into the private lives of folks. And I’ve always found it really amazing in that your side often trusts corporations and fat cats to do anything and they want them deregulated, but they want to regulate the private lives of people. I hope you clearly are against that also.
Heston:
Well, as the fellow that took down the original dictation on the Ten Commandments, I am naturally opposed to adultery.
Schroeder:
Would you have federal adultery policed?
Heston:
No.
Sen. George McGovern:
Mr. Heston, I made reference to the savings and loan crisis. This is probably the most embarrassing and expensive financial scandal in the 200-year history of the country. Some people think that a major contributor to that was the breakdown of government regulation—we actually weakened the regulatory agencies and it was the kind of an atmosphere in the country to let people do what they wanted to in the private sector. What’s your assessment of how well that theory has worked in the savings and loan industry where everybody was more or less allowed to run wild without any kind of government supervision?
Heston:
I think certainly there was grievous dereliction of duty there on the part of the government, specifically the Congress. We lost the Speaker of the House, Jim Wright; we are about to lose the senior senator from California, Alan Cranston, because of their involvement. There were certainly congressmen and senators in both parties that were involved in this. But I don’t think the handling of the program speaks well for the function of government.
Sen. George McGovern:
…as I understand your view here tonight, you would intend, wherever possible, to eliminate government supervision and government regulation. Obviously, we have a lot of scandalous behavior on the part of both the Congress and the executive branch, but is your argument that things would have been better in the savings and loan industry if we had less government regulation and less government supervision?
Heston:
Certainly it would have been better if the little cadre in Congress had not, in kind of a quiet meeting in the [Congressional] Cloak Room, said, “Well, look, let’s guarantee loans up to $100,000.” That was a little careless!
Actor Dennis Weaver:
Chuck, I just wondered—you don’t mind if I call you Chuck, do you? You said government is not the solution; it’s the problem. What do you consider to be the solution in situations like we have in our inner cities where our young people there are unemployed at a horrendous rate of [something] like 50 percent? And we have so much crime going on there because there’s really no incentive for these young people. I just wonder what your solution would be?
Heston:
I think you have to consider very carefully what kind of regulations must be put in place. I think there’s an instinct to pass a law, any law, and see if it flies or not We are both Californians. As you know, we are considering Proposition 128, which is a massive environmental control bill. Now you can’t be against controlling the environment—clean air—all that. That’s like being against apple pie. But they are just starting to figure out that that bill passed as currently worded in this fall’s election is going to cost California taxpayers $4 billion.
Weaver:
Do you realize what it would cost them if it isn’t passed? They’re life supports.
Heston:
I think that’s an example of excessive government activity without gains.
Sen. Gary Hart:
I’d like to provide three or four examples of government services and see which ones you think the government should not do: cleaning up toxic waste dumps, protecting worker safety on the job, delivering Social Security checks to elderly people, regulating airline services, or providing poor children the opportunity for advancement through a Head Start program.
Heston:
I think a good case is the minority children who are getting insufficient housing, insufficient education. I think government is going at it the wrong way. I think what we have to do is improve the schools, provide employment opportunities—not provide affirmative action programs that amount to mandated quotas in jobs, educational opportunities, things of that kind.
Charlton Heston Accepts the Freedom Leadership Award
I am delighted to be at Hillsdale College and am honored by the award with which I have been presented. I have looked forward to visiting this heartland campus for some time, especially upon the occasion of the Firing Line debate that enlivened last evening. It was wonderful to be in such distinguished company as Jeane Kirkpatrick and Bill Buckley and the opposing team of debaters, even if they seemed a little daunted by history.
I first met your president, George Roche, when we served on a presidential task force on the arts and humanities in 1981. We deliberated for some four months before completing our report and submitting it to President Reagan. I am proud to say that once our job was over, we dissolved the task force. It is no more. Anybody who knows much about Washington, D.C. knows just how rare a feat that was.
In wending my way through the imposing corridors and rabbit warrens of our nation’s capitol, on a variety of often trivial errands, I sometimes wondered whether behind some walnut door with a brass knob in an obscure corner of a marble corridor I would find an ancient gentleman with a green eye shade and sleeve garters writing with a quill pen. Likely as not, he would be finishing revisions on a report first submitted in 1910.
All the time I have known him, George has politely urged me to visit Hillsdale. And upon each occasion when an invitation was extended, I have said, “Yes, I really want to do that.” But various circumstances have prevented it until now.
You should have been more eloquent, George; I didn’t know what you had here. As another visitor to the Hillsdale campus declared a few years ago, “This isn’t a college—this is a 1940 movie set of what a college ought to be.” I absolutely concur.
I congratulate Hillsdale on its extraordinary success. I wish there were even as few as 10 Hillsdale Colleges around the country—they would be enough to transform American education overnight. I suppose God in His grace will not grant that ln my lifetime. I understand, however, why tenured professors from large prestigious universities take salary cuts to come and teach here. I understand why hundreds of thousands of people know about this little rural school and why it has been able to gain national attention for its fight to remain independent I suspect that one of the reasons why this has happened and why Hillsdale is thriving (well, you have only been at it since 1844, so I suppose you ought to have gotten somewhere) is the quality of its leadership. I believe that we live in the century of the common man, but I also believe in extraordinary men and women who make a real difference in the world. I think that some of them are leading this college and thus you are to be congratulated.
Friday, May 15, 2009
The Alinsky Administration
Today, reading Rules for Radicals is illuminating and worrisome.
Barack Obama never met Saul Alinsky, but the radical organizer’s thought helps explain a great deal about how the president operates.
Alinsky died in 1972, when Obama was 11 years old. But three of Obama’s mentors from his Chicago days studied at a school Alinsky founded, and they taught their students the philosophy and methods of one of the first “community organizers.” Ryan Lizza wrote a 6,500-word piece on Alinsky’s influence on Obama for The New Republic, noting, “On his campaign website, one can find a photo of Obama in a classroom teaching students Alinskian methods. He stands in front of a blackboard on which he has written ‘Relationships Built on Self Interest,’ an idea illustrated by a diagram of the flow of money from corporations to the mayor.”
In a letter to the Boston Globe, Alinsky’s son wrote that “the Democratic National Convention had all the elements of the perfectly organized event, Saul Alinsky style. . . . Barack Obama’s training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing its effectiveness. It is an amazingly powerful format, and the method of my late father always works to get the message out and get the supporters on board. When executed meticulously and thoughtfully, it is a powerful strategy for initiating change and making it really happen. Obama learned his lesson well.”
As a tool for understanding the thinking of Obama, Alinsky’s most famous book, Rules for Radicals, is simultaneously edifying and worrisome. Some passages make Machiavelli’s Prince read like a Sesame Street picture book on manners.
After Obama took office, the pundit class found itself debating the ideology and sensibility of the new president — an indication of how scarcely the media had bothered to examine him beforehand. But after 100 days, few observers can say that Obama hasn’t surprised them with at least one call. Gays wonder why Obama won’t take a stand on gay marriage when state legislatures will. Union bosses wonder what happened to the man who sounded more protectionist than Hillary Clinton in the primary. Some liberals have been stunned by the serial about-faces on extraordinary rendition, indefinite detention without trial, military-tribunal trials, the state-secrets doctrine, and other policies they associate with the Bush administration. Former supporters of Obama, including David Brooks, Christopher Buckley, Jim Cramer, and Warren Buffett, have expressed varying degrees of criticism of his early moves, surprised that he is more hostile to the free market than they had thought.
Obama’s defenders would no doubt insist this is a reflection of his pragmatism, his willingness to eschew ideology to focus on what solutions work best. This view assumes that nominating Bill Richardson as commerce secretary, running up a $1.8 trillion deficit, approving the AIG bonuses, signing 9,000 earmarks into law, adopting Senator McCain’s idea of taxing health benefits, and giving U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown 25 DVDs that don’t work in Britain constitute “what works best.” Obama is a pragmatist, but a pragmatist as understood by Alinsky: One who applies pragmatism to achieving and keeping power.
One of Alinsky’s first lessons is: “Radicals must have a degree of control over the flow of events.” Setting aside the Right’s habitual complaint about the pliant liberal media, Obama has dominated the news by unveiling a new initiative or giving a major speech on almost every weekday of his presidency. There has been a steady stream of lighter stories as well — the puppy, Michelle Obama’s fashion sense, the White House swing set, the president and vice president’s burger lunch.
The constant parade of events large and small ensures that whenever unpleasant news arises and overtakes the desired message — think of Tom Daschle’s withdrawal, the Air Force One photo op, or North Korea’s missile launch — it leads the news for only a day. For contrast, consider what happened when the photos of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse appeared: As American Journalism Review reports, they “dominated the headlines for a month. Day after day, top national newspapers brought to light new aspects of the debacle on their front pages.”
When Obama announced a paltry $100 million in budget cuts, and insisted this was part of a budget-trimming process that would add up to “real money,” he clearly understood that the public processes these numbers very differently from the way budget wonks do. Alinsky wrote: “The moment one gets into the area of $25 million and above, let alone a billion, the listener is completely out of touch, no longer really interested, because the figures have gone above his experience and almost are meaningless. Millions of Americans do not know how many million dollars make up a billion.”
Obama insists that he doesn’t want the government to run car companies, but he has fired CEOs, demonized bondholders, ensured the UAW gets the sweetest deal, and guaranteed warrantees. He insists that he doesn’t want to run banks, but his Treasury Department hesitates to take back some of the TARP funds that give them influence over bank policies. He’s critical of Wall Street, but he signed off on Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s remarkably generous plan to give hedge funds and private investors a low-risk, high-reward option on toxic assets.
Much of this is explained by Alinsky’s epigram, “In the politics of human life, consistency is not a virtue.”
During the campaign, Obama’s critics laughed and marveled at how quickly the candidate threw inconvenient friends, allies, and supporters under the bus once they became political liabilities. Over on the Campaign Spot, it’s been easy to compile a list of quickly forgotten promises. But it is unlikely that Obama would consider any of this a character flaw; instead, it is evidence of his adaptability and gift for seeing the big picture.
Alinsky sneered at those who would accept defeat rather than break their principles: “It’s true I might have trouble getting to sleep because it takes time to tuck those big, angelic, moral wings under the covers.” He assured his students that no one would remember their flip-flops, scoffing, “The judgment of history leans heavily on the outcome of success or failure; it spells the difference between the traitor and the patriotic hero. There can be no such thing as a successful traitor, for if one succeeds he becomes a founding father.” If you win, no one really cares how you did it.
Lizza’s profile offered an example of how Obama isn’t quite as cynical as Alinsky’s power-at-all-costs mentality would suggest:
Moreover, when Obama’s ideals clash with reality, he has been able to find compromises that don’t put him at a political disadvantage. For instance, no Democrat can win the general election while adhering to the public financing system if the Republican nominee doesn’t do the same. Clinton and John Edwards have simply conceded that the public financing system is dead and are ignoring fund-raising restrictions that would be triggered if either ends up playing within the public financing scheme. Facing the same situation, Obama — a longtime champion of campaign finance reform in general and public financing in particular — asked the Federal Election Commission if he could raise the potentially restricted money now (the world as it is) but then give it back if he wins the nomination and convinces his Republican opponent to stick with public financing (the world as we would like it to be).
But Obama quickly ignored that pledge when Senator McCain indicated he was willing to restrict himself to the public-financing system. Obama audaciously claimed that his donors had created a “parallel public-financing system” and announced his changed position at a fundraising dinner.
Moderates thought they were electing a moderate; liberals thought they were electing a liberal. Both camps were wrong. Ideology does not have the final say in Obama’s decision-making; an Alinskyite’s core principle is to take any action that expands his power and to avoid any action that risks his power.
As conservatives size up their new foe, they ought to remember: It’s not about liberalism. It’s about power. Obama will jettison anything that costs him power, and do anything that enhances it — including invite Rick Warren to give the benediction at his inauguration, dine with conservative columnists, and dismiss an appointee at the White House Military Office to ensure the perception of accountability.
Alinsky’s influence goes well beyond Obama, obviously. There are many wonderful Democrats in this world, but evidence suggests that rising in that party’s political hierarchy requires some adoption of a variation of the Alinsky philosophy: Power comes first. Few Democrats are expressing outrage over Nancy Pelosi’s ever-shifting explanation of what she knew about waterboarding. Those who screamed bloody murder about Jack Abramoff’s crimes avert their eyes from John Murtha. The anti-war movement that opposed the surge in Iraq remains silent about sending additional troops to Afghanistan. Obama will never get as much grief for his gay-marriage views as Miss California.
It’s not about the policies or the politics, and it’s certainly not about the principles. It’s about power, and it has been for a long time.
By a good friend,
Jim Geraghty
Barack Obama never met Saul Alinsky, but the radical organizer’s thought helps explain a great deal about how the president operates.
Alinsky died in 1972, when Obama was 11 years old. But three of Obama’s mentors from his Chicago days studied at a school Alinsky founded, and they taught their students the philosophy and methods of one of the first “community organizers.” Ryan Lizza wrote a 6,500-word piece on Alinsky’s influence on Obama for The New Republic, noting, “On his campaign website, one can find a photo of Obama in a classroom teaching students Alinskian methods. He stands in front of a blackboard on which he has written ‘Relationships Built on Self Interest,’ an idea illustrated by a diagram of the flow of money from corporations to the mayor.”
In a letter to the Boston Globe, Alinsky’s son wrote that “the Democratic National Convention had all the elements of the perfectly organized event, Saul Alinsky style. . . . Barack Obama’s training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing its effectiveness. It is an amazingly powerful format, and the method of my late father always works to get the message out and get the supporters on board. When executed meticulously and thoughtfully, it is a powerful strategy for initiating change and making it really happen. Obama learned his lesson well.”
As a tool for understanding the thinking of Obama, Alinsky’s most famous book, Rules for Radicals, is simultaneously edifying and worrisome. Some passages make Machiavelli’s Prince read like a Sesame Street picture book on manners.
