March 31, 2011
"The president has argued our interests and our values cannot be separated. These values have caused the people of Libya to risk their lives on the street."
White House aide Samantha Power aka Mrs. Cass Sunstein
Hmm. If our interests and our values cannot be seperated, why did Mr. Obama resist the invasion of Iraq so strongly? Saddam made Qaddafi look like a piker, killing over a million Kurds alone. If values are the reason, why wasn't Mr. Obama the first in line to support George W. Bush?
Also, who promoted democracy in the Middle East first? Obama hasn't lifted a finger; Bush went into Iraq as a STRATEGY to encourage democratic uprisings.
I might add, why didn't Obama support the uprising in Iran two years ago? Our values would have been advanced far better by getting rid of the terror master when we had the chance. He stuck to his isolationism then - now that we have no real interests in removing a thug who was at least cooperating with us in the war against Al Qaeda and in fact may be promoting our Islamic enemies to control of Libya he is all for it. The hypocrisy is beyond staggering.
What Mrs. Sunstein really means is OUR LEFTIST INTERESTS AND VALUES are being promoted here. ACORN is in the Mideast organizing for change, as are a number of unions most notably SEIU. These dominoes aren't falling over by gravity; there is purpose behind them, and I believe that purpose is the destruction of Israel and the removal of the U.S. as the major player in the oil-rich fields of Greater Araby. Remember, the goal of radical leftists like Samantha Powers, Cass Sunstein, Van Jones, etc. is to remake the world in a socialist image, and to do that the U.S. must be brought to heel. Nothing beyond that is as important. The U.S. refused to play ball with Global Warming, so the oil has to be cut off. Obama has largely accomplished this by refusing to allow drilling, and yet he encourages drilling by other nations (where his chum George Soros has money invested, like Petrobras in Brazil). We must also get rid of those Zionist Crusaders in Israel, and support the oppressed peoples of the world aka Muslims (funny; I thought a sign of oppression was killing someone for changing religion or speaking their minds, yet the Islamic world represents the oppressed to these fools). A strong Islamic world means a weaker West, and that is just fine by the architects of the New World Order.
I suspect Central Intelligence knows exactly who is in the rebel movement, but are under orders not to say. I suspect Barack Obama knows, too.
But you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, and if we have to see an Islamic Republic that persecutes it's own people and exports jihad (something that leftists always want - revolution requires chaos, and jihad helps them in the work they are doing in Wisconsin and other places) oh well!
So what Samantha Powers says is correct in a technical sense. Obama believes that values and interests are tied - just not the values and interests of the People of these United States. He means the values of community organizers, of agitators, of rebels and socialists and those who revile and defile our way of life.
March 30, 2011
Perhaps one of the sneakiest tricks used by the media to buttress their case for Global Warming, er, Climate Change, is to make the following statement:
"In the scientific community, there is no debate about climate change".
That comment was a direct quote from Melanie Reding, education coordinator for the Jacques Cousteau Coastal Education Center.
Now, far be it from me to criticize education coordinators, but what is true and what is not true in this statement? First, climate change is a fact of life, and the Earth has had climate change as long as it has had an atmosphere. This truism seems beyond education coordinators, but what they heck. (It should be pointed out that she goes on to complain of increases in parasites resulting from climate change, and I almost thought she was talking about education coordinators and the others who make their living from pimping this issue, but then I found she meant actual creatures in the sea.) So, the first defense of AGW alarmism is to say that SCIENTISTS say there is climate change. This is a true statement, because yes, scientists admit we had a warming trend. It is an untrue statement because there is much dispute about why we had that trend, and what it means.
The second statement made in this piece:
"Reding cited an article reporting that 97 of 100 climate experts say humans are changing global temperatures. The article, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" by P. Doran and M. Zimmerman, was published in 2009 in Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union.
"From the media, you'd think there is a debate," she said. While public opinion remains divided, climatologists agree that climate change has accelerated, she said."
These are also technically true statements, but they are all big whoppers because they tell only part of the story. Humans ARE changing global temperatures; every campfire increases the planetary temperature by a small percentage. Roger Pielke Sr., for example, believes that much of the observed planetary warming is a result of changing land use, changes instituted by humans. The so-called Urban Heat Island Effect raises temperatures in growing cities, for instance. Wherever energy is used temperatures rise by a fraction. Even if we make the statement that carbon dioxide is driving temperature increases many would agree - up to a point. Roger Revelle, the popularizer and chief pioneer of the theory, understood the logarithmic nature of the temperature increases, and believed it would crap out at about 2*.
