The next election is simple; in fact, "It’s as simple as A B C, anyone but Clinton". How about that for a bumper sticker?
Once again a single judge is able to thwart the will of the people. Despite many votes by Californians to retain the death penalty, a judge in San Francisco (where else?) has decided that the new lethal ‘cocktail’ used for executions, concocted after a previous court decided it didn't like the old one, does not pass muster because he found "executioners were not properly trained". Perhaps executioners just need to get more experience if judges would let them. How else should executioners ‘get experience’?
Bush’s nominee for Attorney General is still not good enough for Democrat advice-and- consenters in the senate. They won’t approve him until he agrees ‘water boarding’ is torture and should not be used to extract information from terrorists. Looks like the San Francisco judge that dropped the death penalty should be a Democrat shoo-in for the senate.
The drive for signatures to get the way California Electoral College members are elected changed has received new life due to Congressman Daryl Issa who has gotten behind the drive. The initiative would give each congressional district an electoral vote and would likely result in Republicans picking up 20 or more electoral votes in the presidential election. Even if the initiative fails, if it gets on the ballot it would cause the Democrats to spend a lot of money, and that’s not bad.
If you haven’t heard the latest Palestinian demand, you don’t know that a new demand for attending the Rice-a-roni Annapolis ‘peace’ meeting is an ultimatum for Israel to set a deadline for establishing a ‘Palestinian’ state. If Israel agrees to everything in advance, everyone can save travel and hotel money by canceling the Annapolis boondoggle. Of course, there won’t be a need for another ‘peace’ meeting because there won’t be an Israel.
Am I the only one who thinks Israel toying with slight cuts of supplies to Gaza is tokenism; a meager response to the daily rocket bombs Israel receives in return for providing terrorists with water, fuel and electricity? Why is Israel afraid to cut everything off until rocket bombs stop raining on Jews? Are they worried about world opinion?.
Diversity is like Forest Gump’s chocolates; you never know what you will get. Groups are complaining that California colleges and faculty are not sufficiently diverse. Forget about getting the best; let’s use a cookie cutter to reflect the assortment in our community. I do not believe that’s the way to make our country the best it can be.
I always wonder why we leave the selection of president and congress to the 10% to 20% of so-called 'independents' who don’t stand for anything. For heaven’s sake independents, learn what’s going on and stop sitting on the fence, you’ll only get splinters on your ass and we may wind up with the worst leading our country.
I wonder why the health care industry is contributing "more" to Democrats than Republicans (actually I wonder why they are contributing to Democrats at all). If Hillary and her kind (and ‘Ahnold’) have their way, there won’t be a health care industry, all we will have are those who work for the government one way or another.
The only good thing that the ridiculous action by New York Governor Eliot Spitzer to give driver licenses to illegal immigrants has done is to call attention to all the reasons why illegal immigrants should not be able to get driver licenses. Not only will illegal folks be able to drive in states that do not grant licenses to them, but a state license can be used for identification, to open bank accounts, to freely travel on airplanes, to go in and out of Canada until passports are required, etc.
If you are a wage earner paying social security taxes, you might want to think twice about voting Democrat for still another reason; a Democrat president will require paying social security taxes on all income, the cap will come off and ‘tax the rich’ juice will come out.
If Democrats can figure out a way to do it, voting ballots would be distributed to al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and all terrorists because they favor a Democrat win in the next election; ‘independents’ take note, do you want to join them?
An environmentally conscious suicide bomber used a bicycle instead of a gas guzzling car to get to where the crowds are to blow himself up and kill innocent people in Iraq. No doubt Nobel-prize winner Al Gore would applaud this environment sensitivity.
Speaking of environment sensitivity, Greg Jackson has raised 10 questions for the man-causes-global-warming crowd. One of these questions will be included in future posts for thoughtful reflection by global warming cultists and ‘independents’ from time-to-time. Here is the first one:
If carbon dioxide is responsible for increasing temperatures on earth, how do you explain the observed temperature increases on Mars (and Neptune) where there are no automobiles, airplanes, or industrial plants emitting CO2?
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
The Oil Industry is Responsible for its Political Predicament
As the oil industry gets pilloried about high gasoline prices, it is interesting to examine how the higher prices come about.
Oil prices jump up and down, (actually, they don’t ’jump’ down so much as trickle down when they do drop), generally in response to events in the middle east, and elsewhere, or which affect the middle east or domestic oil suppliers. This is reasonable because such events cause buyers to panic and cause producers to take advantage of the panic by raising prices. Obviously, if the raw material price goes up, the price of the products made from these raw materials will have to be increased to cover the higher costs. However, the timing of the increased ‘prices’ to consumers is the problem.
After hurricane ‘Katrina’ hit the south eastern coast of the United States, gasoline prices increased immediately, not after a week or two, immediately! It is likely that such a devastating storm would cause a great deal of damage to commercial structures as well as private homes, and it did. A good number of oil processing plants and refineries are located in the hurricane-affected area and gasoline output could be expected to be adversely affected. But why would oil prices increase immediately; surely gasoline in the system at the time did not cost as much.
In the mid east, Iran, an oil supplier, is constantly pounding its chest (her chest?) threatening everyone, especially the United States and Israel. Iraq oil, which should be significant on the world market, is also constantly disrupted by terrorists who, from time-to-time, take their attention away from murdering innocents to blowing up oil pipe lines. Russia once a reasonably dependable supplier of oil to western markets, is taking advantage of their superior position with gas and oil deposits by incorporating political objectives into their marketing practices. Similarly, Venezuela, once our friendly oil 'pumper', has waived its red banners in our face and adopts an Anti-American oil policy under its screwball President Chavez in order to damage America by reducing oil sales to the United States (to the great delight of their new customer, communist China). Each such incident, and others, causes a vacillation, usually upward, of oil prices.
Critics of oil companies for raising gasoline prices are only partially wrong. It is not likely there is any overt, concerted effort by oil companies to increase gasoline prices in unison (the FTC has indeed concluded there was no ‘price fixing’); however they all use a similar but independent approach to gasoline pricing that results in premature immediate elevation of the cost of gasoline at the pump for consumers. Oil industry spokesman have admitted that the pump price of gasoline is related to increasing costs of oil at the source. In other words, as the price of oil is increased, the companies calculate the replacement cost of gasoline produced from the higher priced oil. The gasoline at the pump is then changed to reflect the higher replacement cost. Now this may make sense from an accounting standpoint, but it makes no sense to the consumer in the driver's seat. This pricing practice revalues gasoline already in the gas station reservoir at a higher price than originally purchased by the gasoline station even though no higher cost of production was experienced by virtue of higher oil prices. Thus, the gas station automatically posts higher prices for the same gasoline at the station that was sold at a lower price the day before.
When you buy gasoline, you may encounter a price higher than you saw earlier that day, or yesterday, at the same gas station. This is infuriating; particularly when the price increase is great. The upward revaluation of the price of gasoline ‘already in the pipeline’, which was produced from the previous lower-priced oil, contributes significantly to the increased profits reported by the oil companies. To many of us, this pricing practice is unreasonable, and unfair. Sure, a seller has the right to set any price deemed business-appropriate, but by using the same pricing practice of revaluing the gasoline in inventory, and charging essentially the same price as calculated for ‘replacement’ gasoline, the oil industry, de facto, act in concert to offer uniformly higher gasoline prices to the public, and at the same time table.
The higher gasoline prices do not justify public panic or pandering by politicians, including the congress, but the oil industry would be better served to take into account the public’s reaction to unnecessarily high, and premature, gasoline price increases. To do otherwise will cause the industry to be continually scrutinized and will encourage punitive governmental measures.
Oil prices jump up and down, (actually, they don’t ’jump’ down so much as trickle down when they do drop), generally in response to events in the middle east, and elsewhere, or which affect the middle east or domestic oil suppliers. This is reasonable because such events cause buyers to panic and cause producers to take advantage of the panic by raising prices. Obviously, if the raw material price goes up, the price of the products made from these raw materials will have to be increased to cover the higher costs. However, the timing of the increased ‘prices’ to consumers is the problem.
After hurricane ‘Katrina’ hit the south eastern coast of the United States, gasoline prices increased immediately, not after a week or two, immediately! It is likely that such a devastating storm would cause a great deal of damage to commercial structures as well as private homes, and it did. A good number of oil processing plants and refineries are located in the hurricane-affected area and gasoline output could be expected to be adversely affected. But why would oil prices increase immediately; surely gasoline in the system at the time did not cost as much.
In the mid east, Iran, an oil supplier, is constantly pounding its chest (her chest?) threatening everyone, especially the United States and Israel. Iraq oil, which should be significant on the world market, is also constantly disrupted by terrorists who, from time-to-time, take their attention away from murdering innocents to blowing up oil pipe lines. Russia once a reasonably dependable supplier of oil to western markets, is taking advantage of their superior position with gas and oil deposits by incorporating political objectives into their marketing practices. Similarly, Venezuela, once our friendly oil 'pumper', has waived its red banners in our face and adopts an Anti-American oil policy under its screwball President Chavez in order to damage America by reducing oil sales to the United States (to the great delight of their new customer, communist China). Each such incident, and others, causes a vacillation, usually upward, of oil prices.
Critics of oil companies for raising gasoline prices are only partially wrong. It is not likely there is any overt, concerted effort by oil companies to increase gasoline prices in unison (the FTC has indeed concluded there was no ‘price fixing’); however they all use a similar but independent approach to gasoline pricing that results in premature immediate elevation of the cost of gasoline at the pump for consumers. Oil industry spokesman have admitted that the pump price of gasoline is related to increasing costs of oil at the source. In other words, as the price of oil is increased, the companies calculate the replacement cost of gasoline produced from the higher priced oil. The gasoline at the pump is then changed to reflect the higher replacement cost. Now this may make sense from an accounting standpoint, but it makes no sense to the consumer in the driver's seat. This pricing practice revalues gasoline already in the gas station reservoir at a higher price than originally purchased by the gasoline station even though no higher cost of production was experienced by virtue of higher oil prices. Thus, the gas station automatically posts higher prices for the same gasoline at the station that was sold at a lower price the day before.
When you buy gasoline, you may encounter a price higher than you saw earlier that day, or yesterday, at the same gas station. This is infuriating; particularly when the price increase is great. The upward revaluation of the price of gasoline ‘already in the pipeline’, which was produced from the previous lower-priced oil, contributes significantly to the increased profits reported by the oil companies. To many of us, this pricing practice is unreasonable, and unfair. Sure, a seller has the right to set any price deemed business-appropriate, but by using the same pricing practice of revaluing the gasoline in inventory, and charging essentially the same price as calculated for ‘replacement’ gasoline, the oil industry, de facto, act in concert to offer uniformly higher gasoline prices to the public, and at the same time table.
The higher gasoline prices do not justify public panic or pandering by politicians, including the congress, but the oil industry would be better served to take into account the public’s reaction to unnecessarily high, and premature, gasoline price increases. To do otherwise will cause the industry to be continually scrutinized and will encourage punitive governmental measures.
Congress kept in the dark about “SPP”
President Bush has kept congress in the dark about the Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement (“SPP”) and as a result the United States is inching closer and closer to a North American Union. Although some in congress have a glimmer of the plan, most do not.
What is most troubling is that because SPP is neither a treaty nor formal agreement congressional oversight is virtually non existent and Congress has had no role in what many believe is a plan for a North American Union.
In a paper entitled “Negotiating North America: The Security and Prosperity Partnership”, the authors (Professor Anderson and Mr. Sands) state the stealth intentions of SPP: “The SPP process is the vehicle for the discussion of future arrangements for economic integration to create a single market for goods and services in North America (and)… this design places negotiation fully within the authority of the executive branch in the United States …”
Clearly, by setting up SPP as neither a treaty nor an agreement it is designed to avoid Congress since both would require congressional approval or implementing legislation. Instead, by being entirely within existing administrative authority of the executive branch, rules and standards could be set and law enforcement and national security prerogatives pursued, all within the broad parameters of constitutional executive authority without congressional authorization.
John Whitehead (founder and president of the Rutherford Institute) said, “What George Bush is currently doing is preparing a toolbox of power for the next president, whoever that might be. And the Constitution be damned.” Imagine what a globalist president could do with this power.
Fortunately some in congress have learned about SPP and its consequences. Twenty-two members of the U.S. House of Representatives – 21 Republicans and a Democrat – urged President Bush in a letter to back off his North American integration efforts. They made it clear that continuing any such agenda at this point would be disregarding growing apprehension in Congress about the plans. The letter to Bush noted that there are “serious concerns … by those of us in Congress and by our constituents about this initiative (SPP) – concerns that will only be intensified if pursuit of the SPP continues out of public view and without congressional oversight or approval."