After Obama took office, the pundit class found itself debating the ideology and sensibility of the new president — an indication of how scarcely the media had bothered to examine him beforehand. But after 100 days, few observers can say that Obama hasn’t surprised them with at least one call. Gays wonder why Obama won’t take a stand on gay marriage when state legislatures will. Union bosses wonder what happened to the man who sounded more protectionist than Hillary Clinton in the primary. Some liberals have been stunned by the serial about-faces on extraordinary rendition, indefinite detention without trial, military-tribunal trials, the state-secrets doctrine, and other policies they associate with the Bush administration. Former supporters of Obama, including David Brooks, Christopher Buckley, Jim Cramer, and Warren Buffett, have expressed varying degrees of criticism of his early moves, surprised that he is more hostile to the free market than they had thought.
Obama’s defenders would no doubt insist this is a reflection of his pragmatism, his willingness to eschew ideology to focus on what solutions work best. This view assumes that nominating Bill Richardson as commerce secretary, running up a $1.8 trillion deficit, approving the AIG bonuses, signing 9,000 earmarks into law, adopting Senator McCain’s idea of taxing health benefits, and giving U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown 25 DVDs that don’t work in Britain constitute “what works best.” Obama is a pragmatist, but a pragmatist as understood by Alinsky: One who applies pragmatism to achieving and keeping power.
One of Alinsky’s first lessons is: “Radicals must have a degree of control over the flow of events.” Setting aside the Right’s habitual complaint about the pliant liberal media, Obama has dominated the news by unveiling a new initiative or giving a major speech on almost every weekday of his presidency. There has been a steady stream of lighter stories as well — the puppy, Michelle Obama’s fashion sense, the White House swing set, the president and vice president’s burger lunch.
The constant parade of events large and small ensures that whenever unpleasant news arises and overtakes the desired message — think of Tom Daschle’s withdrawal, the Air Force One photo op, or North Korea’s missile launch — it leads the news for only a day. For contrast, consider what happened when the photos of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse appeared: As American Journalism Review reports, they “dominated the headlines for a month. Day after day, top national newspapers brought to light new aspects of the debacle on their front pages.”
When Obama announced a paltry $100 million in budget cuts, and insisted this was part of a budget-trimming process that would add up to “real money,” he clearly understood that the public processes these numbers very differently from the way budget wonks do. Alinsky wrote: “The moment one gets into the area of $25 million and above, let alone a billion, the listener is completely out of touch, no longer really interested, because the figures have gone above his experience and almost are meaningless. Millions of Americans do not know how many million dollars make up a billion.”
Obama insists that he doesn’t want the government to run car companies, but he has fired CEOs, demonized bondholders, ensured the UAW gets the sweetest deal, and guaranteed warrantees. He insists that he doesn’t want to run banks, but his Treasury Department hesitates to take back some of the TARP funds that give them influence over bank policies. He’s critical of Wall Street, but he signed off on Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s remarkably generous plan to give hedge funds and private investors a low-risk, high-reward option on toxic assets.
Much of this is explained by Alinsky’s epigram, “In the politics of human life, consistency is not a virtue.”
During the campaign, Obama’s critics laughed and marveled at how quickly the candidate threw inconvenient friends, allies, and supporters under the bus once they became political liabilities. Over on the Campaign Spot, it’s been easy to compile a list of quickly forgotten promises. But it is unlikely that Obama would consider any of this a character flaw; instead, it is evidence of his adaptability and gift for seeing the big picture.
Alinsky sneered at those who would accept defeat rather than break their principles: “It’s true I might have trouble getting to sleep because it takes time to tuck those big, angelic, moral wings under the covers.” He assured his students that no one would remember their flip-flops, scoffing, “The judgment of history leans heavily on the outcome of success or failure; it spells the difference between the traitor and the patriotic hero. There can be no such thing as a successful traitor, for if one succeeds he becomes a founding father.” If you win, no one really cares how you did it.
Lizza’s profile offered an example of how Obama isn’t quite as cynical as Alinsky’s power-at-all-costs mentality would suggest:
Moreover, when Obama’s ideals clash with reality, he has been able to find compromises that don’t put him at a political disadvantage. For instance, no Democrat can win the general election while adhering to the public financing system if the Republican nominee doesn’t do the same. Clinton and John Edwards have simply conceded that the public financing system is dead and are ignoring fund-raising restrictions that would be triggered if either ends up playing within the public financing scheme. Facing the same situation, Obama — a longtime champion of campaign finance reform in general and public financing in particular — asked the Federal Election Commission if he could raise the potentially restricted money now (the world as it is) but then give it back if he wins the nomination and convinces his Republican opponent to stick with public financing (the world as we would like it to be).
But Obama quickly ignored that pledge when Senator McCain indicated he was willing to restrict himself to the public-financing system. Obama audaciously claimed that his donors had created a “parallel public-financing system” and announced his changed position at a fundraising dinner.
Moderates thought they were electing a moderate; liberals thought they were electing a liberal. Both camps were wrong. Ideology does not have the final say in Obama’s decision-making; an Alinskyite’s core principle is to take any action that expands his power and to avoid any action that risks his power.
As conservatives size up their new foe, they ought to remember: It’s not about liberalism. It’s about power. Obama will jettison anything that costs him power, and do anything that enhances it — including invite Rick Warren to give the benediction at his inauguration, dine with conservative columnists, and dismiss an appointee at the White House Military Office to ensure the perception of accountability.
Alinsky’s influence goes well beyond Obama, obviously. There are many wonderful Democrats in this world, but evidence suggests that rising in that party’s political hierarchy requires some adoption of a variation of the Alinsky philosophy: Power comes first. Few Democrats are expressing outrage over Nancy Pelosi’s ever-shifting explanation of what she knew about waterboarding. Those who screamed bloody murder about Jack Abramoff’s crimes avert their eyes from John Murtha. The anti-war movement that opposed the surge in Iraq remains silent about sending additional troops to Afghanistan. Obama will never get as much grief for his gay-marriage views as Miss California.
It’s not about the policies or the politics, and it’s certainly not about the principles. It’s about power, and it has been for a long time.
By a good friend,
Jim Geraghty
Obama’s ‘Public’ Health Plan Will Bankrupt the Nation
But where’s the GOP to just say no?
Does anybody really believe that adding 50 million people to the public health-care rolls will not cost the government more money? About $1.5 trillion to $2 trillion more? At least.
So let’s be serious when evaluating President Obama’s goal of universal health care, and the idea that it’s a cost-cutter. Can’t happen. Won’t happen. Costs are going to explode.
Think of it: Can anyone name a federal program that ever cut costs for anything? Let’s not forget that the existing Medicare system is roughly $80 trillion in the hole.
And does anybody believe Obama’s new “public” health-insurance plan isn’t really a bridge to single-payer government-run health care? And does anyone think this plan won’t produce a government gatekeeper that will allocate health services and control prices and therefore crowd-out the private-insurance doctor/hospital system?
Federal boards are going to decide what’s good for you and me. And what’s not good for you and me. These boards will drive a wedge between doctors and patients.
The president, in his New York Times Magazine interview with David Leonhardt, said his elderly mother should not (in theory) have had a hip-replacement operation. Yes, Obama would have fought for that operation for his mother’s sake. But a federal board of so-called experts would have told the rest of us, “No way.”
And then there’s the charade of all those private health providers visiting the White House and promising $2 trillion in savings. Utter nonsense.
And even if you put aside the demerits of a government-run health system, Obama’s health-care “funding” plans are completely falling apart. Not only will Obama’s health program cost at least twice as much as his $650 billion estimate, but his original plan to fund the program by auctioning off carbon-emissions warrants (through the misbegotten cap-and-trade system) has fallen through. In an attempt to buy off hundreds of energy, industrial, and other companies, the White House is now going to give away those carbon-cap-emissions trading warrants. So all those revenues are out the window. Fictitious.
Anyway, the cap-and-tax system won’t pass Congress. The science is wrong. The economics are root-canal austerity — Malthusian limits to growth. And there are too many oil and coal senators who will vote against it.
All of this is why the national-health-care debate is so outrageous. At some point we have to get serious about solving Medicare by limiting middle-class benefits and funding the program properly. There is no other way out. We can grow our way out of the Social Security deficit if we pursue pro-growth policies that maintain low tax and inflation rates. Prospects for that don’t look any too good right now, though it could be done. But government health care is nothing but a massive, unfunded, middle-class entitlement problem. (The poor are already in Medicaid.)
Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.) proposes to solve health care by limiting employer tax breaks. He’s on to something, but he’s only got half the story. All the tax breaks for health care should go to individuals and small businesses. Let them shop around for the best health deal wherever they can find it with essentially pre-tax dollars.
Additionally, insurance companies should be permitted to sell their products across state lines. And popular health savings accounts — which combine investor retirements with proper insurance by removing the smothering red tape — should be promoted. This approach of consumer choice and market competition will strengthen our private health-care system.
So private enterprise can coexist with public health care and not be crowded out by the heavy-handed overreach of government. But the Obama Democrats are determined to force through a state-run system that will bankrupt the country.
I’m not somebody who obsesses about the national debt or deficit. But I have to admit: Today’s spending-and-borrowing is blowing my mind. As a share of GDP, we’re looking at double-digit deficits as far as the eye can see. Over the next ten years, the CBO predicts federal debt in the hands of the public will absorb 80 percent of GDP. And that doesn’t include the real cost of state-run health care. Other than the temporary financial conditions surrounding WWII, we’ve never seen anything like this.
The president’s grandiose government-takeover-and-control strategies are going to make things worse and worse — that is, unless members of that tiny band known as the Republican party can stand on their hind legs and just say no. The Republicans must come up with some pro-competition, private-enterprise alternatives for health, energy, education, taxes, and trade that will meet the yearning of voter-taxpayers for a return to private-enterprise American prosperity and opportunity.
Free-market competition will lower costs in health care just as it has every place else. It also will grow the economy. The GOP must return to this basic conservative principle and reject Obama’s massive government assault.
By Larry Kudlow
Does anybody really believe that adding 50 million people to the public health-care rolls will not cost the government more money? About $1.5 trillion to $2 trillion more? At least.
So let’s be serious when evaluating President Obama’s goal of universal health care, and the idea that it’s a cost-cutter. Can’t happen. Won’t happen. Costs are going to explode.
Think of it: Can anyone name a federal program that ever cut costs for anything? Let’s not forget that the existing Medicare system is roughly $80 trillion in the hole.
And does anybody believe Obama’s new “public” health-insurance plan isn’t really a bridge to single-payer government-run health care? And does anyone think this plan won’t produce a government gatekeeper that will allocate health services and control prices and therefore crowd-out the private-insurance doctor/hospital system?
Federal boards are going to decide what’s good for you and me. And what’s not good for you and me. These boards will drive a wedge between doctors and patients.
The president, in his New York Times Magazine interview with David Leonhardt, said his elderly mother should not (in theory) have had a hip-replacement operation. Yes, Obama would have fought for that operation for his mother’s sake. But a federal board of so-called experts would have told the rest of us, “No way.”
And then there’s the charade of all those private health providers visiting the White House and promising $2 trillion in savings. Utter nonsense.
And even if you put aside the demerits of a government-run health system, Obama’s health-care “funding” plans are completely falling apart. Not only will Obama’s health program cost at least twice as much as his $650 billion estimate, but his original plan to fund the program by auctioning off carbon-emissions warrants (through the misbegotten cap-and-trade system) has fallen through. In an attempt to buy off hundreds of energy, industrial, and other companies, the White House is now going to give away those carbon-cap-emissions trading warrants. So all those revenues are out the window. Fictitious.
Anyway, the cap-and-tax system won’t pass Congress. The science is wrong. The economics are root-canal austerity — Malthusian limits to growth. And there are too many oil and coal senators who will vote against it.
All of this is why the national-health-care debate is so outrageous. At some point we have to get serious about solving Medicare by limiting middle-class benefits and funding the program properly. There is no other way out. We can grow our way out of the Social Security deficit if we pursue pro-growth policies that maintain low tax and inflation rates. Prospects for that don’t look any too good right now, though it could be done. But government health care is nothing but a massive, unfunded, middle-class entitlement problem. (The poor are already in Medicaid.)
Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.) proposes to solve health care by limiting employer tax breaks. He’s on to something, but he’s only got half the story. All the tax breaks for health care should go to individuals and small businesses. Let them shop around for the best health deal wherever they can find it with essentially pre-tax dollars.
Additionally, insurance companies should be permitted to sell their products across state lines. And popular health savings accounts — which combine investor retirements with proper insurance by removing the smothering red tape — should be promoted. This approach of consumer choice and market competition will strengthen our private health-care system.
So private enterprise can coexist with public health care and not be crowded out by the heavy-handed overreach of government. But the Obama Democrats are determined to force through a state-run system that will bankrupt the country.
I’m not somebody who obsesses about the national debt or deficit. But I have to admit: Today’s spending-and-borrowing is blowing my mind. As a share of GDP, we’re looking at double-digit deficits as far as the eye can see. Over the next ten years, the CBO predicts federal debt in the hands of the public will absorb 80 percent of GDP. And that doesn’t include the real cost of state-run health care. Other than the temporary financial conditions surrounding WWII, we’ve never seen anything like this.
The president’s grandiose government-takeover-and-control strategies are going to make things worse and worse — that is, unless members of that tiny band known as the Republican party can stand on their hind legs and just say no. The Republicans must come up with some pro-competition, private-enterprise alternatives for health, energy, education, taxes, and trade that will meet the yearning of voter-taxpayers for a return to private-enterprise American prosperity and opportunity.
Free-market competition will lower costs in health care just as it has every place else. It also will grow the economy. The GOP must return to this basic conservative principle and reject Obama’s massive government assault.
By Larry Kudlow
President Palin’s First 100 Days
Hey hollywood elite, is this what you were afraid that electing Palin would have produced???
Go figure....
A near disaster.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The first 100 days of the Palin presidency, according to a consensus of media commentators, have proven a near disaster. Perhaps it was Palin’s scant two years’ experience in a major government position that has eroded her gravitas, or maybe it was her flirty reliance on looks and informal chit-chat. In any case, the press has had a field day, and it is hard to see how President Palin can ever recover from the Quayle/potatoe syndrome. Here is a roundup of this week’s pundit mockery.