The argument is in the nature of the crisis - or lack thereof. Are feedbacks positive, meaning they lead to more warming and more positive feedbacks as the AGW alarmists and the IPCC claim, or are they negative, meaning they tamp down the loop and the planet cools back down? All real-world evidence points to negative feedbacks, while the computer models suggest positive. We all know how computer models work; garbage in, garbage out. These models had pre-conceived ideas, and the assumptions of the modelers influence their functioning powerfully. It should be pointed out that these models failed miserably to predict current conditions based on data from the past.
Also, the cliam "Climatologists agree that climate change has accelerated" is also technically true; back in the 1970's they were predicting an ice age, and so, yes, it is accelerating. It's accelerating from the Little Ice Age, too. It all depends upon your starting point. If one were to take rainfall data for the Mississippi river basin starting in 1993 (the year of the great flood) you would conclude we were in a serious drought.
This is how you lie with plausible deniability. If this education coordinator - or the author of the piece, one Paula Scully, were to bother to do a Google search, or even to ask me, I could supply the names of numerous scientists - both climatologists and in other fields - who disagree with the alarmist conclusions. Try the authors of the NIPCC, for instance. Try the Oregon Petition. Try the Heidelberg initiative, the Leipzig petition. Does not John Christy, one of the IPCC authors, not qualify in this regard? Does not Roy Spencer, or Timothy Ball, Or Patrick Michaels? I could go on and on.
A large number of meteorologists think this is nonsense, by the way.
Oh, and Michael Douglass is a climatologist who signed the Oregon petition, by the way; the critics use his name to say the signiatures are fraudulent. There are two actors named Michael Douglass (one goes by Keaton), a deceased talk show host, and a climatologist. Yes, environmental activists have acted as agent-provocateurs, signing names like Brittany Spears, but whose fault is that? Even if one says many of the names on these many petitions are fraudulent, there are still a huge number of names that are legitimate. As many, or more, than those supporting the hysterical AGW view.
Here are a few other names:
Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, University of Auckland, New Zealand:
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden:
Dr. Paul Reiter, Professor - Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France
Dr. Mitchell Taylor, Manager, Wildlife Research Section, Department of Environment, Igloolik, Nunavut, Canada:
Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada:
Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, California:
Dr. R. M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia:
Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, formerly advisor to the World Meteorological Organization/climatology research scientist at University of Exeter, U.K.
Rob Scagel, forest microclimate specialist, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, British Columbia, Canada.
Dr. Charles Wax of Mississippi State University
I could go on and on - especially with physicists and other non-climatologists such as the late Frederick Seitz, former AAAS President, but you get the point.
It is entirely possible to tell a lie using true statements, and this article does precisely that.
Looks like a little global warming is good for the biosphere! Also, said warming is largely attributable to changes in the Arctic Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation - changes that are not attributable to increases in greenhouse gases, according to a new study.
So what is the problem with Climate Change? Where's the disruption?
March 29, 2011
He makes some great points; don't miss it.
After over a week of active intervention in Libya without Congressional input whatsoever, Barack Obama finally addresses the nation with his explanation.
Pardon me if I find it a tad self-serving.
He has done precisely what he accused Bush of doing - except he has WORLD authorization to act. That is clearly what he wanted; a precedent that says the U.N. trumps the American Congress.
His justification? He was afraid of a slaughter. He isn't worried about slaughter in Darfur, in Syria, in Iran, in China, in any of the places experiencing uprisings where the local tyrant seeks to hold on. No, only in Libya. Well, Libya's opposition is crawling with Al Qaeda, more than likely, and we are fighting for our enemies here. There is no compelling U.S. interest in Libya, and Secretary of Defense Bill Gates has admitted as much.
No. Obama wants a few things out of this. He wants to set the U.N. precedent. He wants to thumb Congress in the eye (they would have given him his war if he had asked), he wants to shore up his ratings with middle America, appearing to be a tough foreign policy guy before the election. (His people understand that war presidents generally are not removed from office). He likely wants to take the U.S. down a peg by openly entering a civil war, one that will likely turn out against us. If he was such a great humanitarian, he could have saved Iranian lives by intervening when they rose against their Ayatollahs, or he could intervene in Syria now. These places are of vital U.S. interest. That's precisely why he did nothing there, and why he intervened here.
Frankly, nothing in the U.S. Constitution authorized humanitarian wars. That was the brainchild of Woodrow Wilson, who was itching for a scrap so he could restructure America along Fascist lines. Germany posed no threat to America in 1917, and Libya poses no threat to America in 2011. Obama had no right to intervene here.
And his speech last night was another phone-in from a president who would rather be playing golf and partying than doing his job. He was not the least compelling. Congress should start impeachment investigations now.