The last paragraph of the letter called upon the president "not to pledge or agree to any further movement in connection with the SPP” at North American summits and the letter concluded, "In the interest of transparency and accountability, we urge you to bring to the Congress whatever provisions have already been agreed upon and those now being pursued or contemplated as part of this initiative, for the purpose of obtaining authorization through the normal legislative process."
Signatories to the letter include Duncan Hunter, R-CA, who offered an amendment to H.R.3074, the Transportation Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008, prohibiting the use of federal funds to participate in SPP-related working group meetings in the future.
One element of SPP is a ‘NAFTA Superhighway’ that will extend from Mexico to Canada, going through Texas northward, and with branches going east to Florida and west to California. It is reported that a Spanish construction company will build the highway and operate it as a toll road.
Congressman Virgil Good, R-VA, has introduced a resolution, H. Con. Res. 40, which urges the United States not to engage in the construction of the NAFTA Superhighway, disapproves of SPP plans to create a North American Union, and asks the president to oppose any proposals that would threaten US sovereignty (from statement by Ron Paul, M.D., R-Tex).
We must contact our representatives and ask them to become aware of SPP and to support those that question SPP and ask the president to keep congress informed.
“When patriot Patrick Henry said ‘I regret I have but one life to give for my country’ - he wasn’t referring to Mexico or Canada.” (Pat Boone).
What is most troubling is that because SPP is neither a treaty nor formal agreement congressional oversight is virtually non existent and Congress has had no role in what many believe is a plan for a North American Union.
In a paper entitled “Negotiating North America: The Security and Prosperity Partnership”, the authors (Professor Anderson and Mr. Sands) state the stealth intentions of SPP: “The SPP process is the vehicle for the discussion of future arrangements for economic integration to create a single market for goods and services in North America (and)… this design places negotiation fully within the authority of the executive branch in the United States …”
Clearly, by setting up SPP as neither a treaty nor an agreement it is designed to avoid Congress since both would require congressional approval or implementing legislation. Instead, by being entirely within existing administrative authority of the executive branch, rules and standards could be set and law enforcement and national security prerogatives pursued, all within the broad parameters of constitutional executive authority without congressional authorization.
John Whitehead (founder and president of the Rutherford Institute) said, “What George Bush is currently doing is preparing a toolbox of power for the next president, whoever that might be. And the Constitution be damned.” Imagine what a globalist president could do with this power.
Fortunately some in congress have learned about SPP and its consequences. Twenty-two members of the U.S. House of Representatives – 21 Republicans and a Democrat – urged President Bush in a letter to back off his North American integration efforts. They made it clear that continuing any such agenda at this point would be disregarding growing apprehension in Congress about the plans. The letter to Bush noted that there are “serious concerns … by those of us in Congress and by our constituents about this initiative (SPP) – concerns that will only be intensified if pursuit of the SPP continues out of public view and without congressional oversight or approval."
The last paragraph of the letter called upon the president "not to pledge or agree to any further movement in connection with the SPP” at North American summits and the letter concluded, "In the interest of transparency and accountability, we urge you to bring to the Congress whatever provisions have already been agreed upon and those now being pursued or contemplated as part of this initiative, for the purpose of obtaining authorization through the normal legislative process."
Signatories to the letter include Duncan Hunter, R-CA, who offered an amendment to H.R.3074, the Transportation Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008, prohibiting the use of federal funds to participate in SPP-related working group meetings in the future.
One element of SPP is a ‘NAFTA Superhighway’ that will extend from Mexico to Canada, going through Texas northward, and with branches going east to Florida and west to California. It is reported that a Spanish construction company will build the highway and operate it as a toll road.
Congressman Virgil Good, R-VA, has introduced a resolution, H. Con. Res. 40, which urges the United States not to engage in the construction of the NAFTA Superhighway, disapproves of SPP plans to create a North American Union, and asks the president to oppose any proposals that would threaten US sovereignty (from statement by Ron Paul, M.D., R-Tex).
We must contact our representatives and ask them to become aware of SPP and to support those that question SPP and ask the president to keep congress informed.
“When patriot Patrick Henry said ‘I regret I have but one life to give for my country’ - he wasn’t referring to Mexico or Canada.” (Pat Boone).
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Some things I think I think
New government figures out today show the top 1% of income earners pay 40% of the taxes and Democrats want the ‘rich” to pay more. You only have to make $105,000/year to be in the top 1%; if you’re in this category do you think you should pay more taxes? If not, why aren’t you voting Republican?
I believe everyone should pay some amount in taxes; otherwise those paying no taxes, which comprise most Americans, will be in favor of raising taxes because they won't be affected.
As an introduction to the post Hillary presidency, the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Charlie Rangel, wants to restore “equity and fairness” to our tax system with a $1 trillion (that’s trillion with a ‘t”) increase in taxes. House Republican leader John Boehner called this the “the mother of all tax hikes” and "a political gift to Republicans"; this is a funny remark but let’s hope Democrats don’t have the ‘last laugh’.
We can all breathe a sigh of relief now, California state regulators are solving the ‘global warming’ problem. The California Air Resources Board has adopted new “mandates” cheered by the Sierra Club. Among the requirements are: all vehicles serviced for a tune up, smog check or oil change must leave the shop with fully inflated tires, and, propellants used in aerosol cans must be changed. Who says bureaucrats don’t know how to get to the heart of the matter!
Women have overcome everything now and have risen to the top of the world; forget about the ‘glass ceiling’. The commander of our space station in orbit is a woman, Peggy Whitson, and she joined the commander of the Discovery space shuttle when they docked together, another woman, Pamela Melroy. (Does this mean ‘you’ve come a ‘long way baby’?)
I believe it’s possible illegal border crossers may avoid Arizona in the future. It seems the Border Patrol there is implementing a new “zero tolerance” policy in coordination with local police authorities. Illegal entrants now face jail time up to six months for the first offence. This seems to be a program that should be implemented across the entire border if local police elsewhere will cooperate.
Proponents of giving criminals a ‘get out of jail free card should be please with the recent action of the Yemen government. It looks like Yemen prisons are successfully rehabilitating their prisoners; the al Quaida mastermind of the USS Cole attack that killed 17 sailors has been freed after “pledging” not to do that again. His death sentence was first commuted to 15 years in jail but now is free to do as he wishes, except of course bombing another US ship since he “pledged” not to do it again.
It should have made headlines but it didn’t. For the first time that I can recall a loss of life tragedy has not been blamed on global warming. The world primates are in danger of extinction but not because Americans are driving gas guzzlers, but because the apes' habitat is being destroyed. Thus, man-made global warming is off the hook but man is not.
I’m not sure I want to be one of the 455 passengers on the new Airbus A380. Unless they have like a hundred toilets, it will be a pretty messy long flight.
The Maytag repairman has long since left the scene but now the Maytag factory in Iowa where Fred Maytag started the company in 1893 has shut down. He introduced the first wooden tub washer in 1907 and the first electric machine in 1911. The Maytag lonely repairman made his debut in 1967 but the factory joins the repairman in history.
As tragic as the southern California fires are, Californians may take heart in one result of the tragedy. Attorney General ‘Moonbeam’ Brown said he is putting off the law suit against the EPA for failing to implement higher emission standards because of the massive wildfires in the state; instead he will sue “next week”. Brown wants California to lead the way to fight back global warming by making cars sold in the state less efficient and more dangerous; cars will have to use ethanol and be smaller and lighter to meet new fuel milage standards.
Stress is up everywhere in the country but according to a USA article you’re either proud of the stress (if you live in the East coast) or to stressed to care (if you live on the west coast). The American Psychological Association conducted the study but tell me, who cares?
A US congressional committee is studying whether to make Puerto Rico a state. It looks like Democrats see another way to increase their majorities after amnesty for illegal aliens failed.
One again France is leading the way (?). The Sarkozy-led government is seeking to institute language exams and DNA testing for prospective immigrants. The reason for the language requirement is obvious and the DNA test is for the purpose of assuring claims of family ties are true. Naturally, socialists and communists are against the proposal.
Another blow to global warming alarmists, but they will shrug it off. Scientists have found that over the past 520 million years four occasions of warming seas have caused extinction of simply gads of species, and humans and their carbon dioxide-emitting life styles were not around. According to a report by the global warming-friendly Associated Press, scientists found there is a “60 million-year cycle that moves from a ‘warmer greenhouse’ to a cooler ‘icehouse’.” Of course, no one will ask the 'warmists' how that phnemenon jibes with the 'man-caused-it theory.
I believe everyone should pay some amount in taxes; otherwise those paying no taxes, which comprise most Americans, will be in favor of raising taxes because they won't be affected.
As an introduction to the post Hillary presidency, the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Charlie Rangel, wants to restore “equity and fairness” to our tax system with a $1 trillion (that’s trillion with a ‘t”) increase in taxes. House Republican leader John Boehner called this the “the mother of all tax hikes” and "a political gift to Republicans"; this is a funny remark but let’s hope Democrats don’t have the ‘last laugh’.
We can all breathe a sigh of relief now, California state regulators are solving the ‘global warming’ problem. The California Air Resources Board has adopted new “mandates” cheered by the Sierra Club. Among the requirements are: all vehicles serviced for a tune up, smog check or oil change must leave the shop with fully inflated tires, and, propellants used in aerosol cans must be changed. Who says bureaucrats don’t know how to get to the heart of the matter!
Women have overcome everything now and have risen to the top of the world; forget about the ‘glass ceiling’. The commander of our space station in orbit is a woman, Peggy Whitson, and she joined the commander of the Discovery space shuttle when they docked together, another woman, Pamela Melroy. (Does this mean ‘you’ve come a ‘long way baby’?)
I believe it’s possible illegal border crossers may avoid Arizona in the future. It seems the Border Patrol there is implementing a new “zero tolerance” policy in coordination with local police authorities. Illegal entrants now face jail time up to six months for the first offence. This seems to be a program that should be implemented across the entire border if local police elsewhere will cooperate.
Proponents of giving criminals a ‘get out of jail free card should be please with the recent action of the Yemen government. It looks like Yemen prisons are successfully rehabilitating their prisoners; the al Quaida mastermind of the USS Cole attack that killed 17 sailors has been freed after “pledging” not to do that again. His death sentence was first commuted to 15 years in jail but now is free to do as he wishes, except of course bombing another US ship since he “pledged” not to do it again.
It should have made headlines but it didn’t. For the first time that I can recall a loss of life tragedy has not been blamed on global warming. The world primates are in danger of extinction but not because Americans are driving gas guzzlers, but because the apes' habitat is being destroyed. Thus, man-made global warming is off the hook but man is not.
I’m not sure I want to be one of the 455 passengers on the new Airbus A380. Unless they have like a hundred toilets, it will be a pretty messy long flight.
The Maytag repairman has long since left the scene but now the Maytag factory in Iowa where Fred Maytag started the company in 1893 has shut down. He introduced the first wooden tub washer in 1907 and the first electric machine in 1911. The Maytag lonely repairman made his debut in 1967 but the factory joins the repairman in history.
As tragic as the southern California fires are, Californians may take heart in one result of the tragedy. Attorney General ‘Moonbeam’ Brown said he is putting off the law suit against the EPA for failing to implement higher emission standards because of the massive wildfires in the state; instead he will sue “next week”. Brown wants California to lead the way to fight back global warming by making cars sold in the state less efficient and more dangerous; cars will have to use ethanol and be smaller and lighter to meet new fuel milage standards.
Stress is up everywhere in the country but according to a USA article you’re either proud of the stress (if you live in the East coast) or to stressed to care (if you live on the west coast). The American Psychological Association conducted the study but tell me, who cares?
A US congressional committee is studying whether to make Puerto Rico a state. It looks like Democrats see another way to increase their majorities after amnesty for illegal aliens failed.
One again France is leading the way (?). The Sarkozy-led government is seeking to institute language exams and DNA testing for prospective immigrants. The reason for the language requirement is obvious and the DNA test is for the purpose of assuring claims of family ties are true. Naturally, socialists and communists are against the proposal.
Another blow to global warming alarmists, but they will shrug it off. Scientists have found that over the past 520 million years four occasions of warming seas have caused extinction of simply gads of species, and humans and their carbon dioxide-emitting life styles were not around. According to a report by the global warming-friendly Associated Press, scientists found there is a “60 million-year cycle that moves from a ‘warmer greenhouse’ to a cooler ‘icehouse’.” Of course, no one will ask the 'warmists' how that phnemenon jibes with the 'man-caused-it theory.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Gun Ownership and Possession
The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... " -- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." --James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."--John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787)
.