LET THEM EAT MOOSE
“Ted Stevens may have gotten off,” wrote Bob Herbert in the New York Times, “but he taught our Sarah something first — like using $100-a-pound beef for her state dinners. And what’s this $50 mil for her inauguration gala? Since when do you fly in your favorite pizza-maker from across the country on our dime? Or send the presidential 747 for a spin over the Big Apple for a third-of-a-million-dollar joyride? Does Palin think she’s still in Alaska and has to have everything flown in from the South 48 by jumbo jet?”
WASILLA CHIC
Also in the Times, Gail Collins weighed in on the already-tired yokelism of the new commander in chief. “What we’re getting is Wasilla chic. That’s what we’re getting. She arrives in the Oval Office, and first thing sends back Blair’s gift of the Churchill bust as if it’s a once-worn Penney’s outfit. Then she gives the Brits some unwatchable DVDs as a booby prize — as if she idled the old Yukon and ran into Target’s sale aisle. Did Sarah send Bristol into Wal-Mart back in Anchorage for that ‘engraved’ iPod for the queen? And what’s this don’t-bow-to-the-queen stuff, but curtsy for a Saudi sheik? Maybe that explains why she brags to Stephanopoulos about her ‘Muslim faith.’ So far, the best things going for her are Todd’s biceps.”
IT'S THE MATH, STUPID!
“Well,” lectured Paul Krugman, again in the Times, “we were worried that they didn’t teach math at Idaho U., and now we know for sure they don’t. Is it $1.6 trillion, $1.7 trillion, or $2 trillion in red ink this year? Are we supposed to be impressed that she offers ‘fiscal sobriety’ by cutting 0.003 percent of the budget? She gives out money to those who don’t pay taxes and calls it a tax cut. And now Queen Sarah tells us that in four years she’ll ‘halve’ the deficit, as if she hasn’t borrowed another $5 trillion in the meantime. Does she think we’re morons? How many ‘Drill, baby, drill!’ oil wells can she tap into up there in Alaska to pay for the extra $11 trillion in debt she’s saddling us with?”
WORSE THAN 'NUCULAR'
ABC’s Katie Couric summed up the general disappointment with the president’s communication skills. “I tried to warn the American people in that interview a few years back what they would get if they voted for her. Let’s face it: She’s a walking embarrassment. I mean just count ’em up: The mayor of Wasilla thinks Austrians speak some lingo called ‘Austrian.’ Then she tries her hand at Spanish and comes up with some concoction, ‘Cinco de Cuatro.’ Next thing she’ll walk into the window of the Oval Office and expect it to open — oops, she’s already done that. No wonder that when her Teleprompter stalls, she shuts her mouth until it catches up. I’m surprised she managed to get sworn in. And did she think that tasteless ‘Special Olympics’ slur was funny? Or making fun of octogenarian Nancy Reagan’s séances? No wonder Wanda Sykes feels at home.”
ANCHORAGE STYLE
A “dragon lady in heels” is what President Palin is, according to the NYT’s Frank Rich. “Don’t fall for this pageant nice-girl stuff. Our former beauty queen is a ward hack. Look at her nominations. Can’t Palin find anyone who has paid his taxes — or do they simply ignore that stuff in no-tax Alaska? Does ‘No more lobbyists’ mean ‘More lobbyists than ever’? Her chief performance overseer doesn’t perform too well herself — and, like Daschle, Geithner, and the rest, skips out on her taxes. When Palin brags about fiscal sobriety, it really means record deficits. In Sarahland, not wanting to take over banks and car companies translates into, ‘She already has.’ Highest ethical standards equates to ‘There are none.’ Calling herself the VA president means she’s just told vets to use their own health insurance.”
GUTTER TRASH
“Pretty crude, pretty petty,” Sally Quinn sighed in the Washington Post. “No manners at all. Does our new mom in chief think it’s neat to laugh when her court jester at the correspondents’ dinner calls Michael Moore a traitor and a terrorist — and hopes he dies of kidney failure? Is that funny? Ask those on dialysis. Is that what Alaskan hockey moms do — scream out at every talk-show host who hurts their itty-bitty feelings? Limbaugh, Hannity — who will it will be next? Poor old Jim Cramer?”
NEOCON CON
“She’s a Bush clone,” the Times’s Maureen Dowd chimed in. “Bush is out, Palin is in — but we keep getting renditions, military tribunals, wiretaps, e-mail intercepts, Predator drone executions over Pakistan, the same in Iraq, and even more of the same in Afghanistan — all retrofitted with new ‘hope and change’ banalities. I mean, who’s putting Mommy Dearest up to this — Wolfie, Perlie, Cheney?”
TINGLE FOR HUGO?
“There is no foreign policy,” Chris Matthews said on Hardball, his voice dripping with scorn. “She just tours the world and nods, as if her good looks and serial apologies are going to win us a collective tingle abroad. I don’t think Hugo Chávez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad care much that she’s got great legs and a nice wink. How many times can Ms. Vapid say, ‘We’re sorry’ and ‘Hit that old reset button’ and expect thugs to make nice?”
RACE, ALL THE TIME
Eugene Robinson worried in the Washington Post about Palin’s emphasis on race. “Look, she gets 95 percent of the working-class white vote. She promises next month to talk to the ‘Christian world’ from Estonia, of all places. Hello? She goes to the Summit of the Americas and immediately puts race on the table — as if we are supposed to separate those with European heritage from those without. Then she tells al Arabiyya that she hopes to heal the rift with Europe ‘because of my own shared European heritage that seems to resonate in ways I hadn’t imagined throughout the EU.’ I guess we’re learning that those ‘gaffes’ last year on the campaign trail, like her ‘typical black person’ remark and Todd’s ‘I am finally proud of my country again’ nonsense were not gaffes at all.”
WHERE IS THE PRESS?
Howard Kurtz summed up the press cynicism the best in his Washington Post column. “How long does she think she can keep picking on her right-wing plants in the audience for these softball Q-and-A sessions? I mean, there are only so many pukey ‘What has surprised you the most about this office? What has enchanted you the most about serving in this office?’ questions you can lob.”
By Victor Davis Hanson
— Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a recipient of the 2007 National Humanities Medal.
Go figure....
A near disaster.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The first 100 days of the Palin presidency, according to a consensus of media commentators, have proven a near disaster. Perhaps it was Palin’s scant two years’ experience in a major government position that has eroded her gravitas, or maybe it was her flirty reliance on looks and informal chit-chat. In any case, the press has had a field day, and it is hard to see how President Palin can ever recover from the Quayle/potatoe syndrome. Here is a roundup of this week’s pundit mockery.
LET THEM EAT MOOSE
“Ted Stevens may have gotten off,” wrote Bob Herbert in the New York Times, “but he taught our Sarah something first — like using $100-a-pound beef for her state dinners. And what’s this $50 mil for her inauguration gala? Since when do you fly in your favorite pizza-maker from across the country on our dime? Or send the presidential 747 for a spin over the Big Apple for a third-of-a-million-dollar joyride? Does Palin think she’s still in Alaska and has to have everything flown in from the South 48 by jumbo jet?”
WASILLA CHIC
Also in the Times, Gail Collins weighed in on the already-tired yokelism of the new commander in chief. “What we’re getting is Wasilla chic. That’s what we’re getting. She arrives in the Oval Office, and first thing sends back Blair’s gift of the Churchill bust as if it’s a once-worn Penney’s outfit. Then she gives the Brits some unwatchable DVDs as a booby prize — as if she idled the old Yukon and ran into Target’s sale aisle. Did Sarah send Bristol into Wal-Mart back in Anchorage for that ‘engraved’ iPod for the queen? And what’s this don’t-bow-to-the-queen stuff, but curtsy for a Saudi sheik? Maybe that explains why she brags to Stephanopoulos about her ‘Muslim faith.’ So far, the best things going for her are Todd’s biceps.”
IT'S THE MATH, STUPID!
“Well,” lectured Paul Krugman, again in the Times, “we were worried that they didn’t teach math at Idaho U., and now we know for sure they don’t. Is it $1.6 trillion, $1.7 trillion, or $2 trillion in red ink this year? Are we supposed to be impressed that she offers ‘fiscal sobriety’ by cutting 0.003 percent of the budget? She gives out money to those who don’t pay taxes and calls it a tax cut. And now Queen Sarah tells us that in four years she’ll ‘halve’ the deficit, as if she hasn’t borrowed another $5 trillion in the meantime. Does she think we’re morons? How many ‘Drill, baby, drill!’ oil wells can she tap into up there in Alaska to pay for the extra $11 trillion in debt she’s saddling us with?”
WORSE THAN 'NUCULAR'
ABC’s Katie Couric summed up the general disappointment with the president’s communication skills. “I tried to warn the American people in that interview a few years back what they would get if they voted for her. Let’s face it: She’s a walking embarrassment. I mean just count ’em up: The mayor of Wasilla thinks Austrians speak some lingo called ‘Austrian.’ Then she tries her hand at Spanish and comes up with some concoction, ‘Cinco de Cuatro.’ Next thing she’ll walk into the window of the Oval Office and expect it to open — oops, she’s already done that. No wonder that when her Teleprompter stalls, she shuts her mouth until it catches up. I’m surprised she managed to get sworn in. And did she think that tasteless ‘Special Olympics’ slur was funny? Or making fun of octogenarian Nancy Reagan’s séances? No wonder Wanda Sykes feels at home.”
ANCHORAGE STYLE
A “dragon lady in heels” is what President Palin is, according to the NYT’s Frank Rich. “Don’t fall for this pageant nice-girl stuff. Our former beauty queen is a ward hack. Look at her nominations. Can’t Palin find anyone who has paid his taxes — or do they simply ignore that stuff in no-tax Alaska? Does ‘No more lobbyists’ mean ‘More lobbyists than ever’? Her chief performance overseer doesn’t perform too well herself — and, like Daschle, Geithner, and the rest, skips out on her taxes. When Palin brags about fiscal sobriety, it really means record deficits. In Sarahland, not wanting to take over banks and car companies translates into, ‘She already has.’ Highest ethical standards equates to ‘There are none.’ Calling herself the VA president means she’s just told vets to use their own health insurance.”
GUTTER TRASH
“Pretty crude, pretty petty,” Sally Quinn sighed in the Washington Post. “No manners at all. Does our new mom in chief think it’s neat to laugh when her court jester at the correspondents’ dinner calls Michael Moore a traitor and a terrorist — and hopes he dies of kidney failure? Is that funny? Ask those on dialysis. Is that what Alaskan hockey moms do — scream out at every talk-show host who hurts their itty-bitty feelings? Limbaugh, Hannity — who will it will be next? Poor old Jim Cramer?”
NEOCON CON
“She’s a Bush clone,” the Times’s Maureen Dowd chimed in. “Bush is out, Palin is in — but we keep getting renditions, military tribunals, wiretaps, e-mail intercepts, Predator drone executions over Pakistan, the same in Iraq, and even more of the same in Afghanistan — all retrofitted with new ‘hope and change’ banalities. I mean, who’s putting Mommy Dearest up to this — Wolfie, Perlie, Cheney?”
TINGLE FOR HUGO?
“There is no foreign policy,” Chris Matthews said on Hardball, his voice dripping with scorn. “She just tours the world and nods, as if her good looks and serial apologies are going to win us a collective tingle abroad. I don’t think Hugo Chávez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad care much that she’s got great legs and a nice wink. How many times can Ms. Vapid say, ‘We’re sorry’ and ‘Hit that old reset button’ and expect thugs to make nice?”
RACE, ALL THE TIME
Eugene Robinson worried in the Washington Post about Palin’s emphasis on race. “Look, she gets 95 percent of the working-class white vote. She promises next month to talk to the ‘Christian world’ from Estonia, of all places. Hello? She goes to the Summit of the Americas and immediately puts race on the table — as if we are supposed to separate those with European heritage from those without. Then she tells al Arabiyya that she hopes to heal the rift with Europe ‘because of my own shared European heritage that seems to resonate in ways I hadn’t imagined throughout the EU.’ I guess we’re learning that those ‘gaffes’ last year on the campaign trail, like her ‘typical black person’ remark and Todd’s ‘I am finally proud of my country again’ nonsense were not gaffes at all.”
WHERE IS THE PRESS?
Howard Kurtz summed up the press cynicism the best in his Washington Post column. “How long does she think she can keep picking on her right-wing plants in the audience for these softball Q-and-A sessions? I mean, there are only so many pukey ‘What has surprised you the most about this office? What has enchanted you the most about serving in this office?’ questions you can lob.”
By Victor Davis Hanson
— Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a recipient of the 2007 National Humanities Medal.
Yes, Nancy, There Really Is a God Nemesis
There is an odd sense among Democrats that nemesis simply does not exist.
A once-vein-bulging Al Gore who barnstormed the country slurring President Bush by calling him a liar now seems baffled about the precedent he set of a vice president (albeit now much more politely in the case of Cheney) questioning the policy of the current president.
A Nancy Pelosi, hellbent on releasing once-classified memos for partisan advantage, and eager to begin 'Truth" hearings, suddenly believes such an inquisition will not apply to herself, despite the fact that she, like so many Democrats from Senator Schumer to Senator Rockefeller, in that dark period in 2001, spoke of the need for, or was complicit in, approving enhanced interrogation techniques.
Then the president himself, who jump-started his campaign in Iraq's crisis year by slamming the commander-in-chief on renditions, military tribunals, email and phone intercepts, Predator drone attacks, and Iraq, now suddenly wishes to explain the nuances and complexities of these policies and why he will continue the Bush protocols — apparently oblivious to the hypocrisy involved with his own prior self-interested stridency. These examples could be easily augmented.
The problem is that between 2003-2008 there was such hysterical antagonism to Bush that the combatants never worried about the often vicious means they used to achieve their supposedly lofty ends, and so now, finding themselves in a position of responsibility, are infuriated that anyone, well, would even conceive of playing hardball as they once did.