And how much more money will the BHO spend? We could have let the French and British deal with this; France hasn't helped in the war on terror, anyway, and can afford to take action with Libya, a former French colony. Our primary historical connection there was our war to end their piracy in the 19th century.
Also, if the Libyan military junta is so bad, why were we sending them money? We were financing and training them, and they, in turn, were helping us with intel on Al Qaeda, a common threat to us both. Why did Obama ask to increase funding for Libya, then attack? Something smells.
So last night Obama trudged through a speech dredging up tired Progressive war arguments, the kind used before all of the Progressive acts. Congress should defund this action.
But they undoubtedly won't.
"The Pentagon spokesman Vice Adm Bill Gortney would not say where in Libya these aircraft are being employed, but their use coincides with the rebels suddenly gaining ground against Col Gaddafi’s forces after several days of apparent stalemate.
The Americans say they continue to focus on protecting civilians, but interventions like this are bound to give the rebels a more decisive edge.
This operations beg for the question who is really in control of the war in Libya, NATO or the USA? Pepe Escobar provides an answer during an interview at RT."
Be sure to read the whole thing - and watch the films provided.
Mark Steyn got a bit "personal," with a few zingers, in an article about him, as follows:
"The Arab League, for reasons best known to itself, decided that Colonel Qaddafi had outlived his sell-by date. Granted that the region’s squalid polities haven’t had a decent military commander since King Hussein fired Gen. Sir John Glubb half a century back, how difficult could it be even for Arab armies to knock off a psychotic transvestite guarded by Austin Powers fembots? But no: Instead, the Arab League decided to volunteer the U.S. military. Likewise, the French and the British. Libya’s special forces are trained by Britain’s SAS. Four years ago, President Sarkozy hosted a state visit for Colonel Qaddafi, his personal security detail of 30 virgins, his favorite camel, and a 400-strong entourage that helped pitch his tent in the heart of Paris. Given that London and Paris have the third – and fourth-biggest military budgets on the planet and that between them they know everything about Qaddafi’s elite troops, sleeping arrangements, guard-babes, and dromedaries, why couldn’t they take him out?"
March 28, 2011
We're all aware of what a slipshod mess our "Libya policy" seems to be. It seems even too silly for Hillary to have come up with.
Well, here's somebody who thinks he knows where it comes from, and he makes a very good case.
The president of Caterpillar has notified the Governor of Illinois that they may leave the state. Illinois recently doubled its taxes to businesses and individuals. Such a move would cost Southern Illinois (and the Peoria area) 23,000 jobs. The "wise men" of the Illinois state legislature who raised these taxes apparently confused their state with Australia in 1860, in terms of business mobility. If (and when) they move, I suspect any worker whose family health or other situation who can will move with them.
Read more at American Thinker.
I discuss the sexualization of teenagers, and the use of sex as a tool to promote Leftism in a piece at Canada Free Press.
This is a topic that could fill several books, and I just hit some of the highlights. One commenter complained that I didn't have a "smoking gun" tying the Progressives to this, but I didn't have time to open THAT can of worms. Suffice it to say that the "Free Love" movement was at the core of Progressivism. We could disguss Margaret Mead and other such libertines, but it would fill several volumes. Suffice it to say that the reader's criticism was valid, but I simply could not do an exhaustive history of the sexual revolution and it's meaning.
At any rate, I hope everyone finds this piece enjoyable and informative.
March 27, 2011
Friday was the 100th Anniversary of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory horror, a pivotal event in American Labor history where 146 workers, mostly young women of Italian and Jewish immigrant background, found themselves blocked from using a stairway as the two factory owners fled without notifying the others of the growing fire. A few were able to leave with the help of a brave elevator operator Joe Zito, the subject of an HBO movie on his heroism. A flimsy fire escape broke, also blocking exit. And because the New York City Fire Department hook and ladder equipment could only reach the sixth floor as the factory was located on the 8th through 10th floors of the building. The 146 workers perished either in the flames or when they jumped to their deaths rather be burned alive. The tragedy lead to major changes in labor and fire safety laws not only in New York, but throughout the United States.
A crass comparison was made by several speakers at the commemoration held on the street in front of the actual Triangle Fire site, now a biological sciences building at New York University in Greenwich Village this past Friday.
Sen. Charles Schumer, said in his speech,
“Some on the far right went to remove the gains (of labor). (Wisconsin Governor) Walker may have won the battle but he will lose the war. America will not go back to 1911 (the year of the Triangle Fire). We will not let right wind ideologues…your families’ legacy.”