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." --Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
"Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."--Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." -- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356
"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."-- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]
"The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ..."-- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
" ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."-- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."-- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789
" ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..."-- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"-- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836
"The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun."-- Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386
"O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone ..."-- Patrick Henry, Elliot p. 3:50-53, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."-- Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6
Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter
how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."-- Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October 1959
"The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally ... enable the people to resist and triumph over them."-- Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833
" ... most attractive to Americans, the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave, it being the ultimate means by which freedom was to be preserved."-- James Burgh, 18th century English Libertarian writer, Shalhope, The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment, p.604
"The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.... [I]f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order."-- Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.... "--Samuel Adams
“We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles ... that we are unable to think about reality."
Anti Gun
"Gun registration is not enough."-- Janet Reno, U.S. Attorney General, Associated Press 10 Dec 1993
"I want to make it as hard as possible. Gun owners would have to be evaluated by how they scored on written and firing tests, and have to pass the tests in order to own a gun. And I would tax the guns, bullets and the license itself very heavily."-- Jocelyn Elders, U.S. Surgeon General, Mother Jones magazine, Jan/Feb '94
"Armas para que?" ("Guns, for what?")-- Fidel Castro, a response to a Cuban citizens who said the people might need to keep their guns, after Castro announced strict gun control in Cuba
"I have made it considerably tougher for residents to get handgun permits."-- Joseph McNamara, Police Chief, San Jose, CA, in his book Safe and Sane, 1984
"The second article of amendment (Second Amendment) to the Constitution of the United States is repealed."-- U.S. House Joint Resolution 438 introduced 11 March 1992 by Congressman Owens, D-NY
" ... we could tax them [firearms] out of existence."-- Daniel Patrick Moynihan, U.S. Senator, Washington Post, 4 Nov 93
"If it were up to me we'd ban them all [firearms]."-- Mel Reynolds, U.S. Congressman, CNN Crossfire, 9 Dec 93
"We're going to have to take this one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily - given the political realities - going to be very modest. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal - total control of all guns- is going to take time ... The final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition - except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs and licensed gun collectors - totally illegal."-- Nelson T. Shields III, Founder of Handgun Control, Inc., New Yorker Magazine, p. 57-58, 26 Jul 1976
"There is no personal right to be armed for private purposes unrelated to the service in a well regulated militia."-- Sarah Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control, Inc., Richmond Times-Dispatch, 6 Jun 97, pg. 6
"We must reverse this psychology (of needing guns for home defense). WE can do it by passing a law that says anyone found in possession a handgun except a legitimate officer of the law goes to jail-period!"-- Carl Rowan, Washington DC Syndicated Columnist, 1981 article
" ... as long as authorities leave this society awash in drugs and guns, I will protect my family."-- Carl Rowan, 1988 article titled "At Least They're Not Writing My Obituary"
"Men possess handguns in order to compensate for sexual dysfunction."-- Dr. Joyce Brothers, Psychiatrist, TV personality** her husband is among NYC elite that has been issued a permit to carry a concealed handgun
"Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority. Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew's possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation ... Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions ... will be punished with imprisonment and a fine.-- Nazi Law, Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons, 11 Nov 1938, German Minister of the Interior
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."-- Adolph Hitler, Hitler's Secret Conversations 403 (Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens trans., 1961)
“We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles ... that we are unable to think about reality."-- Bill Clinton, USA Today, 11 March 93, pg. 2A
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... " -- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." --James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."--John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787)
.
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." --Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
"Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."--Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." -- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356
"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."-- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]
"The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ..."-- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
" ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."-- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."-- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789
" ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..."-- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"-- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836
"The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun."-- Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386
"O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone ..."-- Patrick Henry, Elliot p. 3:50-53, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."-- Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6
Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter
how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."-- Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October 1959
"The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally ... enable the people to resist and triumph over them."-- Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833
" ... most attractive to Americans, the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave, it being the ultimate means by which freedom was to be preserved."-- James Burgh, 18th century English Libertarian writer, Shalhope, The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment, p.604
"The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.... [I]f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order."-- Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.... "--Samuel Adams
“We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles ... that we are unable to think about reality."
Anti Gun
"Gun registration is not enough."-- Janet Reno, U.S. Attorney General, Associated Press 10 Dec 1993
"I want to make it as hard as possible. Gun owners would have to be evaluated by how they scored on written and firing tests, and have to pass the tests in order to own a gun. And I would tax the guns, bullets and the license itself very heavily."-- Jocelyn Elders, U.S. Surgeon General, Mother Jones magazine, Jan/Feb '94
"Armas para que?" ("Guns, for what?")-- Fidel Castro, a response to a Cuban citizens who said the people might need to keep their guns, after Castro announced strict gun control in Cuba
"I have made it considerably tougher for residents to get handgun permits."-- Joseph McNamara, Police Chief, San Jose, CA, in his book Safe and Sane, 1984
"The second article of amendment (Second Amendment) to the Constitution of the United States is repealed."-- U.S. House Joint Resolution 438 introduced 11 March 1992 by Congressman Owens, D-NY
" ... we could tax them [firearms] out of existence."-- Daniel Patrick Moynihan, U.S. Senator, Washington Post, 4 Nov 93
"If it were up to me we'd ban them all [firearms]."-- Mel Reynolds, U.S. Congressman, CNN Crossfire, 9 Dec 93
"We're going to have to take this one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily - given the political realities - going to be very modest. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal - total control of all guns- is going to take time ... The final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition - except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs and licensed gun collectors - totally illegal."-- Nelson T. Shields III, Founder of Handgun Control, Inc., New Yorker Magazine, p. 57-58, 26 Jul 1976
"There is no personal right to be armed for private purposes unrelated to the service in a well regulated militia."-- Sarah Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control, Inc., Richmond Times-Dispatch, 6 Jun 97, pg. 6
"We must reverse this psychology (of needing guns for home defense). WE can do it by passing a law that says anyone found in possession a handgun except a legitimate officer of the law goes to jail-period!"-- Carl Rowan, Washington DC Syndicated Columnist, 1981 article
" ... as long as authorities leave this society awash in drugs and guns, I will protect my family."-- Carl Rowan, 1988 article titled "At Least They're Not Writing My Obituary"
"Men possess handguns in order to compensate for sexual dysfunction."-- Dr. Joyce Brothers, Psychiatrist, TV personality** her husband is among NYC elite that has been issued a permit to carry a concealed handgun
"Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority. Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew's possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation ... Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions ... will be punished with imprisonment and a fine.-- Nazi Law, Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons, 11 Nov 1938, German Minister of the Interior
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."-- Adolph Hitler, Hitler's Secret Conversations 403 (Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens trans., 1961)
“We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles ... that we are unable to think about reality."-- Bill Clinton, USA Today, 11 March 93, pg. 2A
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
My critic ignores real science on global warming
You can always expect global warming fanatics to attack the character of those who disagree with their environmental religious beliefs; and that’s what someone did who disagreed with my article in The Desert Sun "President Bush flip-flops on global warming". Sadly, this person and others of similar thinking rely on the word of political scientists and not the evidence reported by actual scientists that man is not causing the planet to warm.
Apparently the fact that other “powerhouses” (according to my critic these include NASA, NOAA, EPA, etc.) share the same erroneous views seems to be persuasive to those who choose not to think for themselves. In my article I referred to the Hudson Institute as an organization that studied the literature and reported 500 scientists refuted at least one element of the popular global warming notion. Notice I didn’t say Hudson reported their scientific studies, they reported the studies of others. However, because my critic believes Hudson is conservative and thus cannot be trusted, this fact is conveniently ignored in the diatribe about the Hudson Institute. By the way, I also have 78 articles by reputable scientists that dispute man-made global warming theory I would be happy to share with critics.
My comments about the “hockey stick” graph relied upon by proponents were also rejected; however many others believe as I do and with good reason. Climatologist Michael Mann refused to disclose the algorithm behind his massively influential "hockey stick" graph, which purported to demonstrate a sharp up tick in global temperatures over the past century, and Phil Jones of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, reportedly turned down one request for information with the remark, "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"
"The National Academy of Sciences--the board of scientists established by Congress in 1863 to advise the federal government on scientific matters--compiled a comprehensive report in 2002 entitled, Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises. The 244-page report, which contains over 500 references, was written by a team of 59 of the top researchers in climate, and represents the most authoritative source of information about abrupt climate change available. What the scientists found was surprising to many and ignored by advocates of man-made global warming.
Scientists had known from previous ice core and ocean sediment core data that Earth's climate had fluctuated significantly in the past. But what astonished scientists was the rapidity with which these changes occurred. Many of these changes happened in less than 10 years. In at least one case, warming occurred in significantly less than a decade. Most of this doubling in this instance occurred in a single year, and there were no humans around to cause it.
The critic of my article concludes with the remark that I “undercut” my creditability by purportedly misquoting and relying on the Hudson Institute and I am somehow doing a “disservice” to her; however, the reality is that she must undertake “a willful suspension of disbelief" of reality (to quote someone whom she likely admires) to accept the bogus “science” of global warming cultists instead of the hard evidence of true scientists.
Apparently the fact that other “powerhouses” (according to my critic these include NASA, NOAA, EPA, etc.) share the same erroneous views seems to be persuasive to those who choose not to think for themselves. In my article I referred to the Hudson Institute as an organization that studied the literature and reported 500 scientists refuted at least one element of the popular global warming notion. Notice I didn’t say Hudson reported their scientific studies, they reported the studies of others. However, because my critic believes Hudson is conservative and thus cannot be trusted, this fact is conveniently ignored in the diatribe about the Hudson Institute. By the way, I also have 78 articles by reputable scientists that dispute man-made global warming theory I would be happy to share with critics.
My comments about the “hockey stick” graph relied upon by proponents were also rejected; however many others believe as I do and with good reason. Climatologist Michael Mann refused to disclose the algorithm behind his massively influential "hockey stick" graph, which purported to demonstrate a sharp up tick in global temperatures over the past century, and Phil Jones of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, reportedly turned down one request for information with the remark, "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"
"The National Academy of Sciences--the board of scientists established by Congress in 1863 to advise the federal government on scientific matters--compiled a comprehensive report in 2002 entitled, Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises. The 244-page report, which contains over 500 references, was written by a team of 59 of the top researchers in climate, and represents the most authoritative source of information about abrupt climate change available. What the scientists found was surprising to many and ignored by advocates of man-made global warming.
Scientists had known from previous ice core and ocean sediment core data that Earth's climate had fluctuated significantly in the past. But what astonished scientists was the rapidity with which these changes occurred. Many of these changes happened in less than 10 years. In at least one case, warming occurred in significantly less than a decade. Most of this doubling in this instance occurred in a single year, and there were no humans around to cause it.
The critic of my article concludes with the remark that I “undercut” my creditability by purportedly misquoting and relying on the Hudson Institute and I am somehow doing a “disservice” to her; however, the reality is that she must undertake “a willful suspension of disbelief" of reality (to quote someone whom she likely admires) to accept the bogus “science” of global warming cultists instead of the hard evidence of true scientists.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Some things I think I think
First, to the regular readers of this blog, I apologize for the absence of postings this past week. There was an unexpected interruption of my schedule and I was unable to do any writing. Nonetheless, I did have time to think, and here are some of the things I think I think.
I wonder what George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, and even Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan, would think about the following:
I wonder what George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, and even Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan, would think about the following:
- a California Law that prevents use of the terms ‘Mom’ and ‘Dad’ in schools
- federals laws that put protection of rodents and insects ahead of property rights
- the idea that humans can cause climate changes on the planet
- our borders should not be protected to prevent illegal aliens from entering the country
- illegal aliens, once safely here, being entitled to free medical care, free schooling, all civil right of citizens, welfare paid by tax payers, college tuition breaks not available to citizens from other states, a path to citizenship not available to people from other countries that follow immigration law, no worries about inability to speak English because interpreters must be provided to them in official actions, having their babies who are born in this country provide an opportunity for them to acquire legal status and residency, and possible citizenship
- election ballots being required to be printed in multiple languages other than English
- newspapers able to publish government secrets without punishment
- a president that thinks joining the United States with Mexico and Canada is a good idea and sets about to do that secretively
- a Congress that explicitly seeks to undermine our country during wartime and a public news media that assists them
- Supreme Court Justices that believe their court decisions should take into account laws and court decisions of other countries, even when at odds with the U.S. Constitution
- Supreme Court Judges that believe the Constitution is a ‘living document’ and may be interpreted contrary to the intentions of those that wrote the Constitution if it is necessary to accommodate their social views
- a single unelected, life-time appointed judge can thwart the will of the people, the President and the Congress
- the Senate can dictate to the President who should be appointed to government positions requiring the ‘advice and consent’ of the Senate, and how appointees should perform their duties, based entirely upon political ideology and not ability
- one Senator may shout ‘filibuster’ and thereafter 60 Senate votes are required to pass the ‘filibustered’ legislation, even without the inconvenience of that Senator having to speak indefinitely on the Senate floor and being deprived of ‘toilet breaks’
- putting world opinion above our country’s safety and self interest
- preventing our soldiers from taking all action to protect their lives as they try to protect our country and accuse them of criminal acts when in the performance of their duties people indistinguishable from enemy combatants are killed, and court marshalling soldiers because they treat the enemy ‘inhumanely’, even though the enemy mutilates and decapitates captive soldiers
- failing to support our country’s only friend in the middle east surrounded by uncivilized people determined to destroy it, and even dictating to that friend what they must do even if it results in that country’s destruction
- appeasing followers of a bogus ‘religion’ as they act against the principles of our country and take advantage of our way of life even as they denounce it, by granting them special rights and privileges not given to others
- taking God out of schools and public institutions for fear of offending the godless
- perverting our institutions by granting special rights and privileges to a class many consider to be perverts
- attacking Christians and Christianity by denying with the force of law rights and privileges not denied to others, even as we grant special accommodations to followers of bogus religion
- the idea of a 'hate crime' which deserves greater punishment for the same criminal act as when done without 'hate' (what is a 'hate crime' anyway?)