The striking thing about the sudden wounded-fawn Democratic syndrome is that Cheney is far milder than Gore was, that the CIA is not the firebrand Pelosi has been, and Bush has been silent about Obama in a way that even Clinton was not about Bush. If this softball stuff excites such outrage, what will happen if politics really get rough, say, as it was around 2007?
Victor Davis Hanson
A once-vein-bulging Al Gore who barnstormed the country slurring President Bush by calling him a liar now seems baffled about the precedent he set of a vice president (albeit now much more politely in the case of Cheney) questioning the policy of the current president.
A Nancy Pelosi, hellbent on releasing once-classified memos for partisan advantage, and eager to begin 'Truth" hearings, suddenly believes such an inquisition will not apply to herself, despite the fact that she, like so many Democrats from Senator Schumer to Senator Rockefeller, in that dark period in 2001, spoke of the need for, or was complicit in, approving enhanced interrogation techniques.
Then the president himself, who jump-started his campaign in Iraq's crisis year by slamming the commander-in-chief on renditions, military tribunals, email and phone intercepts, Predator drone attacks, and Iraq, now suddenly wishes to explain the nuances and complexities of these policies and why he will continue the Bush protocols — apparently oblivious to the hypocrisy involved with his own prior self-interested stridency. These examples could be easily augmented.
The problem is that between 2003-2008 there was such hysterical antagonism to Bush that the combatants never worried about the often vicious means they used to achieve their supposedly lofty ends, and so now, finding themselves in a position of responsibility, are infuriated that anyone, well, would even conceive of playing hardball as they once did.
The striking thing about the sudden wounded-fawn Democratic syndrome is that Cheney is far milder than Gore was, that the CIA is not the firebrand Pelosi has been, and Bush has been silent about Obama in a way that even Clinton was not about Bush. If this softball stuff excites such outrage, what will happen if politics really get rough, say, as it was around 2007?
Victor Davis Hanson
Issues for a Stronger America by Rand Paul
The Founding Fathers warned us that foreign alliances sacrifice our independence as a nation. In Thomas Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address, he asserted that America should have “peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.” Yet today, America is often subservient to foreign bodies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, World Trade Organization (WTO), and the United Nations (UN).
We are a nation of laws. Our allegiance to foreign institutions sacrifices our autonomy as a nation by transferring our legal authority to unelected and unaccountable leaders. Our fiscal, trade, and monetary policy should be in the hands and best interest of We the People. In 1776, our Founding Fathers declared the right of all Americans to direct legal representation. Let’s not give up that right to those who don’t share the same respect for our history and our freedoms.
Rand Paul proposes that America can engage the world in free trade, develop lucrative commercial relationships with other nations, and defend its national interests without funding or joining international organizations. The US Government must answer only to the Constitution and the citizens protected by it.
I can only say that this is the only conclusion that the American People should subscribe to, its moral, its right, its the conservative point of view....
We are a nation of laws. Our allegiance to foreign institutions sacrifices our autonomy as a nation by transferring our legal authority to unelected and unaccountable leaders. Our fiscal, trade, and monetary policy should be in the hands and best interest of We the People. In 1776, our Founding Fathers declared the right of all Americans to direct legal representation. Let’s not give up that right to those who don’t share the same respect for our history and our freedoms.
Rand Paul proposes that America can engage the world in free trade, develop lucrative commercial relationships with other nations, and defend its national interests without funding or joining international organizations. The US Government must answer only to the Constitution and the citizens protected by it.
I can only say that this is the only conclusion that the American People should subscribe to, its moral, its right, its the conservative point of view....
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Gov't says it owes nothing in Indian trust suit
The government told a federal appeals court Monday it owes nothing to 500,000 American Indians and their heirs who claim they were cheated out of billions of dollars in land royalties.
The long-running suit, first filed 13 years ago, is before the U.S. Court of Appeals after both sides appealed a lower court's decision last year that the Indian plaintiffs are entitled to $455 million -- far less than the $47 billion or higher they say they are owed.
The suit claims the Indians were swindled out of royalties overseen by the Interior Department since 1887 for things like oil, gas, grazing and timber.
Indian plaintiffs, led by Elouise Cobell, a member of the Blackfeet Tribe from Montana, have argued that the government has improperly accounted for the money and should pay it back with some form of interest.
The government appeal contends the court does not have the jurisdiction to award the money at all, pointing to a district court decision last year that the task of accounting for the trust money was ultimately impossible. They have also pointed to the lower court's ruling that Congress has not given the Interior Department enough money to do a full accounting.
In 1994, Congress demanded that the Interior Department fulfill an obligation to account for money received and distributed. Two years later, when account statements still had not been reconciled, Cobell joined with others in suing.
Because many of the records have been lost, it has since been up to the court to decide how to best estimate how much individual Indians should be paid, or how the money should be accounted for. Many of them are nearing the end of their lives.
At issue in the trial's most recent phase was how much of the royalty money was withheld from the Indian plaintiffs over the years, and whether it was held in the U.S. Treasury at a benefit to the government. U.S. District Judge James Robertson said last year that plaintiffs did not successfully argue that it was.
Robertson originally intended to begin a new phase of the trial that would determine how and to whom the government should award the money. But he said at an August status hearing that he would allow appeals now so the process would not be delayed further.
The class-action suit deals with individual Indians' lands and covers about 500,000 Indians and their heirs. Several tribes have sued separately, claiming mismanagement of their lands.
AP - Mon, 11 May 2009 13:24:04 -0400 (EDT)
By MARY CLARE JALONICK
The long-running suit, first filed 13 years ago, is before the U.S. Court of Appeals after both sides appealed a lower court's decision last year that the Indian plaintiffs are entitled to $455 million -- far less than the $47 billion or higher they say they are owed.
The suit claims the Indians were swindled out of royalties overseen by the Interior Department since 1887 for things like oil, gas, grazing and timber.
Indian plaintiffs, led by Elouise Cobell, a member of the Blackfeet Tribe from Montana, have argued that the government has improperly accounted for the money and should pay it back with some form of interest.
The government appeal contends the court does not have the jurisdiction to award the money at all, pointing to a district court decision last year that the task of accounting for the trust money was ultimately impossible. They have also pointed to the lower court's ruling that Congress has not given the Interior Department enough money to do a full accounting.
In 1994, Congress demanded that the Interior Department fulfill an obligation to account for money received and distributed. Two years later, when account statements still had not been reconciled, Cobell joined with others in suing.
Because many of the records have been lost, it has since been up to the court to decide how to best estimate how much individual Indians should be paid, or how the money should be accounted for. Many of them are nearing the end of their lives.
At issue in the trial's most recent phase was how much of the royalty money was withheld from the Indian plaintiffs over the years, and whether it was held in the U.S. Treasury at a benefit to the government. U.S. District Judge James Robertson said last year that plaintiffs did not successfully argue that it was.
Robertson originally intended to begin a new phase of the trial that would determine how and to whom the government should award the money. But he said at an August status hearing that he would allow appeals now so the process would not be delayed further.
The class-action suit deals with individual Indians' lands and covers about 500,000 Indians and their heirs. Several tribes have sued separately, claiming mismanagement of their lands.
AP - Mon, 11 May 2009 13:24:04 -0400 (EDT)
By MARY CLARE JALONICK
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Obama defends "discarding" life
From the Desk of:
Mat Staver
Christopher,
During last night's nationally televised press conference,
President Barack Obama defended his policy to allow taxpayer
funding of embryonic stem cell research.
While admitting he had to "wrestle" with the moral and ethical
concerns, he plainly stated:
"…[F]or embryos that are typically about to be discarded,
for us to be able to use those in order to find cures…
that is the right thing to do."
Mr. President, how can it ever be the "right thing to do" to
"discard" human life? How can you even justify stating that you
"wrestle" with the moral issues of life when you so easily
justify "discarding" life?
Of course, I am not surprised. This is the same President who,
in his first 50 days, repealed the Mexico City Policy, thus
confiscating our tax money to fund the worldwide killing of
children by abortion. He is also working to repeal Conscious
Clause protections for healthcare providers, thus forcing many
to perform abortions and violate their deeply held convictions.
Further, Mr. Obama has pledged to the Planned Parenthood Federation
of America that he will urge passage and sign into law the so-called
Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA).
+ + Help stop Obama's radical abortion agenda
Christopher, we expect the Obama administration to push in the
coming weeks a radical expansion of abortion rights that will
likely include more taxpayer funding of abortions and the passage
of FOCA.
We simply must be ready.
I am thrilled that you have already signed our petition opposing
the Freedom of Choice Act and taxpayer funding of the abortion
agenda. Thanks to you, we now have over 68,000 signers!
But I want to have at least 100,000 on board in the next few weeks.
Please forward this message to your pro-life friends and ask them to
join you in standing against this radical abortion agenda. Your
friends can go here to sign:
At every possible opportunity, Mr. Obama sends a clear message that
he will continue to push a radical pro-abortion agenda.
You and I are the last line of defense!
Thanks for standing with me.
Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman
Liberty Counsel
Mat Staver
Christopher,
During last night's nationally televised press conference,
President Barack Obama defended his policy to allow taxpayer
funding of embryonic stem cell research.
While admitting he had to "wrestle" with the moral and ethical
concerns, he plainly stated:
"…[F]or embryos that are typically about to be discarded,
for us to be able to use those in order to find cures…
that is the right thing to do."
Mr. President, how can it ever be the "right thing to do" to
"discard" human life? How can you even justify stating that you
"wrestle" with the moral issues of life when you so easily
justify "discarding" life?
Of course, I am not surprised. This is the same President who,
in his first 50 days, repealed the Mexico City Policy, thus
confiscating our tax money to fund the worldwide killing of
children by abortion. He is also working to repeal Conscious
Clause protections for healthcare providers, thus forcing many
to perform abortions and violate their deeply held convictions.
Further, Mr. Obama has pledged to the Planned Parenthood Federation
of America that he will urge passage and sign into law the so-called
Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA).
+ + Help stop Obama's radical abortion agenda
Christopher, we expect the Obama administration to push in the
coming weeks a radical expansion of abortion rights that will
likely include more taxpayer funding of abortions and the passage
of FOCA.
We simply must be ready.
I am thrilled that you have already signed our petition opposing
the Freedom of Choice Act and taxpayer funding of the abortion
agenda. Thanks to you, we now have over 68,000 signers!
But I want to have at least 100,000 on board in the next few weeks.
Please forward this message to your pro-life friends and ask them to
join you in standing against this radical abortion agenda. Your
friends can go here to sign:
At every possible opportunity, Mr. Obama sends a clear message that
he will continue to push a radical pro-abortion agenda.
You and I are the last line of defense!
Thanks for standing with me.
Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman
Liberty Counsel
Obama is the JOKE we have been waiting for!
"Guantanamo is still open, but there are no longer "enemy combatants" there (Perhaps the name of the camp can be changed next?).
The old campaign snicker that a naïve McCain really believed that a then-stronger economy is "fundamentally sound" is now the new Obama gospel about a far weaker one.
There are to be no more earmarks in spite of 8,000-plus new ones.
A $3.6 trillion-dollar budget is proof of commitment to financial responsibility;
the remedy of Bush’s borrowing profligacy is to increase the deficit from $500 billion to $1.7 trillion.
Bush’s signing statements bad; Obama’s signing statements good.
An end to lobbyists in an administration... ensure there are over ten;
the highest ethical standards mean the nominations of Daschle, Richardson, etc. The changing meaning of words really does trump memory and reality itself."
Thank you Victor David Hanson, i couldn`t have stated it better myself.....
The old campaign snicker that a naïve McCain really believed that a then-stronger economy is "fundamentally sound" is now the new Obama gospel about a far weaker one.
There are to be no more earmarks in spite of 8,000-plus new ones.
A $3.6 trillion-dollar budget is proof of commitment to financial responsibility;
the remedy of Bush’s borrowing profligacy is to increase the deficit from $500 billion to $1.7 trillion.
Bush’s signing statements bad; Obama’s signing statements good.
An end to lobbyists in an administration... ensure there are over ten;
the highest ethical standards mean the nominations of Daschle, Richardson, etc. The changing meaning of words really does trump memory and reality itself."
Thank you Victor David Hanson, i couldn`t have stated it better myself.....
The Global Warming Scam..........you have got to read this article!!!!
I’ve been reviewing the many articles online about ice ages and the cooling and warming cycles that the Earth goes through. I’ve come to the conclusion that the “Global Warming” crowd doesn’t have any idea what they’re talking about. I refer to the “Global Warming” crowd as those who believe that the Earth is warming due to human causes. You know the crowd; the people-haters; the junk-science groups. Every article I read that even looked as if it had merit discussed the heating and cooling cycles of the Earth but refused to define exact periods or clear symptoms of these cycles. Even the onset of symptoms could be slow or very abrupt. There’s just too many unknowns. Moreover, these cycles have been going on since the Earth has existed. If you really want to get technical, glaciers have been receding since about 21,000 years ago. I guess cavemen really had a problem with their greenhouse gas emissions.
So what is the scam? Why have a group of people utterly lost their common sense and started running around like Chicken Little decrying the end of the world? Most of these people don’t have a financial stake in the global warming scam. Let me see if I can clear it up for you just a bit. But before I do, let me assure you that I firmly believe in being a good steward of this planet. Recycling, planting trees, properly disposing of hazardous materials, and other such activities should be considered second nature. So here’s my point:
Let’s start with the compact fluorescent light bulb. I thought they were a pretty good idea. But my incandescent light bulb costs about sixty cents. My compact fluorescent costs $4.00. My incandescent light bulb doesn’t contain any gas inside. It’s been vacated; no air. My compact fluorescent on the other hand contains a mercury vapor. So it’s hazardous material. You’re supposed to properly dispose of these bulbs now. I like to see some smart guy calculate the extra energy that is used up properly disposing these spent bulbs. Then I read an article that these lights are supposed to be left on for at least 15 minutes before they’ll get the life expectancy that they’re touting. I’ve never gotten four years out of my compact fluorescents! Nor am I going to leave my lights on for 15 minutes when I just needed to step into the garage for a minute. Incandescent bulbs have been in production for quite some time. I’m sure they’re pretty inexpensive to produce. At around four dollars a pop for compact fluorescents, I’m concerned we’re using up lots of energy just to mass produce these things. I’m glad that I get the equivalent of a 100 watt incandescent out of a 26 watt compact fluorescent. I’m just not convinced that the cradle to grave process saved me money, helped the environment, or reduced the overall energy consumption per light bulb. By the way, wasn’t mercury put on the list of things that are really bad for us?