If the absurd comparison between young immigrants mistreated in the private sector while they made $2 a day wasn’t made clear enough, he also equated public union activity in Wisconsin, Indiana and Ohio (where no teachers or Democratic state legislators jumped to their death) with the Triangle Fire. Later in the commemoration, Mary Bell, president of the Wisconsin Education Association Council would speak, but she would temper her words by calling the events of 1911 and 9/11 an approximate comparison. There was a clear attempt to claim that small budget givebacks in state government equaling the Triangle Fire is the New Normal in “sophisticated” liberal speech, an acceptable equation that I believe is an insult to the memories of the young women and men who died in 1911, cheapening the currency of their deaths. There was a more realistic comparison made with a recent factory fire in Bangladesh. US Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis spoke of poor working conditions in a factory for immigrants in California which, while not leading to a deadly fire, was a fair comparison with many of the pre-1911 conditions at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory, but one person made the glaringly obvious comparison with recent events in New York history.
One of the last speakers, New York City Fire Commissioner Salvatore Cassano, compared the Triangle Fire with the deaths of 9/11 and said, “Both events caused the Nation to do some collective soul searching.” With a modern hook and ladder truck from Ladder Company 20, the same company that answered the Triangle Fire one hundred years ago, standing half a block in front of him, he spoke of the New York Fire Department losses of 343 firemen on 9/11, a department which had previously lost a one day high of twelve men in a fire during the mid-1960s and how the Department had to come to terms with planning for dealing with acts of terrorism.
Sen. Schumer had also called the event of 1911 a “murderous fire” and one speaker, a descendent of a woman who escaped, spoke of her relatives saying to the two factory owners just after they were acquitted of all charges in court, “Murderers, murderers, not guilty? Where is the justice?”
I agree with these two speakers characterizing the 1911 fire as murderous. One wonders if we now may call the fire of 9/11, in some ways similar with a number of people jumping to their death, also an act of murder without being attacked by the media as racists or “right wing knuckle draggers.” In fact, in the plans for the Ground Zero 9/11 memorial, the directors want to include the photos of the nineteen hijackers and explain their motives (i.e., “root causes”). There is a plan for a Triangle Shirtwaist Fire Memorial. One doubts that memorial will include a prominent section describing the two factory owners without criticism and discuss their “root causes” for fleeing to the roof. I would suspect one of the reasons that more stringent fire laws didn’t exist before the Triangle Fire – and I’m NOT saying it was a good or wise reason – is that most work done in America at that time was in places that weren’t so impersonal, where it was assumed people had a sense of community and would treat the people they met on the street or their children rubbed shoulders with in public schools in 1911 would not have such a callous disregard for human life. According to the Jewish Daily Forward newspaper, the two factory owners were also immigrants from Eastern Europe. That means they were new to American values and had not grown up with them.
Specifically, a recent issue of The Forward stated:
Simply put, the owners of the Triangle Waist Company, the villains of this story, Max Blanck and Isaac Harris, dubbed New York’s “shirtwaist kings,” were Eastern European Jews like so many of the fire victims.
END OF QUOTE
Speaker after speaker at the Triangle Fire tried their best to blame American Capitalism as the cause of the fire – and none of them mentioned the Eastern European origins of the factory owners that The Forward so honestly admitted to. The not guilty verdict may for the owners may also have been influenced by anti-immigrant feelings (or “not immigrants like us” feelings). Frankly, I found the attempt to blame the Triangle Fire on Capitalism an obscene act that simplistically papered over a complex situation.
One of the central questions raised at the memorial was made by George Gresham, President of 1199 of the SEIU. He asked, “When have working people become the problem in this country?”
I would say that the short answer to Mr. Gresham is since the city administrator of Bell, California managed to pay himself over $1.5 million in salary and benefits, all at taxpayer expense. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110324/us_nm/us_pay_scandal When one group of working people can raise their wages and pensions without any regard for whether another, larger group of working people, i.e., taxpayer non-union and even private industry union employees can afford to pay for virtually unlimited health and pension benefits, then even trying to use the blanket term “working people” will not protect the SEIU and others in the government from criticism. Even now, in Wisconsin, government workers have agreed to a wage freeze. Townhall.com columnist Kyle Olson reports: http://townhall.com/columnists/kyleolson/2011/03/26/gov_walkers_legislation_has_unions_caving_already
“In Madison, the teachers union has suddenly agreed to a wage freeze and increases in health insurance and pension contributions. The concessions will save the district an estimated $15 million next year, which would almost make up for the expected cuts in state aid.
In Oshkosh, the union has agreed to a wage freeze, increased contributions toward benefits and a change in the employee insurance carrier, which will save the district more than $5 million per year.”