I thought of many more things but I will save them for another time.
Friday, October 12, 2007
The disastrous and expensive Schwarzenegger health plan
We now know what the governor has in store for us. Governor Schwarzenegger has revealed more details of the health plan he wants Californians to accept, and it’s not pretty.
The plan starts with the premise that every Californian, legal resident or not, will have health insurance whether they want it or not. Those who go uncovered will be subject to tax penalties. Of course, if you aren’t paying for it, your neighbors are, why you would turn it down? The cost is estimated to be $14 billion, about $2 billion more than earlier versions.
All adults and children, regardless of their immigration status, will be covered through an expansion of the state and federal 'Healthy Families Program'. "If you can't afford it, the state will help you buy it. But you must be insured," said the governor. "That is number one."
Schwarzenegger’s mandatory health insurance plan requires employers to subsidize the ‘poor’. Under the plan, state tax payers pay for government assistance to lower income people to buy the insurance; tax payer money would go to families of four making as much as $72,000 a year (yet this is not enough for union leaders; they want tax payer assistance for income levels up to about $100,000 a year). Believe it or not, Democrats proposed a plan that would cost more than the governor’s proposal; Schwarzenegger said he would veto it.
Massachusetts has a similar program but according to Peter Harbage, a health care consultant with the New America Foundation, "The governor has gone further than the Massachusetts plan and has added doctors, hospitals and health plans to those who must help pay". Hospitals will be assessed 4 percent of their revenues, while doctors will pay 2 percent.
Although Schwarzenegger has not spelled out exactly how he will enforce his health care mandate, his proposal suggests using a version of the Massachusetts plan to enforce it. If so, the California plan will involve requiring all residents to include their health insurance policy number on their state tax returns to demonstrate coverage. People who fail to do that will lose their personal tax exemption the first time around. Continued failure would cause fines that, in Massachusetts, are equal to half the cost of a standard policy (several thousands of dollars).
These fines might still be much cheaper than buying insurance. In that case, many low income families may prefer to pay the fines or avoid filing taxes altogether rather than buying health coverage. In effect, a program meant to help low-income people could tax them or turn them into criminals.
Doctors are complaining that the cost will be passed along to patients, amounting to a tax on sick people. "A jobs tax on employers and a mandate on small business owners are really a deal killer," said Assembly GOP leader Mike Villines.
Republican legislators say the governor's plan raises taxes, which Schwarzenegger promised not to do during his re-election campaign.
The plan starts with the premise that every Californian, legal resident or not, will have health insurance whether they want it or not. Those who go uncovered will be subject to tax penalties. Of course, if you aren’t paying for it, your neighbors are, why you would turn it down? The cost is estimated to be $14 billion, about $2 billion more than earlier versions.
All adults and children, regardless of their immigration status, will be covered through an expansion of the state and federal 'Healthy Families Program'. "If you can't afford it, the state will help you buy it. But you must be insured," said the governor. "That is number one."
Schwarzenegger’s mandatory health insurance plan requires employers to subsidize the ‘poor’. Under the plan, state tax payers pay for government assistance to lower income people to buy the insurance; tax payer money would go to families of four making as much as $72,000 a year (yet this is not enough for union leaders; they want tax payer assistance for income levels up to about $100,000 a year). Believe it or not, Democrats proposed a plan that would cost more than the governor’s proposal; Schwarzenegger said he would veto it.
Massachusetts has a similar program but according to Peter Harbage, a health care consultant with the New America Foundation, "The governor has gone further than the Massachusetts plan and has added doctors, hospitals and health plans to those who must help pay". Hospitals will be assessed 4 percent of their revenues, while doctors will pay 2 percent.
Although Schwarzenegger has not spelled out exactly how he will enforce his health care mandate, his proposal suggests using a version of the Massachusetts plan to enforce it. If so, the California plan will involve requiring all residents to include their health insurance policy number on their state tax returns to demonstrate coverage. People who fail to do that will lose their personal tax exemption the first time around. Continued failure would cause fines that, in Massachusetts, are equal to half the cost of a standard policy (several thousands of dollars).
These fines might still be much cheaper than buying insurance. In that case, many low income families may prefer to pay the fines or avoid filing taxes altogether rather than buying health coverage. In effect, a program meant to help low-income people could tax them or turn them into criminals.
Doctors are complaining that the cost will be passed along to patients, amounting to a tax on sick people. "A jobs tax on employers and a mandate on small business owners are really a deal killer," said Assembly GOP leader Mike Villines.
Republican legislators say the governor's plan raises taxes, which Schwarzenegger promised not to do during his re-election campaign.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Environmentalists say 'baa' to cutting habitat acreage
How would you like 1,056 acres of government land? Well, if you are a Big Horn Sheep you can enjoy traipsing around this large acreage all by yourself except that you would be part of a 800-sheep herd sharing 844,897 acres of ‘critical habitat’; land set aside in 1966 during the Clinton administration for so-called ‘threatened species’. There are about 30 Big Horn Sheep in the Coachella Valley, a small number of the total. It’s not clear how much of the 800,000 plus acres of ‘Critical Habitat’ is included in this acreage for the 30 sheep in the valley but you can bet it is at least over 1,000 acres per sheep.
The powerful U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (if you don’t think they are ‘powerful’, you try to restrict use of 800,000 acres) has proposed cutting the total set-aside acreage by about 300,000 acres or so and the environmentalists are in an uproar. In a classic example of hyperbole, Joan Taylor of the Sierra Club said upon hearing of the suggested cut, "They’re dooming them to be land locked". It seems Joan is concerned that 30 sheep in the Coachella Valley, of the 800 total, would lose their migratory passage way to go "live in the wild in Mexico".
Now being an environmental dunce, I didn’t know our very own valley sheep who live in the ‘wild’ in the valley want to go to Mexico to live in the wild there. Perhaps they want to get away from the valley heat in the summer, but no, that can’t be the case because it is probably hotter in the Mexican summer unless they go to the Mexican coast. How about that, our valley's Big Horn Sheep are a version of ‘Snow Birds’.
The Aqua Caliente tribe sued to exclude 4,512 acres of their land from the set aside acreage. Perhaps this law suit is what prompted the powerful Fish and Wildlife Service to revisit the amount of acreage set aside although the reason given by the Fish and Wildlife Service for the cut is "new information" received. I wonder if the new information is that since 1,000 sheep were released ‘into the wild’ in the 70’s, and another 100 in 1985, other wild animals like mountain lions, and/or disease, has whittled the herd down to 30 sheep in the valley. In any case, the government officials say the Big Horn Sheep aren’t using all the land they have now, but that doesn’t persuade the environmentalists.
The powerful U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (if you don’t think they are ‘powerful’, you try to restrict use of 800,000 acres) has proposed cutting the total set-aside acreage by about 300,000 acres or so and the environmentalists are in an uproar. In a classic example of hyperbole, Joan Taylor of the Sierra Club said upon hearing of the suggested cut, "They’re dooming them to be land locked". It seems Joan is concerned that 30 sheep in the Coachella Valley, of the 800 total, would lose their migratory passage way to go "live in the wild in Mexico".
Now being an environmental dunce, I didn’t know our very own valley sheep who live in the ‘wild’ in the valley want to go to Mexico to live in the wild there. Perhaps they want to get away from the valley heat in the summer, but no, that can’t be the case because it is probably hotter in the Mexican summer unless they go to the Mexican coast. How about that, our valley's Big Horn Sheep are a version of ‘Snow Birds’.
The Aqua Caliente tribe sued to exclude 4,512 acres of their land from the set aside acreage. Perhaps this law suit is what prompted the powerful Fish and Wildlife Service to revisit the amount of acreage set aside although the reason given by the Fish and Wildlife Service for the cut is "new information" received. I wonder if the new information is that since 1,000 sheep were released ‘into the wild’ in the 70’s, and another 100 in 1985, other wild animals like mountain lions, and/or disease, has whittled the herd down to 30 sheep in the valley. In any case, the government officials say the Big Horn Sheep aren’t using all the land they have now, but that doesn’t persuade the environmentalists.
How local newspapers slant the 'news' you get
If you get your news from a local newspaper, chances are you are getting the Associated Press version of the days events. Unfortunately, this ‘news’ is tainted and very likely not very objective. There are many examples in my local newspaper; I’m sure your paper is no different.
A front page AP article says derisively Medicaid spending is rising; "the biggest increase since 2001", and "states will feel the pinch". However, one has to read to the sixth paragraph to learn that the increase is due to efforts by many states to cover the "uninsured" and states rely heavily upon the federal government paying the costs through Medicaid and children’s health programs. Why should it be surprising that costs increase if states extend coverage to uninsured who are likely to be illegal immigrants?
The AP continues to paint our soldiers in Iraq and those helping them in a bad light. On the same page two AP articles first proclaim "Knowing enemy can be tough in former insurgent areas of Iraq" because it is difficult to distinguish insurgents from regular Iraqis. But in an effort to destroy public opinion about assistance from a private contractor, Blackwater USA, another article tells the story about an Iraqi probe urging prosecution of Blackwater personnel for killing two Iraqi women who refused to stop at a check point when requested. Are the troops supposed to put themselves at risk from possible suicide bombers to avoid criticism?
The United States spent $126 billion to repair and reconstruct New Orleans and help its residents after hurricane Katrina, not to mention the billions of dollars provided by private donations. The Marshall plan after WW II cost Americans $106 billion in aid to sixteen countries in today’s dollars. Yet the AP laments in another article that "Almost 40% of the people displaced from New Orleans by hurricane Katrina are still below the poverty line" and are in "dire straits". It seems to me the government could have given New Orleans residents a million dollars each and it would still be criticized by the press (and it probably would have been cheaper too).
The one that gets my goat is the AP article that says according to a poll, "Economy increasingly seen as worrisome". The article goes on to say that "A growing number of people say the economy is the nation’s top problem … according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll Tuesday". How in the world could anyone able to read not realize that the stock market is at a record high level, unemployment remains at about 4.6%, inflation is low, mortgage and other interest rates remain low, and our 401 K investments are booming along; yet the AP would have us believe the economy is "worrisome". Perhaps the AP can’t remember how things were under Jimmy Carter, or that the Democrats want to cancel the Bush tax cuts that are responsible for the good economic times today.
It is amazing to me that as the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan drags on and killings continue daily, for some reason the Afghanistan war is free of criticism in the press unlike the Iraq war. A recent AP article said that after six years in Afghanistan, "America is planning for a long stay", and without any of the snide remarks the liberal press uses when describing the war in Iraq. Staying in Afghanistan seems to be politically correct but we must get out of Iraq yesterday. Can it be because the Afghanistan war does not have the political significance of the Iraq war? The Democrat Party and their willing accomplices at the Associated Press evidently think so. By the way, ‘saving’ Afghanistan didn’t help the folks there much, they still practice Sharia law; so much for ‘democracy’. Of course this would be something the press should shout about but Democrats wouldn’t get much mileage from that so the press ignores it.
A front page AP article says derisively Medicaid spending is rising; "the biggest increase since 2001", and "states will feel the pinch". However, one has to read to the sixth paragraph to learn that the increase is due to efforts by many states to cover the "uninsured" and states rely heavily upon the federal government paying the costs through Medicaid and children’s health programs. Why should it be surprising that costs increase if states extend coverage to uninsured who are likely to be illegal immigrants?
The AP continues to paint our soldiers in Iraq and those helping them in a bad light. On the same page two AP articles first proclaim "Knowing enemy can be tough in former insurgent areas of Iraq" because it is difficult to distinguish insurgents from regular Iraqis. But in an effort to destroy public opinion about assistance from a private contractor, Blackwater USA, another article tells the story about an Iraqi probe urging prosecution of Blackwater personnel for killing two Iraqi women who refused to stop at a check point when requested. Are the troops supposed to put themselves at risk from possible suicide bombers to avoid criticism?