Since we’re discussing energy, let’s discuss how energy is produced; particularly electricity. First, there are the evil coal-fired plants and others that use some form of fossil fuels. These typically form the foundation of the electrical grid; you know, the electrical transmission lines you see on that ugly pole outside. One of the many reasons they form the foundation of the electrical grid is that they drive very large generators. Nuclear sources do as well but more on that in a moment. Hydro-electric power usually adds to this foundation to meet higher demands for power. It’s much easier to add power to the electrical grid using hydro than using fossil fuel powered generators. Solar and wind power are not stable sources of power. Solar panels still just aren’t all that efficient. I understand it’s free power; but it doesn’t help to stabilize the electrical grid much. Neither does wind power. Sometimes they’re generating, sometimes they’re not. It’s just not reliable power. For the homeowner’s use, these systems typically employ battery banks and inverters. On a larger scale, they’re connected directly to the grid. As in the first example, I don’t believe the cradle to grave process saves much money, helps the environment, or adds to the stability of the electrical grid. Most batteries used in these processes are the lead type. That’s hazardous material as well. Where are you going to dispose of all these used batteries? You could make bullets but I think those are going away as soon as president-elect Obama gets into office. Nuclear power offers a great solution. Thermal pollution is about the worst. Spent nuclear fuel is a bit messy I agree. But I’m willing to put up with the relatively small amount of hazardous material for the energy output compared to the other systems we currently employ.
And how about all these electric devices? The current electrical grid just wasn’t designed to carry the gargantuan amount of energy that everyone is using. They’re charging their electric car, their iPod, their cell phone; they’re running their HDTV, their stereo, and any number of other electric appliances. America has to add to the foundation of the electrical grid. That means either fossil fuels or nuclear; wind and solar just won’t cut it. Hydro-electric plants are probably one of the cleanest sources of power. Water goes in; water goes out. There’s a lake behind the dam for recreation, and our government is actually pretty good about ensuring fish and other wildlife can live both above and below the structure. However, do you see any large hydro-electric facilities planned for the future? Environmentalists don’t want them; go figure!
Now for the carbon credit scam. Al Gore and his cronies, using environmental alarmism tactics, have scared everyone into believing the world is coming to an end. While prominent scientists laughed at his junk-science movie and his lack of credible evidence to support his hypothesis, liberals were running around giving him the Nobel Peace prize. Exactly how many liberals have purchased carbon credits? And guess who’s getting rich there? Good scam Al. By the way, does wealth redistribution apply to you or just to the middle class?
Sure, I get it! Carbon credit money is supposed to go to supplying power with “environmentally friendly” generation. As I’ve indicated before, you can’t prop up the power grid with solar or wind generation. At some point in time, you’ve got to break down and build a fossil fuel or nuke plant. I’ve even heard that you now can purchase carbon credits to offset the pollution caused by the jet plane you’re traveling on. More alarmism; more hard-working American’s money dumped into an environmental scam. Oh yeah; don’t let me forget that our incoming administration has fallen for this hook, line, and sinker.
And, finally, drilling for American oil. I agree that it would be a stop-gap measure to buy America time to develop alternative energy. But drill you must! American jobs producing an American product; that’s the way things ought to be. Oil companies have very clean methods of drilling. Really now, do you think as an oil company you could get away with a drill site that wasn’t in pristine condition? Greenies would swarm your site by the dozens, doing irreparable harm to the environment themselves while tearing up your drilling rig, blame it all on your company, and sue you to clean it all up. It’s their modus operandi. Drill off the coast of California, drill in ANWR, and drill in the arctic circle. American companies are the best at what they do. Have them start to drill in the arctic and develop the technology to do it successfully. In the meantime, place an emphasis on developing the technologies needed to correctly usher in new energy sources.
What a sad state of affairs we’ve gotten ourselves into. Unfortunately, instead of promoting sound, common sense environmental stewardship, the Left has taken us completely overboard. And how are American companies supposed to compete and profit in a global economy? I believe I can say with alarming accuracy that China, Russia, India, and other up-and-coming industrial nations are not following in our environmental footsteps. Environmental leadership involves common sense approaches to problems; not alarmism. Others follow good leadership; alarmism only leaves people shaking their heads in disgust. I guess while the Left throws money at this scam, I’ll just work hard so they can tax me more. I wouldn’t want them to run out. Here’s a question: was “The Day After Tomorrow” another documentary by Al Gore or a Hollywood movie?
So here’s the scam. The Left has found a way to spend your money and convince you that you’re doing something good for the environment. They don’t need empirical evidence, sound scientific principles, or even the support of the scientific community. Just scare people enough about the environment to hand over their hard-earned cash without question. Buy expensive light bulbs that contain mercury! Build solar and wind generation that will dot the landscape; our children can clean up the lead from the batteries later. Throw tax money at the carbon credits. It’s the least the American people can do for Al Gore after he lost the election to President Bush. Hopefully, we’ll see the folly of our ways before this scam gets completely out of control and our children are left to pick up the pieces of this scam.
By Tim Koczur
So what is the scam? Why have a group of people utterly lost their common sense and started running around like Chicken Little decrying the end of the world? Most of these people don’t have a financial stake in the global warming scam. Let me see if I can clear it up for you just a bit. But before I do, let me assure you that I firmly believe in being a good steward of this planet. Recycling, planting trees, properly disposing of hazardous materials, and other such activities should be considered second nature. So here’s my point:
Let’s start with the compact fluorescent light bulb. I thought they were a pretty good idea. But my incandescent light bulb costs about sixty cents. My compact fluorescent costs $4.00. My incandescent light bulb doesn’t contain any gas inside. It’s been vacated; no air. My compact fluorescent on the other hand contains a mercury vapor. So it’s hazardous material. You’re supposed to properly dispose of these bulbs now. I like to see some smart guy calculate the extra energy that is used up properly disposing these spent bulbs. Then I read an article that these lights are supposed to be left on for at least 15 minutes before they’ll get the life expectancy that they’re touting. I’ve never gotten four years out of my compact fluorescents! Nor am I going to leave my lights on for 15 minutes when I just needed to step into the garage for a minute. Incandescent bulbs have been in production for quite some time. I’m sure they’re pretty inexpensive to produce. At around four dollars a pop for compact fluorescents, I’m concerned we’re using up lots of energy just to mass produce these things. I’m glad that I get the equivalent of a 100 watt incandescent out of a 26 watt compact fluorescent. I’m just not convinced that the cradle to grave process saved me money, helped the environment, or reduced the overall energy consumption per light bulb. By the way, wasn’t mercury put on the list of things that are really bad for us?
Since we’re discussing energy, let’s discuss how energy is produced; particularly electricity. First, there are the evil coal-fired plants and others that use some form of fossil fuels. These typically form the foundation of the electrical grid; you know, the electrical transmission lines you see on that ugly pole outside. One of the many reasons they form the foundation of the electrical grid is that they drive very large generators. Nuclear sources do as well but more on that in a moment. Hydro-electric power usually adds to this foundation to meet higher demands for power. It’s much easier to add power to the electrical grid using hydro than using fossil fuel powered generators. Solar and wind power are not stable sources of power. Solar panels still just aren’t all that efficient. I understand it’s free power; but it doesn’t help to stabilize the electrical grid much. Neither does wind power. Sometimes they’re generating, sometimes they’re not. It’s just not reliable power. For the homeowner’s use, these systems typically employ battery banks and inverters. On a larger scale, they’re connected directly to the grid. As in the first example, I don’t believe the cradle to grave process saves much money, helps the environment, or adds to the stability of the electrical grid. Most batteries used in these processes are the lead type. That’s hazardous material as well. Where are you going to dispose of all these used batteries? You could make bullets but I think those are going away as soon as president-elect Obama gets into office. Nuclear power offers a great solution. Thermal pollution is about the worst. Spent nuclear fuel is a bit messy I agree. But I’m willing to put up with the relatively small amount of hazardous material for the energy output compared to the other systems we currently employ.
And how about all these electric devices? The current electrical grid just wasn’t designed to carry the gargantuan amount of energy that everyone is using. They’re charging their electric car, their iPod, their cell phone; they’re running their HDTV, their stereo, and any number of other electric appliances. America has to add to the foundation of the electrical grid. That means either fossil fuels or nuclear; wind and solar just won’t cut it. Hydro-electric plants are probably one of the cleanest sources of power. Water goes in; water goes out. There’s a lake behind the dam for recreation, and our government is actually pretty good about ensuring fish and other wildlife can live both above and below the structure. However, do you see any large hydro-electric facilities planned for the future? Environmentalists don’t want them; go figure!
Now for the carbon credit scam. Al Gore and his cronies, using environmental alarmism tactics, have scared everyone into believing the world is coming to an end. While prominent scientists laughed at his junk-science movie and his lack of credible evidence to support his hypothesis, liberals were running around giving him the Nobel Peace prize. Exactly how many liberals have purchased carbon credits? And guess who’s getting rich there? Good scam Al. By the way, does wealth redistribution apply to you or just to the middle class?
Sure, I get it! Carbon credit money is supposed to go to supplying power with “environmentally friendly” generation. As I’ve indicated before, you can’t prop up the power grid with solar or wind generation. At some point in time, you’ve got to break down and build a fossil fuel or nuke plant. I’ve even heard that you now can purchase carbon credits to offset the pollution caused by the jet plane you’re traveling on. More alarmism; more hard-working American’s money dumped into an environmental scam. Oh yeah; don’t let me forget that our incoming administration has fallen for this hook, line, and sinker.
And, finally, drilling for American oil. I agree that it would be a stop-gap measure to buy America time to develop alternative energy. But drill you must! American jobs producing an American product; that’s the way things ought to be. Oil companies have very clean methods of drilling. Really now, do you think as an oil company you could get away with a drill site that wasn’t in pristine condition? Greenies would swarm your site by the dozens, doing irreparable harm to the environment themselves while tearing up your drilling rig, blame it all on your company, and sue you to clean it all up. It’s their modus operandi. Drill off the coast of California, drill in ANWR, and drill in the arctic circle. American companies are the best at what they do. Have them start to drill in the arctic and develop the technology to do it successfully. In the meantime, place an emphasis on developing the technologies needed to correctly usher in new energy sources.
What a sad state of affairs we’ve gotten ourselves into. Unfortunately, instead of promoting sound, common sense environmental stewardship, the Left has taken us completely overboard. And how are American companies supposed to compete and profit in a global economy? I believe I can say with alarming accuracy that China, Russia, India, and other up-and-coming industrial nations are not following in our environmental footsteps. Environmental leadership involves common sense approaches to problems; not alarmism. Others follow good leadership; alarmism only leaves people shaking their heads in disgust. I guess while the Left throws money at this scam, I’ll just work hard so they can tax me more. I wouldn’t want them to run out. Here’s a question: was “The Day After Tomorrow” another documentary by Al Gore or a Hollywood movie?
So here’s the scam. The Left has found a way to spend your money and convince you that you’re doing something good for the environment. They don’t need empirical evidence, sound scientific principles, or even the support of the scientific community. Just scare people enough about the environment to hand over their hard-earned cash without question. Buy expensive light bulbs that contain mercury! Build solar and wind generation that will dot the landscape; our children can clean up the lead from the batteries later. Throw tax money at the carbon credits. It’s the least the American people can do for Al Gore after he lost the election to President Bush. Hopefully, we’ll see the folly of our ways before this scam gets completely out of control and our children are left to pick up the pieces of this scam.
By Tim Koczur
Carbon cap-and-trade will cripple economy
With support from the Obama administration, leading Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee have introduced a bill that would establish the country’s first-ever curb on carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.
It is a remarkable paradox: At a time when productivity gains combined with new energy-efficient technologies are increasing the global competitiveness of U.S. merchandise, the plan to curb carbon dioxide emissions will have the opposite effect.
It will drive up energy costs significantly and slow our economy, while allowing developing countries to make massive amounts of money by selling their emission credits.
The most destructive effect of a carbon cap-and-trade scheme would be a severe blow to U.S. competitiveness. Among the hardest-hit industries would be chemical and paper companies, steel mills, oil refineries and aluminum and cement manufacturers. Many companies would move production to countries with limited carbon controls or none at all. The cost in dollars and forfeited jobs and revenue would be huge.
The push for carbon controls coincides with international negotiations that are under way on a new treaty on climate change. The objective is a new treaty by December. Government leaders are arguing for binding targets and timetables that would require the United States and other industrialized countries to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by roughly 40 percent by 2030 and 80 percent by 2050.
But many scientists – myself included – question the adequacy and reliability of data on which governments rely. Given the imprecision and large uncertainties of computer models of today’s climate, how can governments place trust in models of the climate 50 to 100 years from now?
Apart from the highly exaggerated fears of global warming, a cap-and-trade system – which is essentially a carbon tax – would be a strategic mistake.
It would cost Americans millions of jobs and wreak havoc on energy-intensive industries. Because power plants fueled by coal supply more than half of the country’s electricity, and no technology for capturing carbon dioxide is commercially available, households and businesses would pay significantly more for electricity.
A study done for the George C. Marshall Institute estimates that cap-and-trade would cost the average American household $1,437 annually by 2015, rising to $1,979 in 2030 and $2,979 in 2050.
There is another problem. Developing countries will produce the majority of carbon dioxide emissions in coming years. According to the International Energy Agency, as much as 85 percent of the projected increase in man-made global emissions of carbon dioxide will come from developing countries.
Take China. As its share of world industrial output rises, China will become the world’s largest source of carbon dioxide, releasing into the atmosphere nearly double the amount the United States emits and more than triple what Europe discharges.
Yet China and other developing countries have refused to restrain their emissions. If they’re let off the hook, China, India, Brazil and other exempted countries will reap an instant trade advantage.