When Rahm Emanuel, not exactly a right wing ideologue, runs and wins the Chicago mayoralty race and calls for cuts in city government union pensions for both previous and newly hired city workers, the world of politics has changed. http://www.chicagonewscoop.org/emanuel-says-he-favors-reduced-pensions-for-current-city-workers-not-just-new-hires When the Democrat Mayor of Providence, Rhode Island fires all his city’s school teachers, with the intention of hiring some back later (and NBC mislabels the mayor as a “Republican”), the world of politics has changed. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2011/02/28/nbc-mislabels-dem-mayor-r-after-providence-fires-all-its-school-teach To digress for a moment, when Mayor Michael Bloomberg spoke at the Triangle Fire commemoration, he was loudly booed as he took the podium and a number of people deep in the audience booed him for the duration of his speech. The source of the booing may have been school children and their teachers from the many classes taken to the event, but I could not determine that for certain.
Related to labor costs – and the very unions present at the Triangle Fire commemoration, when Rep. Anthony Weiner calls for a waiver for New York City from the ObamaCare bill which he so vigorously pusched…er…pushed for last year, http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/weiner_waiver_worse_than_obamacare_B82M6gnsGJum4vuaDfoPUN you know the world of politics has changed as Weiner de facto admitted the healthcare bill is not viable in New York City – without people – working people - from the rest of the country paying for it in place of “sophisticated” New Yorkers. Why should a tractor truck driver in Tennessee and his part time waitress wife have to pay for ObamaCare while Anthony Wiener struts along Queens Boulevard, concerning himself with whether a statue at the local Borough Hall may or may not be considered “sexist?” http://www.projectshiningcity.org/fp861.php
Some speakers mentioned President Obama’s words concerning “public employees being our neighbors, our friends.” The fact is that anyone who understands fourth grade arithmetic and high school book keeping, understands that our neighbors and “friends” are showing a callous disregard for meeting a balanced budget as many state constitutions require. In the past, politicians could kick the can down the road by approving health and pension – and even salary - benefits that were of little concern to the average voter and taxpayer (the public employees’ “friends and neighbors”) because the economic pie was growing. Even as the Triangle Fire commemoration began with the New York City Labor Chorus sang a version of “Do You Hear The People Sing?” which was modified to include the line “The corporate tyrants must be brought under control,” one has to ask the following. Who will bring the government tyrants of Bell, California, the overbearing ObamaCare bill that “has to be passed before you can read it” (which even Anthony Weiner finds oppressive), and the Washington tyrants who have tripled the national debt in two years, severely limited oil drilling in Louisiana, in offshore Florida and in Alaska. There was much talk at the commemoration of unions allowing people to enter the middle class, but how exactly are many union people and others being allowed to “enter the middle class” if they can barely afford to fill up their gas tanks, heat their homes and endure a real, unofficial unemployment rate approaching 20 percent. The only logic one could make of these speeches is that they were in favor of government union employees living a middle class life while their beggared their neighbors who worked for companies that cannot either print money like the federal government or vote for tax increases (in previous, more prosperous years).
Some readers from the New York metropolitan area may recall a popular series of television advertisements in 1973 for an appliance store named “JGE” that featured owner Jerry Rosenberg being asked repeatedly, “What’s the story, Jerry?” Jerry was great theater but the websites recalling JGE’s commercials forget the way snide manner in which Jerry said, “But JGE is only open to union members and their families.” JGE closed down, in part, because of that aspect of undemocratic trade. Then, as now, a middle class way of life should not be open to just union members – particularly government union members – and their families only.
March 26, 2011
Another shoe drops in the Global Warming debate.
The ice cap of Killimanjaro started melting long before the rise in greenhouse gases mid-20th century, and is likely related to the drought that has plagued Africa since the 19th. That didn't stop the Gang Green from using it as the poster child for Climate Change.
But it turns out to be a willful and uncooperative child, refusing to melt on cue.
The United States is sitting on the largest reserve of petroleum in the world, yet hardly anyone knows it because the media refuses to report it.
From the article:
"In case anyone missed it, let me repeat something that is of a magnitude of 10 on the scale of news-quakes for Joe Public USA: America’s combined energy resources are, according to a new report from the Congressional Research Service (CSR), the largest on earth. They eclipse Saudi Arabia (3rd), China (4th) and Canada (6th) combined – and that’s withoutincluding America’s shale oil deposits and, in the future, the potentially astronomic impact of methane hydrates.
The energy facts in the CRS report should be making front page news all over America. Mostly it isn’t. Given the devastating news from Japan and New Zealand, it may be right to postpone dancing in the streets. But something else is going on. Even though they are going to dominate global energy supply for decades to come the insidious war on vital fossil fuels continues apace."