The United States spent $126 billion to repair and reconstruct New Orleans and help its residents after hurricane Katrina, not to mention the billions of dollars provided by private donations. The Marshall plan after WW II cost Americans $106 billion in aid to sixteen countries in today’s dollars. Yet the AP laments in another article that "Almost 40% of the people displaced from New Orleans by hurricane Katrina are still below the poverty line" and are in "dire straits". It seems to me the government could have given New Orleans residents a million dollars each and it would still be criticized by the press (and it probably would have been cheaper too).
The one that gets my goat is the AP article that says according to a poll, "Economy increasingly seen as worrisome". The article goes on to say that "A growing number of people say the economy is the nation’s top problem … according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll Tuesday". How in the world could anyone able to read not realize that the stock market is at a record high level, unemployment remains at about 4.6%, inflation is low, mortgage and other interest rates remain low, and our 401 K investments are booming along; yet the AP would have us believe the economy is "worrisome". Perhaps the AP can’t remember how things were under Jimmy Carter, or that the Democrats want to cancel the Bush tax cuts that are responsible for the good economic times today.
It is amazing to me that as the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan drags on and killings continue daily, for some reason the Afghanistan war is free of criticism in the press unlike the Iraq war. A recent AP article said that after six years in Afghanistan, "America is planning for a long stay", and without any of the snide remarks the liberal press uses when describing the war in Iraq. Staying in Afghanistan seems to be politically correct but we must get out of Iraq yesterday. Can it be because the Afghanistan war does not have the political significance of the Iraq war? The Democrat Party and their willing accomplices at the Associated Press evidently think so. By the way, ‘saving’ Afghanistan didn’t help the folks there much, they still practice Sharia law; so much for ‘democracy’. Of course this would be something the press should shout about but Democrats wouldn’t get much mileage from that so the press ignores it.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Sanctuary Cities
We all need sanctuary from time-to-time; the problem is trying to find it. Well, illegal aliens don’t have difficulty finding sanctuary; all they have to do is look on a map. That's because many cities across the country call themselves a "sanctuary city," one of dozens across the United States. In these cities illegal immigrants need not worry about a ‘knock on the door at night’, or even during the day, because they have policies directing local police and other officials to stay out of immigration matters.
Since ‘we’, you and I not Congress, defeated the amnesty-laden comprehensive immigration deal Congress and the President wanted, supporters of illegal immigrants have found a way to get around public opinion. Local police forces are on the battle front on illegal immigration because they often see criminals who came from south of the border to make “a better life for themselves” but who have taken the easier way through crime rather than “taking jobs American’s won’t do”. In “sanctuary cities’, police have been told to stay out of immigration matters and don’t ask criminals “Are you in this country legally?”
Supporters of sanctuary cities use the lame excuse that "If police are seen as immigration enforcers, members of immigrant communities will simply be afraid to talk to them". David Harris, a law professor at the University of Toledo in Ohio and author of "Good Cops," a book on preventive policing says "When that kind of fear is rampant in the community, the predators know this right away." He cites Austin, Texas, which experienced a lot of violence against illegal immigrants carrying large amounts of cash. His solution which unfortunately has been adopted in many cities: offer identification cards for immigrants to open bank accounts and get the word out that police weren't interested in immigration status. No doubt the same reasoning could be applied to other criminals; after all any criminal would be reluctant to go to the police for any reason lest they be caught by the ‘long arm of the law’.
Oakland and San Francisco have led the way in providing sanctuary to illegal border-crossers. These cities and Baltimore have their own version of “don’t ask don’t tell” so illegal immigrants can safely clog up hospital emergency rooms without worry about deportation and the pregnant ones can safely give birth to anchor babies who will assure them of permanent residency and, eventually, citizenship.
Representative Ginny Brown-Waite (R of Florida) introduced a bill to withhold government funds from sanctuary cities. The Congresswoman said, “Imagine that … one of the … 9/11 hijackers, who were in the country illegally, had a city they could reside in to plot terrorist attacks with no fear of ever being checked or deported.” She may well have also cited a recent case in New Jersey where an illegal immigrant allegedly led an attack that killed three people. The suspect was out on bail for other indictments before the killings despite his immigration status; this information didn’t reach federal immigration officials because Newark is a sanctuary city.
For its part, federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) says that while sanctuary policies won't stop its agents from enforcing immigration law in a sanctuary city, it does "make it harder." These cities could be depriving themselves of valuable ICE assistance, such as Operation Community Shield, an anti-gang effort that has used immigration enforcement to arrest more than 6,000 gang members.
The Justice Department has found a technological way to assist police in immigration enforcement. In 2001, the department began adding immigration warrants into a national database once reserved for wanted felons. During any routine stop, police may query the database, except of course in sanctuary cities.
Since ‘we’, you and I not Congress, defeated the amnesty-laden comprehensive immigration deal Congress and the President wanted, supporters of illegal immigrants have found a way to get around public opinion. Local police forces are on the battle front on illegal immigration because they often see criminals who came from south of the border to make “a better life for themselves” but who have taken the easier way through crime rather than “taking jobs American’s won’t do”. In “sanctuary cities’, police have been told to stay out of immigration matters and don’t ask criminals “Are you in this country legally?”
Supporters of sanctuary cities use the lame excuse that "If police are seen as immigration enforcers, members of immigrant communities will simply be afraid to talk to them". David Harris, a law professor at the University of Toledo in Ohio and author of "Good Cops," a book on preventive policing says "When that kind of fear is rampant in the community, the predators know this right away." He cites Austin, Texas, which experienced a lot of violence against illegal immigrants carrying large amounts of cash. His solution which unfortunately has been adopted in many cities: offer identification cards for immigrants to open bank accounts and get the word out that police weren't interested in immigration status. No doubt the same reasoning could be applied to other criminals; after all any criminal would be reluctant to go to the police for any reason lest they be caught by the ‘long arm of the law’.
Oakland and San Francisco have led the way in providing sanctuary to illegal border-crossers. These cities and Baltimore have their own version of “don’t ask don’t tell” so illegal immigrants can safely clog up hospital emergency rooms without worry about deportation and the pregnant ones can safely give birth to anchor babies who will assure them of permanent residency and, eventually, citizenship.
Representative Ginny Brown-Waite (R of Florida) introduced a bill to withhold government funds from sanctuary cities. The Congresswoman said, “Imagine that … one of the … 9/11 hijackers, who were in the country illegally, had a city they could reside in to plot terrorist attacks with no fear of ever being checked or deported.” She may well have also cited a recent case in New Jersey where an illegal immigrant allegedly led an attack that killed three people. The suspect was out on bail for other indictments before the killings despite his immigration status; this information didn’t reach federal immigration officials because Newark is a sanctuary city.
For its part, federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) says that while sanctuary policies won't stop its agents from enforcing immigration law in a sanctuary city, it does "make it harder." These cities could be depriving themselves of valuable ICE assistance, such as Operation Community Shield, an anti-gang effort that has used immigration enforcement to arrest more than 6,000 gang members.
The Justice Department has found a technological way to assist police in immigration enforcement. In 2001, the department began adding immigration warrants into a national database once reserved for wanted felons. During any routine stop, police may query the database, except of course in sanctuary cities.
Monday, October 8, 2007
The Changing Times - Loss of Civility
Maybe it’s a generational thing, but even at age 72, I still refer to ‘older’ people as Mr. Mrs., Miss., and not by their first name unless I know them. Therefore, it is somewhat annoying to go to a bank, or the like, and have someone that wasn’t born yet when I opened my bank account call me ‘Vince’. Not only do I dislike being called ‘Vince’ instead of ‘Vincent’, but the overly familiar address to me by a child of the times is to me disrespectful.
This kind of encounter today is also an indication of how low we have fallen from the days not long ago when people made an effort to ‘not disrespect’ each other while criticizing. Can you, like me, remember when it was appropriate for those that disagreed to do so respectfully? We don’t need to go back to the formation of our country for examples, we can look back a mere 30 or 40 years ago, perhaps less, when disagreeing politicians did not resort to name calling or outright lies to disparage an opponent. Yet today, we have an entire political party, whose symbol is, appropriately enough, a ‘jackass’, with members that resort to the harshest of rhetoric, no doubt because they have no intelligent arguments to advance instead.
Throughout the news media, incredible labels are used to refer to President Bush, and conservatives, (I deliberately don’t use the term Republicans because many Republicans that disagree with conservatives are media darlings). It is quite common to see the president and conservatives identified in the "news" as ‘terrorists’, ‘idiots’, ‘liars’, ‘traitors’, and worse. When language skills of these critics rise to the level of the ability to create phrases, we are told that conservatives ‘want to kill children or old people’, ‘want to take the food out of the mouths of the unfortunate that have not won life’s lottery’, ‘have lied us into war’ or ‘terrorized poor Iraqi people’. I am sure you can add many, many more examples; all you have to do is pick up the local newspaper or tune in to major network news.
It is more than shameful to see or hear prominent people, some of them "so-called" leaders, speak in these terms about honorable, well meaning people. The constant barrage of this hyperbole is very infuriating. The fury is made worse by the lack of repudiation of such absurdities by conservatives. It may not be easy to mount a similar offensive without the majority news media as allies, but there are ways to get the correct message to the American people to counter distortions and lies. The president is in the best position of all to do this because of the ability to use the ‘bully pulpit’. However there are other means available.
During the Clinton administration, hardly a day would go by without some spokesman or other, sometimes cabinet members, and usually more than one, going on television singing the praises of the most morally corrupt president in history. How many times did we hear that performing a sexual act in the oval office was not important and in any case, was a private matter? (I shudder to think what a ‘public’ matter would be, performing on the White House lawn?) Probably the most absurd of all was the excuses given by Clintonistas that lying under oath about sex was all right and not worthy of condemnation.
What the conservatives need are articulate voices, of whom there are many, that will constantly appear on the TV ‘news’ and other shows to address the liberals and their nonsensical allegations and accusations. American people on the whole are fairly capable of sorting the trash, but as Goebbels showed the world, lies repeated loud enough and often enough can be effective to sway public opinion.
This kind of encounter today is also an indication of how low we have fallen from the days not long ago when people made an effort to ‘not disrespect’ each other while criticizing. Can you, like me, remember when it was appropriate for those that disagreed to do so respectfully? We don’t need to go back to the formation of our country for examples, we can look back a mere 30 or 40 years ago, perhaps less, when disagreeing politicians did not resort to name calling or outright lies to disparage an opponent. Yet today, we have an entire political party, whose symbol is, appropriately enough, a ‘jackass’, with members that resort to the harshest of rhetoric, no doubt because they have no intelligent arguments to advance instead.
Throughout the news media, incredible labels are used to refer to President Bush, and conservatives, (I deliberately don’t use the term Republicans because many Republicans that disagree with conservatives are media darlings). It is quite common to see the president and conservatives identified in the "news" as ‘terrorists’, ‘idiots’, ‘liars’, ‘traitors’, and worse. When language skills of these critics rise to the level of the ability to create phrases, we are told that conservatives ‘want to kill children or old people’, ‘want to take the food out of the mouths of the unfortunate that have not won life’s lottery’, ‘have lied us into war’ or ‘terrorized poor Iraqi people’. I am sure you can add many, many more examples; all you have to do is pick up the local newspaper or tune in to major network news.
It is more than shameful to see or hear prominent people, some of them "so-called" leaders, speak in these terms about honorable, well meaning people. The constant barrage of this hyperbole is very infuriating. The fury is made worse by the lack of repudiation of such absurdities by conservatives. It may not be easy to mount a similar offensive without the majority news media as allies, but there are ways to get the correct message to the American people to counter distortions and lies. The president is in the best position of all to do this because of the ability to use the ‘bully pulpit’. However there are other means available.
During the Clinton administration, hardly a day would go by without some spokesman or other, sometimes cabinet members, and usually more than one, going on television singing the praises of the most morally corrupt president in history. How many times did we hear that performing a sexual act in the oval office was not important and in any case, was a private matter? (I shudder to think what a ‘public’ matter would be, performing on the White House lawn?) Probably the most absurd of all was the excuses given by Clintonistas that lying under oath about sex was all right and not worthy of condemnation.
What the conservatives need are articulate voices, of whom there are many, that will constantly appear on the TV ‘news’ and other shows to address the liberals and their nonsensical allegations and accusations. American people on the whole are fairly capable of sorting the trash, but as Goebbels showed the world, lies repeated loud enough and often enough can be effective to sway public opinion.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Why do ‘Guest Workers’ need to get citizenship?
For as long as the illegal immigration problem has been around, advocates for illegal immigrants have tried to impress everyone that those coming here illegally are merely trying to get a job and earn money; therefore, we should not punish them for violating our laws by entering the United States illegally.