Now is the time for Congress to speak out against any proposed reductions in energy consumption that carry huge costs in jobs and business failures. The simple fact is that there are huge scientific uncertainties regarding CO2 emissions, including the growing possibility they have little to do with the climate. Questions remain over what constitutes dangerous levels of emissions. Crippling our economy shouldn’t be a mitigating option.
From my friend Michael R. Fox of Richland(a retired nuclear chemist.)
It is a remarkable paradox: At a time when productivity gains combined with new energy-efficient technologies are increasing the global competitiveness of U.S. merchandise, the plan to curb carbon dioxide emissions will have the opposite effect.
It will drive up energy costs significantly and slow our economy, while allowing developing countries to make massive amounts of money by selling their emission credits.
The most destructive effect of a carbon cap-and-trade scheme would be a severe blow to U.S. competitiveness. Among the hardest-hit industries would be chemical and paper companies, steel mills, oil refineries and aluminum and cement manufacturers. Many companies would move production to countries with limited carbon controls or none at all. The cost in dollars and forfeited jobs and revenue would be huge.
The push for carbon controls coincides with international negotiations that are under way on a new treaty on climate change. The objective is a new treaty by December. Government leaders are arguing for binding targets and timetables that would require the United States and other industrialized countries to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by roughly 40 percent by 2030 and 80 percent by 2050.
But many scientists – myself included – question the adequacy and reliability of data on which governments rely. Given the imprecision and large uncertainties of computer models of today’s climate, how can governments place trust in models of the climate 50 to 100 years from now?
Apart from the highly exaggerated fears of global warming, a cap-and-trade system – which is essentially a carbon tax – would be a strategic mistake.
It would cost Americans millions of jobs and wreak havoc on energy-intensive industries. Because power plants fueled by coal supply more than half of the country’s electricity, and no technology for capturing carbon dioxide is commercially available, households and businesses would pay significantly more for electricity.
A study done for the George C. Marshall Institute estimates that cap-and-trade would cost the average American household $1,437 annually by 2015, rising to $1,979 in 2030 and $2,979 in 2050.
There is another problem. Developing countries will produce the majority of carbon dioxide emissions in coming years. According to the International Energy Agency, as much as 85 percent of the projected increase in man-made global emissions of carbon dioxide will come from developing countries.
Take China. As its share of world industrial output rises, China will become the world’s largest source of carbon dioxide, releasing into the atmosphere nearly double the amount the United States emits and more than triple what Europe discharges.
Yet China and other developing countries have refused to restrain their emissions. If they’re let off the hook, China, India, Brazil and other exempted countries will reap an instant trade advantage.
Now is the time for Congress to speak out against any proposed reductions in energy consumption that carry huge costs in jobs and business failures. The simple fact is that there are huge scientific uncertainties regarding CO2 emissions, including the growing possibility they have little to do with the climate. Questions remain over what constitutes dangerous levels of emissions. Crippling our economy shouldn’t be a mitigating option.
From my friend Michael R. Fox of Richland(a retired nuclear chemist.)
APEC, American Petroleum Extortion Cartel(Our present government)
April 25, 2009
The Iranians are once again flexing their muscle. Now, I’m going to say something very outrageous here to some. And this is going to – you probably haven’t heard it put like this. We have a decision to make here, we really do, regardless of the President Obama, regardless of the President’s predispositions to withdraw on all these other things. We have a decision to make here. And the decision to make is not about windmills and solar panels. The decision to make is this. The entire purpose, and Vice President – not only is he the Vice President, he’s also a member of the hair plugs for men – Biden last week admitted that we were in Iraq, we were in the Middle East to protect the free flow of oil. We’re doing the Saudis’ dirty work for them, in other words. This is a deal that was entered into back in the 1970s. We should get out of it.
And so when I tell you what I’m about to tell you, bear that in mind. There is no need for the United States of America to import a drop, not a solitary drop, of foreign oil. Not from the Middle East, anyways. We don’t have to. We don’t need to. It is not necessary. We have more than enough oil right here at home. It would be a massive statement of American resolve to say that we have decided to free up and auction off all the federal lands – and we should do this anyways – that the federal government currently claims that they own. Auction them off to the highest bidders or give them back to the states that they reside inside, and let the states do with them what they will, and let the exploration begin right here at home. You don’t need tankers. If you’re an environmentalist, you ought to love this idea. No supertankers traversing the ocean, waiting to be cracked open and kill a bunch of dolphins and seals and gulls and what have you. Return the oil exploration right back here where it started en masse, and get out of that region save for the continuing hunt – and special ops can do this – of al Qaeda.
And if we’re not going to do that, well, the Iranians are going to continue to jack with us. And they’re going to continue to test us. I mean, this is history repeating itself. Does anyone, I mean, I’m just – I’m blown away by this. Does anyone not remember the 54 American hostages held for 444 days that were released on the day of President Reagan’s inauguration because they knew that it was coming? That the Iranians have been doing this for 20-plus years with impunity, and they have no intention to stop right now? And they’re not ever going to stop unless they are stopped, or we can choose to not do business with them and to not allow them to dictate where our boys in uniform go because we have to protect the Saudi king’s oil flow? “Mike, you sound like a conspiracy theory.” No, I’m just – this is pragmatic here.
Now, if you’re going to say that we have to have, we’ve got to protect the Saudi oil, and I’m going to tell you that for what reason? Why? Why do we have to? Well, because the Chinese need it. Well, then let the Chinese do it. They can make their own deal with Mahmoud. They all think alike. There’s also the part of this that tells me that the Russians, the Russkies, need $70, $80 a barrel prices for oil. This is how the Russian economy works. The Russian government doesn’t have any money unless they can sell all the oil that they have. So if you create mayhem and mischief in the Middle East, and then you start convincing people that, why, the free flow of oil from the Middle East is endangered here, then the prices are going to start going up, and speculation begins. Well, then the Russians and the Iranians and all the other little tyrant dictators over there benefit.
The United States could unilaterally put an end to this by simply stating that we’re out of this game. You guys, you can murder yourselves. Have at it. We’re going to open up – we got this guy, Bakken Oil Reserve. We got three trillion barrels of oil sitting right beneath the surface of Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Colorado, and Utah. We got this guy called Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, also known as ANWR. We got, what? Three billion barrels of oil in ANWR? We don’t know how much is on the Northern Slope. It’s hard to get to. But ANWR is easy to get to. We don’t have to do this. This is by choice is my point. And it allows us to be pushed and cajoled about by foreign tinhorn dictators. And they, by fiat, then determine our foreign policy and where our troops must be stationed across the globe to protect someone else’s interests. And it’s, I tell you, I don’t believe that it’s a coincidence that these bombs are going off at this very moment in Iraq. It’s just that it begs the question, there, of what is the Obama administration, and what are they doing about this? What are they going to do about it? You should be genuinely concerned about this, especially if you lost a son or, God forbid, a daughter in that war.
Thanks to my friend M. Church
The Iranians are once again flexing their muscle. Now, I’m going to say something very outrageous here to some. And this is going to – you probably haven’t heard it put like this. We have a decision to make here, we really do, regardless of the President Obama, regardless of the President’s predispositions to withdraw on all these other things. We have a decision to make here. And the decision to make is not about windmills and solar panels. The decision to make is this. The entire purpose, and Vice President – not only is he the Vice President, he’s also a member of the hair plugs for men – Biden last week admitted that we were in Iraq, we were in the Middle East to protect the free flow of oil. We’re doing the Saudis’ dirty work for them, in other words. This is a deal that was entered into back in the 1970s. We should get out of it.
And so when I tell you what I’m about to tell you, bear that in mind. There is no need for the United States of America to import a drop, not a solitary drop, of foreign oil. Not from the Middle East, anyways. We don’t have to. We don’t need to. It is not necessary. We have more than enough oil right here at home. It would be a massive statement of American resolve to say that we have decided to free up and auction off all the federal lands – and we should do this anyways – that the federal government currently claims that they own. Auction them off to the highest bidders or give them back to the states that they reside inside, and let the states do with them what they will, and let the exploration begin right here at home. You don’t need tankers. If you’re an environmentalist, you ought to love this idea. No supertankers traversing the ocean, waiting to be cracked open and kill a bunch of dolphins and seals and gulls and what have you. Return the oil exploration right back here where it started en masse, and get out of that region save for the continuing hunt – and special ops can do this – of al Qaeda.
And if we’re not going to do that, well, the Iranians are going to continue to jack with us. And they’re going to continue to test us. I mean, this is history repeating itself. Does anyone, I mean, I’m just – I’m blown away by this. Does anyone not remember the 54 American hostages held for 444 days that were released on the day of President Reagan’s inauguration because they knew that it was coming? That the Iranians have been doing this for 20-plus years with impunity, and they have no intention to stop right now? And they’re not ever going to stop unless they are stopped, or we can choose to not do business with them and to not allow them to dictate where our boys in uniform go because we have to protect the Saudi king’s oil flow? “Mike, you sound like a conspiracy theory.” No, I’m just – this is pragmatic here.
Now, if you’re going to say that we have to have, we’ve got to protect the Saudi oil, and I’m going to tell you that for what reason? Why? Why do we have to? Well, because the Chinese need it. Well, then let the Chinese do it. They can make their own deal with Mahmoud. They all think alike. There’s also the part of this that tells me that the Russians, the Russkies, need $70, $80 a barrel prices for oil. This is how the Russian economy works. The Russian government doesn’t have any money unless they can sell all the oil that they have. So if you create mayhem and mischief in the Middle East, and then you start convincing people that, why, the free flow of oil from the Middle East is endangered here, then the prices are going to start going up, and speculation begins. Well, then the Russians and the Iranians and all the other little tyrant dictators over there benefit.
The United States could unilaterally put an end to this by simply stating that we’re out of this game. You guys, you can murder yourselves. Have at it. We’re going to open up – we got this guy, Bakken Oil Reserve. We got three trillion barrels of oil sitting right beneath the surface of Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Colorado, and Utah. We got this guy called Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, also known as ANWR. We got, what? Three billion barrels of oil in ANWR? We don’t know how much is on the Northern Slope. It’s hard to get to. But ANWR is easy to get to. We don’t have to do this. This is by choice is my point. And it allows us to be pushed and cajoled about by foreign tinhorn dictators. And they, by fiat, then determine our foreign policy and where our troops must be stationed across the globe to protect someone else’s interests. And it’s, I tell you, I don’t believe that it’s a coincidence that these bombs are going off at this very moment in Iraq. It’s just that it begs the question, there, of what is the Obama administration, and what are they doing about this? What are they going to do about it? You should be genuinely concerned about this, especially if you lost a son or, God forbid, a daughter in that war.
Thanks to my friend M. Church
Must read: Andrew McCarthy rejection letter to Holder
By email (to the Counterterrorism Division) and by regular mail:
The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General of the United States
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Holder:
This letter is respectfully submitted to inform you that I must decline the invitation to participate in the May 4 roundtable meeting the President’s Task Force on Detention Policy is convening with current and former prosecutors involved in international terrorism cases. An invitation was extended to me by trial lawyers from the Counterterrorism Section, who are members of the Task Force, which you are leading.
The invitation email (of April 14) indicates that the meeting is part of an ongoing effort to identify lawful policies on the detention and disposition of alien enemy combatants—or what the Department now calls “individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations.” I admire the lawyers of the Counterterrorism Division, and I do not question their good faith. Nevertheless, it is quite clear—most recently, from your provocative remarks on Wednesday in Germany—that the Obama administration has already settled on a policy of releasing trained jihadists (including releasing some of them into the United States). Whatever the good intentions of the organizers, the meeting will obviously be used by the administration to claim that its policy was arrived at in consultation with current and former government officials experienced in terrorism cases and national security issues. I deeply disagree with this policy, which I believe is a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president’s first obligation to protect the American people. Under the circumstances, I think the better course is to register my dissent, rather than be used as a prop.
Moreover, in light of public statements by both you and the President, it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the Justice Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers—like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy—may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct. Given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to hesitate before offering advice to the government.
Beyond that, as elucidated in my writing (including my proposal for a new national security court, which I understand the Task Force has perused), I believe alien enemy combatants should be detained at Guantanamo Bay (or a facility like it) until the conclusion of hostilities. This national defense measure is deeply rooted in the venerable laws of war and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the 2004 Hamdi case. Yet, as recently as Wednesday, you asserted that, in your considered judgment, such notions violate America’s “commitment to the rule of law.” Indeed, you elaborated, “Nothing symbolizes our [adminstration’s] new course more than our decision to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay…. President Obama believes, and I strongly agree, that Guantanamo has come to represent a time and an approach that we want to put behind us: a disregard for our centuries-long respect for the rule of law[.]” (Emphasis added.)
Given your policy of conducting ruinous criminal and ethics investigations of lawyers over the advice they offer the government, and your specific position that the wartime detention I would endorse is tantamount to a violation of law, it makes little sense for me to attend the Task Force meeting. After all, my choice would be to remain silent or risk jeopardizing myself.
For what it may be worth, I will say this much. For eight years, we have had a robust debate in the United States about how to handle alien terrorists captured during a defensive war authorized by Congress after nearly 3000 of our fellow Americans were annihilated. Essentially, there have been two camps. One calls for prosecution in the civilian criminal justice system, the strategy used throughout the 1990s. The other calls for a military justice approach of combatant detention and war-crimes prosecutions by military commission. Because each theory has its downsides, many commentators, myself included, have proposed a third way: a hybrid system, designed for the realities of modern international terrorism—a new system that would address the needs to protect our classified defense secrets and to assure Americans, as well as our allies, that we are detaining the right people.
There are differences in these various proposals. But their proponents, and adherents to both the military and civilian justice approaches, have all agreed on at least one thing: Foreign terrorists trained to execute mass-murder attacks cannot simply be released while the war ensues and Americans are still being targeted. We have already released too many jihadists who, as night follows day, have resumed plotting to kill Americans. Indeed, according to recent reports, a released Guantanamo detainee is now leading Taliban combat operations in Afghanistan, where President Obama has just sent additional American forces.