Interesting; I was arguing with a co-worker about Peak Oil, which he is absolutely convinced is a real phonomenon. I pointed out that we have the largest oil reserves on Earth, and Canada is huge, and Brazil is sitting on gigantic reserves as well, and he refused to believe me. He also poo-pooed the idea of tar sands as a viable source of oil. This illustrates how well the leftmedia and the environmental lobby have done their mischief; it has become an article of faith that oil is running out. Faith trumps reason in many instances.
So I pointed out to him what should be obvious; if there IS peak oil, then so be it! Shrinking oil supplies will foster innovation for alternatives, and the market will react appropriately, creating new and better technologies for the future. Why does government need to interfere in this process? The market should be the final arbiter of innovation, because the market reacts to real stimulus and long-term pressures. Government pressures are artificial, and subject to change.
The reason for government pressure is because there is no market pressure, because there is no crisis.
With the dawn of the industrial revolution England suffered a deforestation which meant higher prices for wood to stoke the engines of industry. England began digging up coal, and energy technology adapted. When coal became overused, causing pollution, the move to oil was made. There is a reason for the automobile to be run on oil rather than using a steam engine or other external combustion engine (like the sterling engine); it was cleaner, cheaper, and quicker to get started. It was an IMPROVEMENT. Had government been in charge it would have mandated so many things that industry would never have adopted oil to begin with.
And that is the problem now; alternatives are simply chosen by government fiat and financed to keep them competitive when they are not. No real innovation occurs because everyone is chasing the same dollar - the government dollar. If there are two potentials involved, say, ethanol and hydrogen, and the government is funding ethanol despite it being the lesser of prospect of the two, any competent r and d company will go ethanol; it's going to bring the money in up front. Yes, hydrogen may be the better choice, and there may be more money potentially in it in the end, but ethanol is a safer investment. Of course, in the end, it will prove a drag on the market because it will stifle innovation even in ethanol - government bureaucrats aren't going to like people gambling with their money.
And so, even if there IS peak oil, who cares? There are fortunes to be made in the transition, and, if left alone, the transition will not be all that painful.
What is painful is government intervention, and government is not intervening for the benefit of the public but the benefit of government. They want control. It really is that simple. Uncontrolled energy means freedom for the individual, and freedom is a frightening thing to Leftists. One must obey the god of State as surely - if not more than - the Muslim must obey Allah. Allah has the luxury of punishing in the hereafter, the State does not. Free people must be shackled for the State to be empowered.
Peak oil - and the regulation and subsidization of alternative fuels - is the tool of the mad god. That is why they are pretending there is a shortage when we are swimming in energy.
David Limbaugh has a thoughtful piece on the Obama Tripolitan War and why he is waging it. See it here.
I left the following comment in the message thread:
A couple of points to bear in mind here.
1. This builds "street creds" for Obama as a tough foreign policy guy, and removes him from certain criticisms (without charges of hypocrisy) for the upcoming election.
2. This works toward Obama's goal of cutting America down to size. We had been funding the Libyan military, and The One had called for an increase to 1.7 million just prior to his launching this expensive Tripolitan war. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/24/did-qaddafi-deserve-funding-foreign-aid-scrutiny-amid-mideast-unrest/ Why were we funding Libyan military? They were providing us with intel to use against Al Qaeda. Kadaffi might have been a thug, but he was a secularist thug at war with our enemy. Oboma gets to remove an erstwhile ally and replace him with a Sharia-compliant entity. Puts a new spin on "I'll stand with the Muslims", doesn't it.
3. He gets to create a precedent, obeying the orders of the U.N. WITHOUT going to Congress. This action arguably puts internal American political will into a subservient position to the U.N. and other international bodies.
4. It takes attention off his failures in Iran and Syria, both of which the U.S. has vital interests in seeing regime change. These are two of the biggest sources of terrorism in the Middle East, and Obama chose to let the popular uprisings in both nations twist in the wind.
5. It guarantees a spike in oil prices, a longterm goal of his administration in an effort to promote the Green agenda.
This man is Shiva, destroyer of nations! Starting with our own, of course.
This from the Federalist Patriot:
The House last week voted to eliminate funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is the umbrella over NPR and PBS. Even without the shenanigans at NPR of late, this is an action that was long overdue. However, the U.S. State Department is reportedly set to give a chunk of change to the notably anti-American British Broadcasting Corporation.
The State Department denies this, saying, "The [London] Guardian article of March 20, alleging that the U.S. Department of State is about to sign a funding deal with the BBC is inaccurate and misleading. The BBC World Service Trust has indicated its intention to submit a proposal to the State Department in the area of Internet freedom as part of an open and competitive solicitation, but we have not yet received this proposal or made any funding decisions. The State Department has no intention of announcing any funding decisions regarding Internet freedom programming on World Press Freedom Day."