Every 20-years or so, congress wakes up to the illegal immigration problem and proposes a ‘cure’. The last time congressional slumber was aroused, laws were passed to give ‘amnesty’ to millions of illegal immigrants here at that time. This ‘cure’ did not halt the tide of illegal immigration, in fact, it increased. Also increased were the cost of welfare and other entitlements, burdens on local communities around the country, especially in the southwest, and burdens and cost of healthcare. Hospital emergency rooms continue to function as local general medical practitioners, straining resources and sometimes making it difficult for ‘emergency rooms’ to be available for actual medical emergencies. Although illegal immigrants are certainly not the only source of crime, crime increases unnecessarily with the added criminal pool.
Now we have congress members stepping all over themselves to produce the latest ‘cure’ for illegal immigration, unfortunately led by the president himself. Many proposals are in the mix, but all envision some sort of ‘guest worker’ program. Such a program is deemed necessary by business that covets low cost labor, and Democrats that see an expanded dependency class that will vote for them, if everyone will agree to another amnesty provision that will add to voter rolls. However, since ‘amnesty’ has become a dirty word for many, sort of like the word ‘liberal’, supporters have to lie and say their proposals are not ‘amnesty’; the proposals only permit citizenship after those here illegally ‘pay’ a price. The payment may be a fine, and/or a requirement to work here at sub par wages for some period of time. Thus, this is not considered ‘amnesty’ because the illegal immigrant will have earned their right to citizenship. But citizenship in the United States should not be a prize to be awarded for violating our country’s laws. Only immigrants who comply with U. S. laws should qualify for citizenship.
Unfortunately for Orwellian doublespeak supporters of illegal immigrants, words still have recognized meanings, that is, until changed by liberal dictionary writers. According to my Funk and Wagnall’s (not really, it’s my unabridged Random House Dictionary), the word ‘amnesty’ means in the case of law “an act of forgiveness for past offenses, esp. to a class of persons as a whole”. Also mentioned, actually as the first definition, is “a general pardon for offenses, esp. political offenses, against a government, often granted before any trial or conviction”. The accepted definition of amnesty does not exclude crime violators who have to ‘stand in the back’ of the citizenship line, or who pay for citizenship, or who are willing to work for very low wages a while before getting to become a citizen. When a crime is committed, the offender is only excused from conviction and punishment by, you guessed it, AMNESTY.
So I will not be confused with the many who only criticize but offer no solutions, I do have a real ‘cure’ for the illegal immigration problem.
This is what I propose: a real guest worker program but without granting citizenship opportunity to actual guest workers coming to the United States “to get a job and earn money for themselves and their families, and who are willing to take a job Americans will not do”; the latter is another of the mantras offered by illegal immigrant supporters. There is no need to also offer a carrot of citizenship; after all, we are told that is not the motivation of illegal immigrants anyway. Here then is my eight-point program (I reserve the right to add other terms to the program as I think of them):
1. Establish a procedure whereby a non-citizen who wishes to work in the United States may complete a simple application form, providing name and other data to enable a criminal background check (the non-citizen applicant need not only be from Mexico); after a suitable, but short, period of time during which the background check will be completed, the applicant returns to get a time-limited, distinguishable, guest worker entry card which may be used to gain entry and employment and as a residence permit, or is refused because of failure to be approved in the background check. One application for a guest worker card must be completed for each guest worker. Families of guest workers are not encompassed by a guest worker card for lawful entry into the United States, and residence.
2. Anyone knowingly hiring an employee not a citizen who does not have a valid guest worker card, and anyone seeking employment without a valid guest worker card, should be guilty of a felony.
3. Anyone knowingly assisting illegal entry into the United States should be guilty of a felony. Anyone assisting illegal immigrants in the United States by providing humanitarian aid should not be guilty of a crime, but anyone assisting someone to violate any law in this country should be also guilty of a crime.
4. Anyone remaining in the United States after expiration of their guest worker card will be returned to their home country and refused admission thereafter. Those desiring to renew a guest worker card may do so before expiration but another application must be filed and another criminal background check must be completed before a renewal may be issued.
5. Guest workers are obligated to pay federal, state and local taxes while in the United States, but not social security taxes. Guest workers must also purchase health insurance for themselves and their families if the family is created while a resident of the United States while here, or make arrangements for their employer to provide them and their family with paid health insurance. Guest workers will not be entitled to receive social security benefits.
6. Children of guest workers born in the United States must not be automatically entitled to U. S. citizenship. The alternative of deporting pregnant women to their home country prior to delivery is not acceptable so it is imperative that citizenship is not granted to guest workers or their offspring.
7. Guest workers may qualify for certain, particular government benefits. Examples of such benefits may be: education for their children in grades K to 12 in public schools (but “in-state tuition” to college should not be allowed unless citizens of other states receive the same treatment); housing benefits equal to citizens of equal income levels; food benefits equal to citizens of equal income levels; clothing benefits, if any, equal to citizens of equal income levels; and other benefits to be determined as a matter of fairness. The foregoing should apply to guest workers already here who have properly registered and received legal guest worker status as such, but not to other illegal aliens.
8. The Mexican border should be unconditionally strengthened. We should construct a suitable wall or other effective technical barrier on our entire border, with appropriate entry check points. Those who equate this with the Berlin Wall are sadly mistaken; the Berlin Wall was to keep people inside, our wall is to keep unauthorized people out of our country. This is imperative for security and border control. It will have the additional benefit of assisting with limiting entry of narcotics. Laws regarding illegal entry and other restrictions must be vigorously enforced. If adequate numbers of border control agents are not available, National Guard troops should be deployed at the border after suitable training and with all equipment necessary. National Guard deployments should be for limited, specific predetermined terms for each guardsman, and should not be unduly long.
Every 20-years or so, congress wakes up to the illegal immigration problem and proposes a ‘cure’. The last time congressional slumber was aroused, laws were passed to give ‘amnesty’ to millions of illegal immigrants here at that time. This ‘cure’ did not halt the tide of illegal immigration, in fact, it increased. Also increased were the cost of welfare and other entitlements, burdens on local communities around the country, especially in the southwest, and burdens and cost of healthcare. Hospital emergency rooms continue to function as local general medical practitioners, straining resources and sometimes making it difficult for ‘emergency rooms’ to be available for actual medical emergencies. Although illegal immigrants are certainly not the only source of crime, crime increases unnecessarily with the added criminal pool.
Now we have congress members stepping all over themselves to produce the latest ‘cure’ for illegal immigration, unfortunately led by the president himself. Many proposals are in the mix, but all envision some sort of ‘guest worker’ program. Such a program is deemed necessary by business that covets low cost labor, and Democrats that see an expanded dependency class that will vote for them, if everyone will agree to another amnesty provision that will add to voter rolls. However, since ‘amnesty’ has become a dirty word for many, sort of like the word ‘liberal’, supporters have to lie and say their proposals are not ‘amnesty’; the proposals only permit citizenship after those here illegally ‘pay’ a price. The payment may be a fine, and/or a requirement to work here at sub par wages for some period of time. Thus, this is not considered ‘amnesty’ because the illegal immigrant will have earned their right to citizenship. But citizenship in the United States should not be a prize to be awarded for violating our country’s laws. Only immigrants who comply with U. S. laws should qualify for citizenship.
Unfortunately for Orwellian doublespeak supporters of illegal immigrants, words still have recognized meanings, that is, until changed by liberal dictionary writers. According to my Funk and Wagnall’s (not really, it’s my unabridged Random House Dictionary), the word ‘amnesty’ means in the case of law “an act of forgiveness for past offenses, esp. to a class of persons as a whole”. Also mentioned, actually as the first definition, is “a general pardon for offenses, esp. political offenses, against a government, often granted before any trial or conviction”. The accepted definition of amnesty does not exclude crime violators who have to ‘stand in the back’ of the citizenship line, or who pay for citizenship, or who are willing to work for very low wages a while before getting to become a citizen. When a crime is committed, the offender is only excused from conviction and punishment by, you guessed it, AMNESTY.
So I will not be confused with the many who only criticize but offer no solutions, I do have a real ‘cure’ for the illegal immigration problem.
This is what I propose: a real guest worker program but without granting citizenship opportunity to actual guest workers coming to the United States “to get a job and earn money for themselves and their families, and who are willing to take a job Americans will not do”; the latter is another of the mantras offered by illegal immigrant supporters. There is no need to also offer a carrot of citizenship; after all, we are told that is not the motivation of illegal immigrants anyway. Here then is my eight-point program (I reserve the right to add other terms to the program as I think of them):
1. Establish a procedure whereby a non-citizen who wishes to work in the United States may complete a simple application form, providing name and other data to enable a criminal background check (the non-citizen applicant need not only be from Mexico); after a suitable, but short, period of time during which the background check will be completed, the applicant returns to get a time-limited, distinguishable, guest worker entry card which may be used to gain entry and employment and as a residence permit, or is refused because of failure to be approved in the background check. One application for a guest worker card must be completed for each guest worker. Families of guest workers are not encompassed by a guest worker card for lawful entry into the United States, and residence.
2. Anyone knowingly hiring an employee not a citizen who does not have a valid guest worker card, and anyone seeking employment without a valid guest worker card, should be guilty of a felony.
3. Anyone knowingly assisting illegal entry into the United States should be guilty of a felony. Anyone assisting illegal immigrants in the United States by providing humanitarian aid should not be guilty of a crime, but anyone assisting someone to violate any law in this country should be also guilty of a crime.
4. Anyone remaining in the United States after expiration of their guest worker card will be returned to their home country and refused admission thereafter. Those desiring to renew a guest worker card may do so before expiration but another application must be filed and another criminal background check must be completed before a renewal may be issued.
5. Guest workers are obligated to pay federal, state and local taxes while in the United States, but not social security taxes. Guest workers must also purchase health insurance for themselves and their families if the family is created while a resident of the United States while here, or make arrangements for their employer to provide them and their family with paid health insurance. Guest workers will not be entitled to receive social security benefits.
6. Children of guest workers born in the United States must not be automatically entitled to U. S. citizenship. The alternative of deporting pregnant women to their home country prior to delivery is not acceptable so it is imperative that citizenship is not granted to guest workers or their offspring.
7. Guest workers may qualify for certain, particular government benefits. Examples of such benefits may be: education for their children in grades K to 12 in public schools (but “in-state tuition” to college should not be allowed unless citizens of other states receive the same treatment); housing benefits equal to citizens of equal income levels; food benefits equal to citizens of equal income levels; clothing benefits, if any, equal to citizens of equal income levels; and other benefits to be determined as a matter of fairness. The foregoing should apply to guest workers already here who have properly registered and received legal guest worker status as such, but not to other illegal aliens.
8. The Mexican border should be unconditionally strengthened. We should construct a suitable wall or other effective technical barrier on our entire border, with appropriate entry check points. Those who equate this with the Berlin Wall are sadly mistaken; the Berlin Wall was to keep people inside, our wall is to keep unauthorized people out of our country. This is imperative for security and border control. It will have the additional benefit of assisting with limiting entry of narcotics. Laws regarding illegal entry and other restrictions must be vigorously enforced. If adequate numbers of border control agents are not available, National Guard troops should be deployed at the border after suitable training and with all equipment necessary. National Guard deployments should be for limited, specific predetermined terms for each guardsman, and should not be unduly long.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Some things I think I think
Arresting illegal aliens seems to make more headlines than apprehending murderers. If a serial killer was nabbed it’s hard to imagine it would concern more people than finding illegal immigrants, but then a serial killer probably doesn’t have as many relatives.
President Bush finally used the veto pen to turn back a bad bill but why can’t the administration actually give the best reason for doing it. The S-Chip legislation (as it is now referred to because some people had trouble mispronouncing SCHIP as it was called earlier) contains so many more undesirable features than the increased cost to $30 billion, which Bush cites but is not the best reason to scrap it. When a law calls 25-year olds "children", you know the Democrats have a different agenda than simply providing health care for poor kids.
It looks like do-gooder anti-Americans are not satisfied with arresting American soldiers for what they do in Iraq, they now want to send hired "contractors" ("Blackwater USA) to jail if they make mistakes while killing bad guys in Iraq. You have to wonder whose side our congress is on; while we worry about how we fight the Iraq war, terrorists laugh at us and continue to kill Americans and Iraqis without restraint by any means at their disposal.
Recently a homosexual was in a group that killed a homosexual and the killers are accused of a "hate crime" (murder is not enough you know). What do we do when one homosexual kills another homosexual and is accused of a ‘hate crime’? Are homosexuals who kill other homosexuals exempt from hate crime laws?
It makes me laugh to read that the Florida Democrat Party is suing the National Democrat Party over the early primary thing. One hopes they both spend a lot of money on attorney fees.