The Obama campaign smeared Guantanamo Bay as a human rights blight. Consistent with that hyperbolic rhetoric, the President began his administration by promising to close the detention camp within a year. The President did this even though he and you (a) agree Gitmo is a top-flight prison facility, (b) acknowledge that our nation is still at war, and (c) concede that many Gitmo detainees are extremely dangerous terrorists who cannot be tried under civilian court rules. Patently, the commitment to close Guantanamo Bay within a year was made without a plan for what to do with these detainees who cannot be tried. Consequently, the Detention Policy Task Force is not an effort to arrive at the best policy. It is an effort to justify a bad policy that has already been adopted: to wit, the Obama administration policy to release trained terrorists outright if that’s what it takes to close Gitmo by January.
Obviously, I am powerless to stop the administration from releasing top al Qaeda operatives who planned mass-murder attacks against American cities—like Binyam Mohammed (the accomplice of “Dirty Bomber” Jose Padilla) whom the administration recently transferred to Britain, where he is now at liberty and living on public assistance. I am similarly powerless to stop the administration from admitting into the United States such alien jihadists as the 17 remaining Uighur detainees. According to National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, the Uighurs will apparently live freely, on American taxpayer assistance, despite the facts that they are affiliated with a terrorist organization and have received terrorist paramilitary training. Under federal immigration law (the 2005 REAL ID Act), those facts render them excludable from the United States. The Uighurs’ impending release is thus a remarkable development given the Obama administration’s propensity to deride its predecessor’s purported insensitivity to the rule of law.
I am, in addition, powerless to stop the President, as he takes these reckless steps, from touting his Detention Policy Task Force as a demonstration of his national security seriousness. But I can decline to participate in the charade.
Finally, let me repeat that I respect and admire the dedication of Justice Department lawyers, whom I have tirelessly defended since I retired in 2003 as a chief assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York. It was a unique honor to serve for nearly twenty years as a federal prosecutor, under administrations of both parties. It was as proud a day as I have ever had when the trial team I led was awarded the Attorney General’s Exceptional Service Award in 1996, after we secured the convictions of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and his underlings for waging a terrorist war against the United States. I particularly appreciated receiving the award from Attorney General Reno—as I recounted in Willful Blindness, my book about the case, without her steadfastness against opposition from short-sighted government officials who wanted to release him, the “blind sheikh” would never have been indicted, much less convicted and so deservedly sentenced to life-imprisonment. In any event, I’ve always believed defending our nation is a duty of citizenship, not ideology. Thus, my conservative political views aside, I’ve made myself available to liberal and conservative groups, to Democrats and Republicans, who’ve thought tapping my experience would be beneficial. It pains me to decline your invitation, but the attendant circumstances leave no other option.
Very truly yours,
/S/
Andrew C. McCarthy
cc: Sylvia T. Kaser and John DePue
National Security Division, Counterterrorism Section
The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General of the United States
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Holder:
This letter is respectfully submitted to inform you that I must decline the invitation to participate in the May 4 roundtable meeting the President’s Task Force on Detention Policy is convening with current and former prosecutors involved in international terrorism cases. An invitation was extended to me by trial lawyers from the Counterterrorism Section, who are members of the Task Force, which you are leading.
The invitation email (of April 14) indicates that the meeting is part of an ongoing effort to identify lawful policies on the detention and disposition of alien enemy combatants—or what the Department now calls “individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations.” I admire the lawyers of the Counterterrorism Division, and I do not question their good faith. Nevertheless, it is quite clear—most recently, from your provocative remarks on Wednesday in Germany—that the Obama administration has already settled on a policy of releasing trained jihadists (including releasing some of them into the United States). Whatever the good intentions of the organizers, the meeting will obviously be used by the administration to claim that its policy was arrived at in consultation with current and former government officials experienced in terrorism cases and national security issues. I deeply disagree with this policy, which I believe is a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president’s first obligation to protect the American people. Under the circumstances, I think the better course is to register my dissent, rather than be used as a prop.
Moreover, in light of public statements by both you and the President, it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the Justice Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers—like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy—may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct. Given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to hesitate before offering advice to the government.
Beyond that, as elucidated in my writing (including my proposal for a new national security court, which I understand the Task Force has perused), I believe alien enemy combatants should be detained at Guantanamo Bay (or a facility like it) until the conclusion of hostilities. This national defense measure is deeply rooted in the venerable laws of war and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the 2004 Hamdi case. Yet, as recently as Wednesday, you asserted that, in your considered judgment, such notions violate America’s “commitment to the rule of law.” Indeed, you elaborated, “Nothing symbolizes our [adminstration’s] new course more than our decision to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay…. President Obama believes, and I strongly agree, that Guantanamo has come to represent a time and an approach that we want to put behind us: a disregard for our centuries-long respect for the rule of law[.]” (Emphasis added.)
Given your policy of conducting ruinous criminal and ethics investigations of lawyers over the advice they offer the government, and your specific position that the wartime detention I would endorse is tantamount to a violation of law, it makes little sense for me to attend the Task Force meeting. After all, my choice would be to remain silent or risk jeopardizing myself.
For what it may be worth, I will say this much. For eight years, we have had a robust debate in the United States about how to handle alien terrorists captured during a defensive war authorized by Congress after nearly 3000 of our fellow Americans were annihilated. Essentially, there have been two camps. One calls for prosecution in the civilian criminal justice system, the strategy used throughout the 1990s. The other calls for a military justice approach of combatant detention and war-crimes prosecutions by military commission. Because each theory has its downsides, many commentators, myself included, have proposed a third way: a hybrid system, designed for the realities of modern international terrorism—a new system that would address the needs to protect our classified defense secrets and to assure Americans, as well as our allies, that we are detaining the right people.
There are differences in these various proposals. But their proponents, and adherents to both the military and civilian justice approaches, have all agreed on at least one thing: Foreign terrorists trained to execute mass-murder attacks cannot simply be released while the war ensues and Americans are still being targeted. We have already released too many jihadists who, as night follows day, have resumed plotting to kill Americans. Indeed, according to recent reports, a released Guantanamo detainee is now leading Taliban combat operations in Afghanistan, where President Obama has just sent additional American forces.
The Obama campaign smeared Guantanamo Bay as a human rights blight. Consistent with that hyperbolic rhetoric, the President began his administration by promising to close the detention camp within a year. The President did this even though he and you (a) agree Gitmo is a top-flight prison facility, (b) acknowledge that our nation is still at war, and (c) concede that many Gitmo detainees are extremely dangerous terrorists who cannot be tried under civilian court rules. Patently, the commitment to close Guantanamo Bay within a year was made without a plan for what to do with these detainees who cannot be tried. Consequently, the Detention Policy Task Force is not an effort to arrive at the best policy. It is an effort to justify a bad policy that has already been adopted: to wit, the Obama administration policy to release trained terrorists outright if that’s what it takes to close Gitmo by January.
Obviously, I am powerless to stop the administration from releasing top al Qaeda operatives who planned mass-murder attacks against American cities—like Binyam Mohammed (the accomplice of “Dirty Bomber” Jose Padilla) whom the administration recently transferred to Britain, where he is now at liberty and living on public assistance. I am similarly powerless to stop the administration from admitting into the United States such alien jihadists as the 17 remaining Uighur detainees. According to National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, the Uighurs will apparently live freely, on American taxpayer assistance, despite the facts that they are affiliated with a terrorist organization and have received terrorist paramilitary training. Under federal immigration law (the 2005 REAL ID Act), those facts render them excludable from the United States. The Uighurs’ impending release is thus a remarkable development given the Obama administration’s propensity to deride its predecessor’s purported insensitivity to the rule of law.
I am, in addition, powerless to stop the President, as he takes these reckless steps, from touting his Detention Policy Task Force as a demonstration of his national security seriousness. But I can decline to participate in the charade.
Finally, let me repeat that I respect and admire the dedication of Justice Department lawyers, whom I have tirelessly defended since I retired in 2003 as a chief assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York. It was a unique honor to serve for nearly twenty years as a federal prosecutor, under administrations of both parties. It was as proud a day as I have ever had when the trial team I led was awarded the Attorney General’s Exceptional Service Award in 1996, after we secured the convictions of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and his underlings for waging a terrorist war against the United States. I particularly appreciated receiving the award from Attorney General Reno—as I recounted in Willful Blindness, my book about the case, without her steadfastness against opposition from short-sighted government officials who wanted to release him, the “blind sheikh” would never have been indicted, much less convicted and so deservedly sentenced to life-imprisonment. In any event, I’ve always believed defending our nation is a duty of citizenship, not ideology. Thus, my conservative political views aside, I’ve made myself available to liberal and conservative groups, to Democrats and Republicans, who’ve thought tapping my experience would be beneficial. It pains me to decline your invitation, but the attendant circumstances leave no other option.
Very truly yours,
/S/
Andrew C. McCarthy
cc: Sylvia T. Kaser and John DePue
National Security Division, Counterterrorism Section
Words of wisdom from a very intelligent person, my daughter-in-law...The Marine
No I havent' seen your arguments, but without a doubt anything a conservative says is brighter than even the most intellegent of liberal arguments. I have enough experience with liberals to finally understand that liberalism is the religion of ignorance and denial.
Although freedom is an inherent right given to all humans by God Himself by way of FREEWILL, we are only free to choose, not create the choices..that's natures' job. Liberals believe in limitless unchecked freedom and although I personally believe freedom should be afforded to those who use it wisely, that is not the general consesous and besides, who gets to judge who is worthy of displaying wisdom and therein lies the argument! Limitless freedom is anarchy. Man cannot manipulate the laws of nature and therefore we must act within the boundraries of those laws in order to survive. Liberals do not believe in cause and effect. They do not believe the theory of reletivity or that Earth will change with or without us, that animals will go extinct with or without us, that carbon monoxide was created by God, not man and that we can not have any freedom at all being ruled by a fascist dictator such as Obama. THey do not believe in the sancity of life: from the innocently concieved infant inside the womb to the old person who deserves inherent respect as our elders. They do not believe in anything rational and of course, all of this stems from man's tendency towards self-immanentism..that is .."to believe that oneself is God". Their religion solely based on worshiping themself!. The audacity of man to think we have the power to destroy the planet by breathing and using it's "NATURAL" resources..
You know all this already but are not quite sure how to sway a liberal of your point of view. You can't sway a liberal into believing there are consequences far beyond his control any more than you can convince a teenager that mathamatics is an obvious necessity in life even if their future job will never require it! The prediction of an empire's fall dates all the way back to Aristotle and his succesion of governments. First you have democracy, which leads to socialism, which leads to communism, which eventually leads to empirialsm which inevitably fails because oppressed people will always rise up and kill the emporor..or someone else will take over because the Emporors' disgruntled troops refuse to protect him. Pretty obvious stuff but still people would rather believe governemt control can work and ultimately be made a slave rather than be independent and actually have to work. Even my best freind is a liberal and although I love her to death I do think she's rather stupid. She told me that north pole was melting and I said.."Oh, that's true but the south pole has gotten substantially larger! What do think that means?" As I said, liberals refuse to be educated. They are perpetual teenagers and I believe a certain amount of education may help, it won't solve the problem. We will have to just be content to rely on already well formed conservatives to rise up and take out the emporor. It's history repeating itself and only those who have learned from history can change it.
Remember, it wasn't the whole English empire that sailed the ocean blue to find refuge amongst savage indians, it was only the best few that knew inorder to change they couldn't depend on a national English uprising, they would just have to do it themselvs..hence our four fathers and their priceless constitution.
As for money, I grew up in a family of ten with cop as the only source of income so money is something I've learned to live without. You can send anything you like but if it's not possible don't look for any hard feelings here. My family had to save for months just to send me packages to Iraq. Your grand-daughter will know you love her no matter what.
Talk to you soon.....
your daughter-in-law
Although freedom is an inherent right given to all humans by God Himself by way of FREEWILL, we are only free to choose, not create the choices..that's natures' job. Liberals believe in limitless unchecked freedom and although I personally believe freedom should be afforded to those who use it wisely, that is not the general consesous and besides, who gets to judge who is worthy of displaying wisdom and therein lies the argument! Limitless freedom is anarchy. Man cannot manipulate the laws of nature and therefore we must act within the boundraries of those laws in order to survive. Liberals do not believe in cause and effect. They do not believe the theory of reletivity or that Earth will change with or without us, that animals will go extinct with or without us, that carbon monoxide was created by God, not man and that we can not have any freedom at all being ruled by a fascist dictator such as Obama. THey do not believe in the sancity of life: from the innocently concieved infant inside the womb to the old person who deserves inherent respect as our elders. They do not believe in anything rational and of course, all of this stems from man's tendency towards self-immanentism..that is .."to believe that oneself is God". Their religion solely based on worshiping themself!. The audacity of man to think we have the power to destroy the planet by breathing and using it's "NATURAL" resources..
You know all this already but are not quite sure how to sway a liberal of your point of view. You can't sway a liberal into believing there are consequences far beyond his control any more than you can convince a teenager that mathamatics is an obvious necessity in life even if their future job will never require it! The prediction of an empire's fall dates all the way back to Aristotle and his succesion of governments. First you have democracy, which leads to socialism, which leads to communism, which eventually leads to empirialsm which inevitably fails because oppressed people will always rise up and kill the emporor..or someone else will take over because the Emporors' disgruntled troops refuse to protect him. Pretty obvious stuff but still people would rather believe governemt control can work and ultimately be made a slave rather than be independent and actually have to work. Even my best freind is a liberal and although I love her to death I do think she's rather stupid. She told me that north pole was melting and I said.."Oh, that's true but the south pole has gotten substantially larger! What do think that means?" As I said, liberals refuse to be educated. They are perpetual teenagers and I believe a certain amount of education may help, it won't solve the problem. We will have to just be content to rely on already well formed conservatives to rise up and take out the emporor. It's history repeating itself and only those who have learned from history can change it.
Remember, it wasn't the whole English empire that sailed the ocean blue to find refuge amongst savage indians, it was only the best few that knew inorder to change they couldn't depend on a national English uprising, they would just have to do it themselvs..hence our four fathers and their priceless constitution.