However, the U.S. is already funding the BBC World Service Trust, a separate entity, to the tune of $4.5 million for "media support for strengthening advocacy, good governance and empowerment" worldwide, including training journalists in Nigeria. We wonder if these journalists are at all affiliated with the wealthy Nigerians who ask for our help via email every so often.
Birthday greetings to Obamacare from the Federalist Patriot:
ObamaCare turned one year old this week, and the law that supporters believed would grow to become more popular over time is now more loathed than ever. Major court decisions have bolstered the case that the constitutionality of the law is questionable, but until the Supreme Court delivers the final verdict, the administration will continue to implement the law en bloc.
Supporters say that seniors are the major beneficiaries, though significantly greater physician reporting requirements will rob doctors' time and resources from patient treatment. Additionally, government mandates will steer physicians into specific courses of care and treatment that will narrow patient choices for crafting their own care, and not always for the better. The doctor-patient relationship as we know it will be obliterated in favor of a bloated, faceless bureaucracy that makes medical decisions based upon its own skewed perceptions of what is necessary and not.
Another supposed beneficiary of ObamaCare is American business, but compliance costs necessary to meet increased reporting requirements will cause a substantial drain on business resources. In addition, $500 billion in new taxes will hit hardest the businesses that are struggling in this rocky economy. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that small business tax credits to offset this burden will benefit only some 12 percent of people in the small-group insurance market. Furthermore, CBO estimates the 10-year cost of ObamaCare at $1.45 trillion, $40 billion higher than what it figured last year. Meanwhile, few actions have even been taken with the law yet, except to offer more than 1,000 exemptions to businesses, unions and even entire states that can't -- or don't want to -- meet its requirements. Happy birthday, indeed.
The Daily Caller has an article on Donald Trump's strategy of embracing the birther issue.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/25/donald-trumps-birth-certificate-strategy/ The author claims that the Republican nomination will be won by that candidate who goes hardest after Obama in the primaries. Trump is a brash New Yorker (I heard him talk once in person where he revealed enough information about a man who hated his work for years and had sex-related problems, enough details to identify him). He will say things that no typical Republican would say - and that works in his favor in a Tea Party Era.
But the best line of speculation came from a comment at Lucianne.com. "lakerman1" said:
"I don't think they put religion on the birth certificate, and arab is not a race.
but when a black/white baby is born in kenya, that baby is labeled 'white.'
One real possibility is that Stanley Ann Dunham listed the father as 'unknown' to protect her welfare rights. Back in 1961, if the father was named, the domestic relations people went after him for child support."
This comment proves one thing: as long as Obama doesn't release his long form birth certificate, many people will think the worst is true, especially after two years of failed Obama policies and falling Obama popularity.
Dem Sen. Claire McCaskill's 2012 Turbulence
by John Gizzi
Even before the stunning revelation last week that Sen. Claire McCaskill owned a private airplane for which she owed more than $287,000 in back taxes, the Missouri Democrat was already in political hot water.
In fact, to call the freshman lawmaker and narrow ’06 winner one of the most vulnerable of the 23 Democratic senators facing the voters next year was no exaggeration. In the last polls conducted before the story about the unpaid taxes broke, McCaskill (lifetime American Conservative Union rating: 18.67%) was shown in a near-tie or slightly ahead of any of the announced Republicans or those considering the race.
A Public Policy Polling (PPP) assessment in early March showed that among likely voters in the Show-Me Sta te, McCaskill edged former state treasurer and ’08 gubernatorial hopeful Sarah Steelman by a margin of 45% to 42%. The same poll showed the Democrat defeating lawyer Ed Martin, onetime top aide to former Republican Gov. Matt Blunt, by 46% to 40%. Last year, Martin lost a close race for Congress in the St. Louis area to Democrat Rep. Russ Carnahan.
Steelman and Martin are the only two announced Republican contenders so far. Considering the race are stalwart conservative Rep. Todd Akin and former Republican National Committee co-chairwoman Ann Wagner, who lost a bid for RNC chairman earlier this year. PPP showed McCaskill in a statistical tie with Akin (45% to 44%) and defeating Wagner 45% to 36%. (Missouri GOP sources tell HUMAN EVENTS that if Akin opts for a Senate race, Wagner will change gears and run for his open House seat).
PPP also showed that 46% of likely voters statewide approved of McCaskill’s performance and 45% disapproved.
The figures become all the more dramatic when one realizes that the poll was conducted before what is increasingly being referred to as the "airplane scandal” broke a few days ago. However, the Cook Political Report newsletter changed the rating of the race yesterday from “Leans Democratic” to “Toss-up.”