Under the heading "huh?", the Administration is praising diplomats for getting new promises from North Korea intended to shut down the North Korean nuclear weapon program, but will "keep secret’ what the United states promised in return. Does that sound like some in our government don’t really think we made a good deal? I’m not sure what any deal with north Korea is worth anyway; it’s not like North Koreans keep their promises, just ask Bill Clinton and Jimma Cotta.
A court reporter in a San Diego court was caught reading the bible with some friends in an empty jury room during her lunch break and was told to knock it off. Apparently weight watcher groups and birthday celebrants have used empty jury rooms before but bible study is a no-no. I wonder what God thinks about that. Is it only Christians who are forbidden from public premises? Will they install footbaths in court houses for Muslims like they do in some airports? (Whew, stinko!)
I wonder what they were thinking in New York State when they started issuing driver licenses to illegal aliens. Drivers’ licenses from one state are recognized in all other states and are commonly used for identification purposes; how many times have you been asked to show your drivers license for identification? Looks like from now on terrorists will be able to legally drive cars to targets themselves.
If I was starving I would really appreciate "half a loaf". But when it comes to legislating about principles, I’m not a "half a loaf" person. That’s why I don’t understand conservative law makers that go along with proposed laws that may contain some good parts but also include unacceptable provisions that intrude on our rights and privileges or just make no common sense; examples are the now vetoed S-Chip and proposed immigration laws, both of which contain too many bad things to mention. The same may be said of the Law of the Sea Treaty (‘LOST’) Bush is trying to push through Congress.
According to a recent poll I read Hillary Clinton is leading Rudy Giuliani by a sizable margin in head-to-head polling; that’s enough to make me give up reading.
Speaking of Hillary, it amazes me that anyone believes someone with the malleable views Hillary spews in her speeches on different days should be president. In a national emergency a 'President' Hillary would have to delay responding until a focus group poll is taken.
I wonder if all the people in favor of gun control do not themselves have guns for home defense or otherwise; those that do are hypocrites of the worse sort.
President Bush finally used the veto pen to turn back a bad bill but why can’t the administration actually give the best reason for doing it. The S-Chip legislation (as it is now referred to because some people had trouble mispronouncing SCHIP as it was called earlier) contains so many more undesirable features than the increased cost to $30 billion, which Bush cites but is not the best reason to scrap it. When a law calls 25-year olds "children", you know the Democrats have a different agenda than simply providing health care for poor kids.
It looks like do-gooder anti-Americans are not satisfied with arresting American soldiers for what they do in Iraq, they now want to send hired "contractors" ("Blackwater USA) to jail if they make mistakes while killing bad guys in Iraq. You have to wonder whose side our congress is on; while we worry about how we fight the Iraq war, terrorists laugh at us and continue to kill Americans and Iraqis without restraint by any means at their disposal.
Recently a homosexual was in a group that killed a homosexual and the killers are accused of a "hate crime" (murder is not enough you know). What do we do when one homosexual kills another homosexual and is accused of a ‘hate crime’? Are homosexuals who kill other homosexuals exempt from hate crime laws?
It makes me laugh to read that the Florida Democrat Party is suing the National Democrat Party over the early primary thing. One hopes they both spend a lot of money on attorney fees.
Under the heading "huh?", the Administration is praising diplomats for getting new promises from North Korea intended to shut down the North Korean nuclear weapon program, but will "keep secret’ what the United states promised in return. Does that sound like some in our government don’t really think we made a good deal? I’m not sure what any deal with north Korea is worth anyway; it’s not like North Koreans keep their promises, just ask Bill Clinton and Jimma Cotta.
A court reporter in a San Diego court was caught reading the bible with some friends in an empty jury room during her lunch break and was told to knock it off. Apparently weight watcher groups and birthday celebrants have used empty jury rooms before but bible study is a no-no. I wonder what God thinks about that. Is it only Christians who are forbidden from public premises? Will they install footbaths in court houses for Muslims like they do in some airports? (Whew, stinko!)
I wonder what they were thinking in New York State when they started issuing driver licenses to illegal aliens. Drivers’ licenses from one state are recognized in all other states and are commonly used for identification purposes; how many times have you been asked to show your drivers license for identification? Looks like from now on terrorists will be able to legally drive cars to targets themselves.
If I was starving I would really appreciate "half a loaf". But when it comes to legislating about principles, I’m not a "half a loaf" person. That’s why I don’t understand conservative law makers that go along with proposed laws that may contain some good parts but also include unacceptable provisions that intrude on our rights and privileges or just make no common sense; examples are the now vetoed S-Chip and proposed immigration laws, both of which contain too many bad things to mention. The same may be said of the Law of the Sea Treaty (‘LOST’) Bush is trying to push through Congress.
According to a recent poll I read Hillary Clinton is leading Rudy Giuliani by a sizable margin in head-to-head polling; that’s enough to make me give up reading.
Speaking of Hillary, it amazes me that anyone believes someone with the malleable views Hillary spews in her speeches on different days should be president. In a national emergency a 'President' Hillary would have to delay responding until a focus group poll is taken.
I wonder if all the people in favor of gun control do not themselves have guns for home defense or otherwise; those that do are hypocrites of the worse sort.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
The “carbon-offset” Scam
Nothing displays the hypocrisy of the global warming alarmists better than the idea of ‘carbon-offsets’. This is a scheme that lets environmentalists sleep at night even though they foul the air with CO2 and contribute, according to their preaching, to warming of the planet. People like Al Gore can continues to pollute the minds of gullible followers while they live in palatial mansions using many times more electricity than common folks if they assuage their conscience by “purchasing carbon-offsets”; in the case of Al Gore from a company he owns.
The theoretical purpose of carbon-offsets is to enable those who are troubled by an inability or unwillingness to reduce their own carbon emissions to ‘save the planet’ by paying conscience money to a company who is supposed to use the money paid to do something that compensates for a profligate life style. For example, someone wanting to fly or travel via a carbon emitting vehicle, plane or car, can pay for planting a tree to ‘offset’ CO2 produced by the vehicle.
There are two kinds of carbon-offsets available for the gullible to buy: ‘green tags’ and ‘carbon credits’.
‘Green Tags’ are renewable energy certificates that purport to show your money has been used to produce ‘clean energy’ from wind farms or solar panels; devices that are expected to produce equivalent amounts of energy as produced from CO2 producing sources such as coal-fired power plants.
‘Carbon Credits’ can be also purchased but buyers may or may not receive ‘certificates’. Money for carbon credits is supposed to be used to reduce CO2 by planting trees.
It appears that almost anything creating CO2 can be offset. Examples of environmentally concerned businesses attempting to do environmental goodness either out of sincerity or to incur goodwill abound. The Discovery Channel has joined with Green Mountain Energy Co. to find ways to offset CO2 generated by their support vehicles used in the Tour de France bicycle race; how they will do this is unreported though their intentions make headlines.
Bill Burtis, communications manager for a non profit, Clean Air-Cool Planet, that promotes “solutions to global warming” says “It’s grown to a billion-dollar industry”. But the industry is unregulated and recent reports show those buying carbon-offsets find that money they spent did not reduce carbon emissions. Is it surprising to anyone that the carbon-offset industry may be fraudulent?
In Kansas, Troy Helming created a business plan. His message was that donating $30/month to him would help save the planet from global warming. Helming sold ‘green tags’ to people who expected the money would be invested to offset CO2. Despite raising hundred of thousands of dollars to build wind turbines, Helming has only built one small turbine, a $25,000 demonstration model.
The law caught up with Helming, somewhat. He agreed to repay two investors $21,115 and another $18,000 to a state fund, and he lost a $500,000 house to foreclosure. In spite of all the bad publicity about his carbon-offset business, Helming still retains about 130 ‘customers’ for his ‘green tags’ who make monthly payments to him.
Although one may say Troy Helming was unsuccessful; the same cannot be said of Al Gore. The former Vice President has a mansion in Nashville that consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, citing data from the Nashville Electric Service. The Center reports that since the release of Al Gore's critical global warming film, the Gore family’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kilowatt-hours per month in 2005, to 18,400 per month in 2006, nearly four times that of the average American household.
Gore says he and his family live a "carbon neutral life style”, meaning he offsets energy usage, including plane flights and car trips, by "purchasing verifiable reductions in CO2 elsewhere." But it turns out he pays for his extra-large carbon usage to Generation Investment Management, a London-based company with offices in Washington, D.C., for which he serves as chairman, and of which he is a significant owner. "In other words, he 'buys' his 'carbon offsets' from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to him. To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy 'carbon offsets' through Generation Investment Management – he buys stocks”, one reporter writes. Gore likely makes a lot of money from his promotion of the alleged "global warming" threat, a threat disputed by many mainstream scientists.
Interestingly, Generation Investment Management's U.S. branch is headed by a former Gore staffer and fund-raiser, Peter S. Knight, who once was the target of probes by the Federal Election Commission and the Department of Justice for election fraud.
The theoretical purpose of carbon-offsets is to enable those who are troubled by an inability or unwillingness to reduce their own carbon emissions to ‘save the planet’ by paying conscience money to a company who is supposed to use the money paid to do something that compensates for a profligate life style. For example, someone wanting to fly or travel via a carbon emitting vehicle, plane or car, can pay for planting a tree to ‘offset’ CO2 produced by the vehicle.
There are two kinds of carbon-offsets available for the gullible to buy: ‘green tags’ and ‘carbon credits’.
‘Green Tags’ are renewable energy certificates that purport to show your money has been used to produce ‘clean energy’ from wind farms or solar panels; devices that are expected to produce equivalent amounts of energy as produced from CO2 producing sources such as coal-fired power plants.
‘Carbon Credits’ can be also purchased but buyers may or may not receive ‘certificates’. Money for carbon credits is supposed to be used to reduce CO2 by planting trees.
It appears that almost anything creating CO2 can be offset. Examples of environmentally concerned businesses attempting to do environmental goodness either out of sincerity or to incur goodwill abound. The Discovery Channel has joined with Green Mountain Energy Co. to find ways to offset CO2 generated by their support vehicles used in the Tour de France bicycle race; how they will do this is unreported though their intentions make headlines.
Bill Burtis, communications manager for a non profit, Clean Air-Cool Planet, that promotes “solutions to global warming” says “It’s grown to a billion-dollar industry”. But the industry is unregulated and recent reports show those buying carbon-offsets find that money they spent did not reduce carbon emissions. Is it surprising to anyone that the carbon-offset industry may be fraudulent?
In Kansas, Troy Helming created a business plan. His message was that donating $30/month to him would help save the planet from global warming. Helming sold ‘green tags’ to people who expected the money would be invested to offset CO2. Despite raising hundred of thousands of dollars to build wind turbines, Helming has only built one small turbine, a $25,000 demonstration model.
The law caught up with Helming, somewhat. He agreed to repay two investors $21,115 and another $18,000 to a state fund, and he lost a $500,000 house to foreclosure. In spite of all the bad publicity about his carbon-offset business, Helming still retains about 130 ‘customers’ for his ‘green tags’ who make monthly payments to him.
Although one may say Troy Helming was unsuccessful; the same cannot be said of Al Gore. The former Vice President has a mansion in Nashville that consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, citing data from the Nashville Electric Service. The Center reports that since the release of Al Gore's critical global warming film, the Gore family’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kilowatt-hours per month in 2005, to 18,400 per month in 2006, nearly four times that of the average American household.
Gore says he and his family live a "carbon neutral life style”, meaning he offsets energy usage, including plane flights and car trips, by "purchasing verifiable reductions in CO2 elsewhere." But it turns out he pays for his extra-large carbon usage to Generation Investment Management, a London-based company with offices in Washington, D.C., for which he serves as chairman, and of which he is a significant owner. "In other words, he 'buys' his 'carbon offsets' from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to him. To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy 'carbon offsets' through Generation Investment Management – he buys stocks”, one reporter writes. Gore likely makes a lot of money from his promotion of the alleged "global warming" threat, a threat disputed by many mainstream scientists.
Interestingly, Generation Investment Management's U.S. branch is headed by a former Gore staffer and fund-raiser, Peter S. Knight, who once was the target of probes by the Federal Election Commission and the Department of Justice for election fraud.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Bush flip flops on warming
It looks like President Bush is jumping on the ‘global warming band wagon’; until now Bush has sensibly refrained from casting his line in the water with the alarmists that pin planet warming on ‘greenhouse emissions’. Not only did the President initiate an international conference on the subject, but he called on the world's polluters to set a goal for reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that he now claims are causing the climate to heat up; and he didn't exempt the United States from the list. Not to be outdone by Al Gore and others of the same religious global warming zeal, Bush said:
"By setting this goal, we acknowledge there is a problem, and by setting this goal, we commit ourselves to doing something about it. We share a common responsibility to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while keeping our economies growing."
Just how this would be done was not proposed. In any case, our President has now committed the country to embark on a policy based on the erroneous assumption that ‘greenhouse gasses’, namely CO2, are responsible for warming planet Earth, seemingly in ways never experienced before the onslaught of the plant by humans in their quest to live better lives than animals and aborigines.