As for money, I grew up in a family of ten with cop as the only source of income so money is something I've learned to live without. You can send anything you like but if it's not possible don't look for any hard feelings here. My family had to save for months just to send me packages to Iraq. Your grand-daughter will know you love her no matter what.
Talk to you soon.....
your daughter-in-law
Census GPS-tagging your home's front door
Coordinates being taken for every residence in nation
According to an online Yahoo program, the Global Position System coordinates for the White House, probably one of the best-known publicly owned buildings in the world, are 38.898590 Latitude and -77.035971 Longitude. And since you know that, it's no big deal for the White House to know the coordinates for your front door, is it?
Some people think it is, and are upset over an army of some 140,000 workers hired in part with a $700 million taxpayer-funded contract to collect GPS readings for every front door in the nation.
The data collection, presented as preparation for the 2010 Census, is pinpointing with computer accuracy the locations and has raised considerable concern from privacy advocates who have questioned why the information is needed. The privacy advocates also are more than a little worried over what could be done with that information.
Enhancing the concerns is the Obama administration's recent decision to put White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in an oversight role over the census, which will be used to determine a reapportionment of congressional seats and could be used to solidify a single political party's control over the nation, its budget, military and future.
Commerce Secretary Gary Locke recently told the Washington Post: "The census director reports to me, and, of course, I serve at the pleasure of the president." He added the White House told him "it has no interest in politicizing [the census]."
But at American Daily Review, blogger Douglas Gibbs had more than a few doubts.
"GPS coordinates of your front door will make it easier for the government to monitor you," he said. "The U.S. Census Bureau is simply an excuse – a harmless looking means of obtaining the front door coordinates. The creation of GPS coordinates for front doors has nothing to do with the census, in all honesty, no matter how much the United States government tries to convince you that it does."
Learn what America means, get "The Patriot's Handbook: A Citizenship Primer for a New Generation of Americans"
He recalled wondering why, just weeks ago, the Obama administration announced its oversight of the census, "literally taking control of the census away from the Commerce Department."
He put that together with Obama's longtime push for national service.
"The Obamites, thirsty to serve their new messianic figure, have lost enough of their objectivity to be willingly recruited into such an insidious program like gaining these coordinates for the U.S. government. … I ask again, what would be the purpose of shooting the GPS coordinates of American doorways?" he wrote.
The answer he provided was alarming.
"Imagine, if you will, that there are a number of people in a neighborhood that could not find the addresses they are tasked with finding. They are not locals, maybe are unable to read a map, or perhaps do not have the time to pull out a map, and they need to find you with specific GPS coordinates. Their devices would lead them to your front door with these coordinates. Imagine a crisis is afoot, and martial law is put into place. U.S. troops need to round up particular folks," he wrote.
"Let's take this a step further. After all, with Barack Obama desiring to decrease the number of folks in the military, and with forces committed worldwide, we may not have sufficient military forces at home to deal with a rising national emergency. If the government decided to rely on foreign troops, perhaps United Nations personnel, most of which may not understand the street signs, much less know the lay of the land, they could use GPS devices to direct them to your front door," he wrote.
According to the Census Bureau's website, the GPS technology "allows us to reduce the amount of time spent by census workers in locating addresses. … Most importantly, by adding a GPS coordinate to each housing unit, the Census Bureau is able to ensure that residents are counted in the right location."
At Canada Free Press, commentator J.B. Williams said, "I can't resist the urge to question the authority and purpose behind such a BIG BROTHER initiative, when the official census itself is not due to be taken until 2010…
"No imagination is required to think up a whole laundry list of evil that could be done with a nationwide GPS grid of coordinate's markers painted on every private home across the country. But I was having trouble thinking up one good reason for it, even one legitimate use that would justify what must be a very expensive undertaking," he said.
"Why does the Obama administration need or want the latitude and longitude coordinates for every home in America? Why the rush to GPS paint every home in the next 90 days? Why must the marker be within 40 feet of every front door? For what possible purpose does the Fed need GPS coordinates for every home, and under what authority do they have the right? Census workers, whom I asked, had the same holy-crap look on their faces that I had by then," he wrote.
Then he cited the cooperative effort that the U.S. Census Bureau has reached with ACORN, the organization of community activists with which Obama worked.
"Obama's interest in an ACORN-controlled 2010 Census, for the purpose of redistricting to the advantage of Democrats before the 2010 mid-term elections, comes as NO shock from a regime known for their heavy handed Rules for Radicals political strategies. But what does this have to do with GPS marking every home in the country?" he questioned.
Ask those who have served military duty, he said. They are very familiar with the most common use of GPS target painting, and the rest might want to read books such as "The Precision Revolution: GPS and the Future of Aerial Warfare."
Online sources noted that Google Maps already probably has listed most homes in the nation.
"But the front door? Sounds like a jackboot convenience to me," said RightSoup.com.
Added Williams, "What I do know is this … Coincidences of this number and magnitude don't happen. … I also know that people had better start asking the right people the right questions and demanding answers fast. Begin with asking the mainstream press why there has been no public notification of the federal governments GPS marking your front door?"
A number of concerned citizens have contacted WND about the program, and repeatedly have cited warnings delivered by the GPS squad members that their failure to allow the readings would result in fines and possibly imprisonment under Title 13, which allows the census to be taken.
But repeatedly they've gotten no answers when asked what a GPS reading has to do with the number of people living at the home – which isn't supposed to be subject to questions until 2010 anyway.
One WND reader raised these questions to a local census office.
"What authority does the U.S. Census Bureau have for sending anyone to my front door in April of 2009 to mark it with GPS coordinates? This is unacceptable. The census is not due until 2010, and the usurpation of the census by the White House is unconstitutional. … This citizen will not answer census questions until the year they are due, and demands that my GPS coordinates be removed from all government records."
The census response?
"Address canvassing should conclude by mid-July. The operation will use new hand-held computers equipped with GPS to increase geographic accuracy. The ability to capture GPS coordinates for most of the nation's housing units will greatly reduce the number of geographic coding errors caused by using paper maps in previous counts. … During the address canvassing operation, census workers may ask to verify a housing structure's address and whether there are additional living quarters on the property. All census workers carry official government badges marked with just their name. You also may ask them for a picture ID from another source to confirm their identity. In addition, some census workers might carry a 'U. S. Census Workers' bag."
Another WND reader, from Washington state, reported he is having his attorney look into the legality of the GPS data collection and hopes to have enough support for a legal challenge.
The reader, whose name was withheld because of his concerns over repercussions, said a government home data collector ignored his no trespassing sign, and he was threatened by the collector for wanting to refuse to provide "census" information.
He said GPS mapping nowhere is authorized for census workers.
Census spokesman Stephen Buckner told WND the activity is, in fact, proper, and even necessary. There are homes being built and torn down constantly, and the census needs such information. Local building records and other government databases such as tax records would not suffice, he said.
"There are 140,000 workers walking every street of America," he told WND, in order to document 145 million addresses with GPS coordinates.
He assured WND that all such personal information is confidential, because employees of contractors doing the work are subject to a $250,000 fine or imprisonment for five years for revealing personal information. He also confirmed that the last case that was prosecuted under the law was nearly 50 years ago.
"We have to verify every single address," he said.
From my good friend Bob Unruh
According to an online Yahoo program, the Global Position System coordinates for the White House, probably one of the best-known publicly owned buildings in the world, are 38.898590 Latitude and -77.035971 Longitude. And since you know that, it's no big deal for the White House to know the coordinates for your front door, is it?
Some people think it is, and are upset over an army of some 140,000 workers hired in part with a $700 million taxpayer-funded contract to collect GPS readings for every front door in the nation.
The data collection, presented as preparation for the 2010 Census, is pinpointing with computer accuracy the locations and has raised considerable concern from privacy advocates who have questioned why the information is needed. The privacy advocates also are more than a little worried over what could be done with that information.
Enhancing the concerns is the Obama administration's recent decision to put White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in an oversight role over the census, which will be used to determine a reapportionment of congressional seats and could be used to solidify a single political party's control over the nation, its budget, military and future.
Commerce Secretary Gary Locke recently told the Washington Post: "The census director reports to me, and, of course, I serve at the pleasure of the president." He added the White House told him "it has no interest in politicizing [the census]."
But at American Daily Review, blogger Douglas Gibbs had more than a few doubts.
"GPS coordinates of your front door will make it easier for the government to monitor you," he said. "The U.S. Census Bureau is simply an excuse – a harmless looking means of obtaining the front door coordinates. The creation of GPS coordinates for front doors has nothing to do with the census, in all honesty, no matter how much the United States government tries to convince you that it does."
Learn what America means, get "The Patriot's Handbook: A Citizenship Primer for a New Generation of Americans"
He recalled wondering why, just weeks ago, the Obama administration announced its oversight of the census, "literally taking control of the census away from the Commerce Department."
He put that together with Obama's longtime push for national service.
"The Obamites, thirsty to serve their new messianic figure, have lost enough of their objectivity to be willingly recruited into such an insidious program like gaining these coordinates for the U.S. government. … I ask again, what would be the purpose of shooting the GPS coordinates of American doorways?" he wrote.
The answer he provided was alarming.
"Imagine, if you will, that there are a number of people in a neighborhood that could not find the addresses they are tasked with finding. They are not locals, maybe are unable to read a map, or perhaps do not have the time to pull out a map, and they need to find you with specific GPS coordinates. Their devices would lead them to your front door with these coordinates. Imagine a crisis is afoot, and martial law is put into place. U.S. troops need to round up particular folks," he wrote.
"Let's take this a step further. After all, with Barack Obama desiring to decrease the number of folks in the military, and with forces committed worldwide, we may not have sufficient military forces at home to deal with a rising national emergency. If the government decided to rely on foreign troops, perhaps United Nations personnel, most of which may not understand the street signs, much less know the lay of the land, they could use GPS devices to direct them to your front door," he wrote.
According to the Census Bureau's website, the GPS technology "allows us to reduce the amount of time spent by census workers in locating addresses. … Most importantly, by adding a GPS coordinate to each housing unit, the Census Bureau is able to ensure that residents are counted in the right location."
At Canada Free Press, commentator J.B. Williams said, "I can't resist the urge to question the authority and purpose behind such a BIG BROTHER initiative, when the official census itself is not due to be taken until 2010…
"No imagination is required to think up a whole laundry list of evil that could be done with a nationwide GPS grid of coordinate's markers painted on every private home across the country. But I was having trouble thinking up one good reason for it, even one legitimate use that would justify what must be a very expensive undertaking," he said.
"Why does the Obama administration need or want the latitude and longitude coordinates for every home in America? Why the rush to GPS paint every home in the next 90 days? Why must the marker be within 40 feet of every front door? For what possible purpose does the Fed need GPS coordinates for every home, and under what authority do they have the right? Census workers, whom I asked, had the same holy-crap look on their faces that I had by then," he wrote.
Then he cited the cooperative effort that the U.S. Census Bureau has reached with ACORN, the organization of community activists with which Obama worked.
"Obama's interest in an ACORN-controlled 2010 Census, for the purpose of redistricting to the advantage of Democrats before the 2010 mid-term elections, comes as NO shock from a regime known for their heavy handed Rules for Radicals political strategies. But what does this have to do with GPS marking every home in the country?" he questioned.
Ask those who have served military duty, he said. They are very familiar with the most common use of GPS target painting, and the rest might want to read books such as "The Precision Revolution: GPS and the Future of Aerial Warfare."
Online sources noted that Google Maps already probably has listed most homes in the nation.
"But the front door? Sounds like a jackboot convenience to me," said RightSoup.com.
Added Williams, "What I do know is this … Coincidences of this number and magnitude don't happen. … I also know that people had better start asking the right people the right questions and demanding answers fast. Begin with asking the mainstream press why there has been no public notification of the federal governments GPS marking your front door?"
A number of concerned citizens have contacted WND about the program, and repeatedly have cited warnings delivered by the GPS squad members that their failure to allow the readings would result in fines and possibly imprisonment under Title 13, which allows the census to be taken.
But repeatedly they've gotten no answers when asked what a GPS reading has to do with the number of people living at the home – which isn't supposed to be subject to questions until 2010 anyway.
One WND reader raised these questions to a local census office.
"What authority does the U.S. Census Bureau have for sending anyone to my front door in April of 2009 to mark it with GPS coordinates? This is unacceptable. The census is not due until 2010, and the usurpation of the census by the White House is unconstitutional. … This citizen will not answer census questions until the year they are due, and demands that my GPS coordinates be removed from all government records."
The census response?
"Address canvassing should conclude by mid-July. The operation will use new hand-held computers equipped with GPS to increase geographic accuracy. The ability to capture GPS coordinates for most of the nation's housing units will greatly reduce the number of geographic coding errors caused by using paper maps in previous counts. … During the address canvassing operation, census workers may ask to verify a housing structure's address and whether there are additional living quarters on the property. All census workers carry official government badges marked with just their name. You also may ask them for a picture ID from another source to confirm their identity. In addition, some census workers might carry a 'U. S. Census Workers' bag."
Another WND reader, from Washington state, reported he is having his attorney look into the legality of the GPS data collection and hopes to have enough support for a legal challenge.
The reader, whose name was withheld because of his concerns over repercussions, said a government home data collector ignored his no trespassing sign, and he was threatened by the collector for wanting to refuse to provide "census" information.
He said GPS mapping nowhere is authorized for census workers.
Census spokesman Stephen Buckner told WND the activity is, in fact, proper, and even necessary. There are homes being built and torn down constantly, and the census needs such information. Local building records and other government databases such as tax records would not suffice, he said.
"There are 140,000 workers walking every street of America," he told WND, in order to document 145 million addresses with GPS coordinates.
He assured WND that all such personal information is confidential, because employees of contractors doing the work are subject to a $250,000 fine or imprisonment for five years for revealing personal information. He also confirmed that the last case that was prosecuted under the law was nearly 50 years ago.
"We have to verify every single address," he said.
From my good friend Bob Unruh
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)