And Republicans are having fun reminding the press that, five years ago, when she came under fire from then-Sen. Jim Talent (R.-Mo.) on charges she had gone easy on her husband’s business while she was state treasurer, McCaskill retaliated with a TV spot in which she looked right into the camera and said: “And we have paid every dime of our taxes.”
In all likelihood, McCaskill won’t be running that spot again as she seeks reelection next year.
A NOTE FROM TIM:
Sarah Steelman may not be the best contender, but Martin narrowly lost to Russ Carnahan, son of the late Mel Carnahan and brother to Missouri's Secretary of State (and there were, uh, irregularities in this election). This was the former seat of House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, and is one of the most solid Democrat districts in the country. (I ought to know; I live in it!) That Martin could do so well in so blue an area suggests he could do quite well in a statewide election. He is, after all, running in an increasingly Republican Missouri.
Wagner would be fun; a strong, scrappy conservative, she wouldn't play the gentlewoman game so many GOP candidates play. Akin is huge here, and I could see him walking away with the election.
What must be remembered is that these types of polls skew towards Democrats - especially this far before an election. McCAskill is the incumbent, and so name recognition enters into this. Her problems are especially bothersome because she was the state Auditor before being elected to the Senate, and an auditor is expected to know something about taxes and accounting. She can't claim ignorance here. If the GOP candidate bites for the jugular she can be brought down.
Also, she hitched her star to Obama and his traveling medicine show, and her decision to support The One and his health scare didn't make her any friends. The Tea Party has a target on her (take THAT you civility whores!) and The One isn't coming to her rescue.
It's going to be fun watching McCaskill and the rest of the Democratic establishment fall!
March 25, 2011
At National Review, Bill Burcke argues the unconstitutionality of Obama's Tripolitan war aka the Three Witches War. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/262940/we-do-declare-kathryn-jean-lopez?page=1
(One can just see Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power encircling a bubbling cauldron and chanting "Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn, and caldron bubble".)
While I take a less condemning view of this, it should be obvious that Obama could easily have had a Congressional authorization had he asked; the GOP wouldn't have been able to turn his request down after the years of defending Bush. That Obama didn't bother with Congress illustrates the imperial nature of his Presidency and his view of the way government should operate. And it illustrates his hypocrisy; he was unwilling to lift a finger to help the Iranian or Syrian people, and of course he thought Iraq was abominable. And remember, he and Biden and other Democrats were calling for Bush's head for an "illegal war" when Bush went to Congress and the U.N. The only "illegality" was pushing forward without the blessings of Mos Eisley - something that is nowhere enshrined in the U.S. Constitution or any U.S. law.
Kaddafi is a tyrant and thug, but he did assist us in the war on terror and kept the Jihadists out of Libya. Remove him and who will take power? There is evidence that the rebellion is inspired by Al-Qaeda.
Obama intervenes where we have no interest, and possible against our interest. He would not intervene to advance the cause of American security.
That is the real crime.
Pat Buchanan has written a great piece in Townhall.com on why we should not be in Libya
Here is the link and some quotes.
"Far better is it for ourselves," said Clay, "for Hungary and for the cause of liberty that, adhering to our wise, pacific system and avoiding the distant wars of Europe, we should keep our lamp burning brightly on this western shore as a light to all nations than to hazard its utter extinction amid the ruins of fallen or falling republics in Europe."
The Arab League gave him permission to impose a no-fly zone. He feared that Moammar Gadhafi would do to Benghazi what Scipio Africanus did to Carthage. And Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power conveyed to Obama their terrible guilt feelings about America's failure to stop what happened in Rwanda and Darfur.
This is the three sisters' war.
But why was it America's moral duty to stop the Tutsi slaughter of Hutus in Burundi in 1972 or the Hutu counter-slaughter of Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994? Why was that not the duty of their closest African neighbors, Zaire (Congo), Uganda and Tanzania?
These African countries have been independent for a half-century. When are they going to man up?
The slaughter in Darfur is the work of an Arab League member, Sudan. Egypt, the largest and most powerful Arab nation, is just down the Nile. Why didn't the Egyptian army march to Khartoum, a la Kitchener, throw that miserable regime out, and stop the genocide?
Why doesn't Egypt, whose 450,000-man army has gotten billions from us, roll into Tobruk and Benghazi and protect those Arabs from being killed by fellow Arabs? Why is this America's responsibility?
Add up all those we have killed, wounded, widowed, orphaned or uprooted, and the number runs into the millions.
All these wars have helped mightily to bankrupt us.
Have they made us more secure?
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.