Unfortunately for the rest of us Americans, Bush, as so many of the global warming cultists do, ignores the plethora of evidence set forth by actual scientists, not political scientists, that establishes beyond doubt man and CO2 are not responsible for this warming. This proof is persuasive to anyone that keeps an open mind and is willing to make the effort to read the scientific reports from experts the alarmists casually dismiss as “global warming deniers”. If we and CO2 are innocent of the forthcoming ‘calamities’ of climate change, then any effort advocated by President Bush and Al Gore will be to no avail and will merely be an ultra expensive effort to diminish our quality of life.
A new peer-reviewed scientific study counters a major premise of global warming theory, concluding carbon dioxide was not responsible for ending the last ice age. The study, led by University of Southern California geologist Lowell Stott, concluded deep-sea temperatures rose 1,300 years before the rise in atmospheric CO2, which would rule out greenhouse gas as the main agent of the meltdown. "There has been this continual reference to the correspondence between CO2 and climate change as reflected in ice core records as justification for the role of CO2 in climate change," said Stott. "You can no longer argue that CO2 alone caused the end of the ice ages." (This will be published in Science magazine.)
Another new study published in Science refutes the "Hockey Stick" temperature graph, used by man-made global warming alarmists such as Al Gore to argue for a recent spike in average global temperature after centuries of relative stability. Stott's new study suggests the rise in greenhouse gas likely was a result of warming, not the cause of it.
It has been recently reported by the Hudson Institute* that a new analysis of peer-reviewed literature indicated more than 500 scientists published evidence refuting the current man-made global warming alarm. The assessment supports another study that revealed carbon dioxide levels were largely irrelevant to global warming. [I have a number of these and will furnish them upon request to gioia@gte.net]
The newest analysis was released by Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery, who said of the 500 scientists who have refuted at least one element of the popular notion of global warming, more than 300 have found evidence that a natural 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warming periods similar to the current condition since the last Ice Age and that such warming periods are linked to variations in the sun's irradiance.
Avery said "this data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850.
Avery further noted "Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm periods were good for people. It was the harsh, unstable Dark Ages and Little Ice Age that brought bigger storms, untimely frost, widespread famine and plagues of disease”; if he is right, and I think he is, we have something good to look forward to, not the calamity we are supposed to believe.
President Bush, you have been taken in by world opinion again; that’s pretty mild compared to what Rush Limbaugh had to say about this. Rush ridiculed the administration's flip-flop on global warming, wondering aloud before millions of listeners whether things would have been much different had Al Gore won the presidency.
*Hudson Institute is a non-partisan policy research organization dedicated to innovative research and analysis that promotes global security, prosperity, and freedom. An Internationally recognized think tank and public policy research organization, located in Washington, D.C., that forecasts trends and develops solutions for governments, businesses and the public.
"By setting this goal, we acknowledge there is a problem, and by setting this goal, we commit ourselves to doing something about it. We share a common responsibility to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while keeping our economies growing."
Just how this would be done was not proposed. In any case, our President has now committed the country to embark on a policy based on the erroneous assumption that ‘greenhouse gasses’, namely CO2, are responsible for warming planet Earth, seemingly in ways never experienced before the onslaught of the plant by humans in their quest to live better lives than animals and aborigines.
Unfortunately for the rest of us Americans, Bush, as so many of the global warming cultists do, ignores the plethora of evidence set forth by actual scientists, not political scientists, that establishes beyond doubt man and CO2 are not responsible for this warming. This proof is persuasive to anyone that keeps an open mind and is willing to make the effort to read the scientific reports from experts the alarmists casually dismiss as “global warming deniers”. If we and CO2 are innocent of the forthcoming ‘calamities’ of climate change, then any effort advocated by President Bush and Al Gore will be to no avail and will merely be an ultra expensive effort to diminish our quality of life.
A new peer-reviewed scientific study counters a major premise of global warming theory, concluding carbon dioxide was not responsible for ending the last ice age. The study, led by University of Southern California geologist Lowell Stott, concluded deep-sea temperatures rose 1,300 years before the rise in atmospheric CO2, which would rule out greenhouse gas as the main agent of the meltdown. "There has been this continual reference to the correspondence between CO2 and climate change as reflected in ice core records as justification for the role of CO2 in climate change," said Stott. "You can no longer argue that CO2 alone caused the end of the ice ages." (This will be published in Science magazine.)
Another new study published in Science refutes the "Hockey Stick" temperature graph, used by man-made global warming alarmists such as Al Gore to argue for a recent spike in average global temperature after centuries of relative stability. Stott's new study suggests the rise in greenhouse gas likely was a result of warming, not the cause of it.
It has been recently reported by the Hudson Institute* that a new analysis of peer-reviewed literature indicated more than 500 scientists published evidence refuting the current man-made global warming alarm. The assessment supports another study that revealed carbon dioxide levels were largely irrelevant to global warming. [I have a number of these and will furnish them upon request to gioia@gte.net]
The newest analysis was released by Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery, who said of the 500 scientists who have refuted at least one element of the popular notion of global warming, more than 300 have found evidence that a natural 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warming periods similar to the current condition since the last Ice Age and that such warming periods are linked to variations in the sun's irradiance.
Avery said "this data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850.
Avery further noted "Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm periods were good for people. It was the harsh, unstable Dark Ages and Little Ice Age that brought bigger storms, untimely frost, widespread famine and plagues of disease”; if he is right, and I think he is, we have something good to look forward to, not the calamity we are supposed to believe.
President Bush, you have been taken in by world opinion again; that’s pretty mild compared to what Rush Limbaugh had to say about this. Rush ridiculed the administration's flip-flop on global warming, wondering aloud before millions of listeners whether things would have been much different had Al Gore won the presidency.
*Hudson Institute is a non-partisan policy research organization dedicated to innovative research and analysis that promotes global security, prosperity, and freedom. An Internationally recognized think tank and public policy research organization, located in Washington, D.C., that forecasts trends and develops solutions for governments, businesses and the public.
Add another protected class, why not?
The United States has more ‘protected’ classes than any other country. For those who live in whatever passes for the equivalent of outer Mongolia in the United States, without access to information of any sort, a ‘protected’ class is a group of people with similar characteristics that have legal rights superior to those not in a protected class, and upon whom actions deemed to be offensive to the ‘class’ are criminalized in a special way with greater penalty than when such acts are inflicted on ‘non class’ victims.
Historically protected classes, meaning classes that have been protected for long periods of time, include: blacks (i.e. usually ‘African Americans as opposed to ‘Americans’, but which may include all ‘people of color’ in addition to those descendent from Africans), the disabled and women. To the historically protected classes we now include by virtue of judicial and/or political decisions: those of the Muslim religion (i.e. not Christians), anyone the ACLU represents, ‘native Americans’ (i.e. Indians other than those from India, but see ‘people of color’ above), criminals injured by their victims in the course of committing crimes, those not owning or possessing guns, illegal aliens in general (including illegal aliens confronted by U.S. border agents acting in self defense against illegal aliens but excluding those hiring illegal aliens), enemy combatants apprehended in the course of attacking American soldiers and those imprisoned (as well as enemy combatants actually still in combat), those earning what Democrats consider ‘below the poverty level’ (or on welfare), and on-and on (you can add any I didn’t list).
Liberals are now lining up to create another protected class – homosexuals. A recent headline announced “Historic breakthroughs seen for gay-rights [read, homosexual] bills in Congress”. It seems ‘a reshaped’ Congress [read, Democrat congress] is likely to pass the “first major federal gay-rights [read, oh never mind] bills. Anticipating support by Republicans-in-name-only, it is believed a so-called ‘hate-crimes’ bill covering what liberals consider offenses motivated by anti-homosexual bias (‘anti-gay bias’), and a bill outlawing workplace discrimination ‘based on sexual orientation’. For good measure, and to be all inclusive for those to be covered by the extended 'protected class', congress can be expected to also include 'transsexuals'.
Regarding hate crimes legislation, two things are noteworthy. First, if a heterosexual is clobbered, the ‘clobberer’ (sic) is not penalized as much as if he perpetrated the same crime on a homosexual. The bill is not clear what penalty applies for crimes against a bi-sexual, or merely a cross-dresser, but it can be assumed it would apply to a ‘trans-sexual’ (see a dictionary for definition).
Secondly, motivation for the crime is a ‘sticky wicket’ because it requires going into the head of the perp. An entire industry, psychoanalysis, exists to penetrate reasons for human behavior, generally with little uniform success. Yet, we are expected to believe that prosecutors, jurists and juries will be able to peer into the minds of criminals having the misfortune of selecting a homosexual as a crime victim. Or perhaps, we will select only those with proper medical education and training to assume the roll of police, prosecutor, judge or jury members for ‘hate crimes’. Since these things are not possible, the law will likely assume that a criminal act against a homosexual will have been ‘motivated’ by anti-homosexual bias, and no further proof will be required.
Although both bills are a danger to freedom of speech (since verbal assaults deemed to reflect homosexual bias will also be criminal or at least actionable) and to religious liberties. In an act of hypocrisy, the bill will likely exempt churches and small businesses from the workplace bill in order to get votes for passage. Ironically, the workplace bill will be entitled “The Employment Non-Discrimination Act” or ‘ENDA’ for short. It will certainly be the ENDA of common sense.
With his history of a peculiar sense of righteousness (look at Bush’s views about border control and citizenship for illegal aliens here) and lack of understanding consequences (remember the McCain-Feingold law); we cannot assume President Bush would veto such legislation so get used to another protected class being added to the federal list.
Historically protected classes, meaning classes that have been protected for long periods of time, include: blacks (i.e. usually ‘African Americans as opposed to ‘Americans’, but which may include all ‘people of color’ in addition to those descendent from Africans), the disabled and women. To the historically protected classes we now include by virtue of judicial and/or political decisions: those of the Muslim religion (i.e. not Christians), anyone the ACLU represents, ‘native Americans’ (i.e. Indians other than those from India, but see ‘people of color’ above), criminals injured by their victims in the course of committing crimes, those not owning or possessing guns, illegal aliens in general (including illegal aliens confronted by U.S. border agents acting in self defense against illegal aliens but excluding those hiring illegal aliens), enemy combatants apprehended in the course of attacking American soldiers and those imprisoned (as well as enemy combatants actually still in combat), those earning what Democrats consider ‘below the poverty level’ (or on welfare), and on-and on (you can add any I didn’t list).
Liberals are now lining up to create another protected class – homosexuals. A recent headline announced “Historic breakthroughs seen for gay-rights [read, homosexual] bills in Congress”. It seems ‘a reshaped’ Congress [read, Democrat congress] is likely to pass the “first major federal gay-rights [read, oh never mind] bills. Anticipating support by Republicans-in-name-only, it is believed a so-called ‘hate-crimes’ bill covering what liberals consider offenses motivated by anti-homosexual bias (‘anti-gay bias’), and a bill outlawing workplace discrimination ‘based on sexual orientation’. For good measure, and to be all inclusive for those to be covered by the extended 'protected class', congress can be expected to also include 'transsexuals'.
Regarding hate crimes legislation, two things are noteworthy. First, if a heterosexual is clobbered, the ‘clobberer’ (sic) is not penalized as much as if he perpetrated the same crime on a homosexual. The bill is not clear what penalty applies for crimes against a bi-sexual, or merely a cross-dresser, but it can be assumed it would apply to a ‘trans-sexual’ (see a dictionary for definition).
Secondly, motivation for the crime is a ‘sticky wicket’ because it requires going into the head of the perp. An entire industry, psychoanalysis, exists to penetrate reasons for human behavior, generally with little uniform success. Yet, we are expected to believe that prosecutors, jurists and juries will be able to peer into the minds of criminals having the misfortune of selecting a homosexual as a crime victim. Or perhaps, we will select only those with proper medical education and training to assume the roll of police, prosecutor, judge or jury members for ‘hate crimes’. Since these things are not possible, the law will likely assume that a criminal act against a homosexual will have been ‘motivated’ by anti-homosexual bias, and no further proof will be required.
Although both bills are a danger to freedom of speech (since verbal assaults deemed to reflect homosexual bias will also be criminal or at least actionable) and to religious liberties. In an act of hypocrisy, the bill will likely exempt churches and small businesses from the workplace bill in order to get votes for passage. Ironically, the workplace bill will be entitled “The Employment Non-Discrimination Act” or ‘ENDA’ for short. It will certainly be the ENDA of common sense.
With his history of a peculiar sense of righteousness (look at Bush’s views about border control and citizenship for illegal aliens here) and lack of understanding consequences (remember the McCain-Feingold law); we cannot assume President Bush would veto such legislation so get used to another protected class being added to the federal list.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
