Wednesday, December 30, 2009

"New Year" Could Have A Whole New Meaning

Imagine waking up on New Years Day - perhaps just a tad hungover - to the sight and sound of two strange men rifling through your sock drawer. Imagine that you learn - during the course of your loud, indignant demands - that they are Russian policemen from INTERPOL. Now imagine that you do not live in Moscow or St. Petersburg but Manhattan or perhaps Boise, Idaho.

Then, imagine your outraged frustration upon learning that your own local police are powerless to help you and, further, that you have virtually no recourse in restitution or retribution, and that as you clean up the mess they've made of your quarters, your only option is to grin and bear it. They can't be touched.

Think it can't happen here? Think again. For some inexplicable reason, President Barack Hussein Obama has decided to erase the restrictions put in place by President Ronald Reagan that have previously prevented this very scenario from occurring in America.

Diplomatic immunity has been something that diplomats have enjoyed around the globe for quite some time now, but more obviously here in the United States, home of the United Nations building. The city of New York has been, shall we say, particularly inconvenienced by this protocol as a result of the audacity of that immunity, mostly in the form of unpaid tickets by foreign dignitaries who cannot be prosecuted.

While there have certainly been cases where family members of these diplomats - or in some cases, the diplomats themselves - have committed more serious crimes which were equally immune from prosecution, they are too few to have had a dramatic impact on our society. I'm sure that more than one cop has been driven to distraction by the frustration of it all, but there has been no lasting or noticeable impact on the lives of ordinary Americans. That may all be about to change.

On December 17th, 2009 U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama signed Executive Order 13524 which significantly amends Ronald Reagan's Executive Order 12425, much to the detriment of the nation to which Obama swore an oath on January 20th. That oath on Inauguration Day to serve the American people and protect their constitution has been betrayed by one swift stroke of the Presidential Pen.

Reagan's Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983 was a protective measure against possible abuses of the 79th Congress' International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945. Known in its final Congressional form as Pub.L. 79-291, the Act was responsible for the freedoms that today's foreign diplomats enjoy. Reagan's order was a safeguard against those same immunities being applied to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), which was initially included en toto under the umbrella of Pub.L. 79-291.

Perhaps realizing that - for 38 years under the Act - INTERPOL officers had the authority to operate unimpeded within our borders, Reagan issued Executive Order 12425 to disqualify the organization from the same protections as their more benign counterparts, the diplomats. Those 38 years posed little threat of actual INTERPOL activity on our shores by virtue of the difficulty of travel, but now anyone can be in another country within hours.

The original Pub.L. 79-291 was enacted to protect visiting diplomats from harassment by a countries law enforcement bodies. That seems a reasonable motion since we didn't want our own emissaries harassed abroad. They were all subsequently considered "untouchable", a status that, as I mentioned above, has been taken to extremes but has not altered our way of life. Then Reagan issued Executive Order 12425:

By virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and statutes of the United States, including Section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669, 22 U.S.C. 288), it is hereby ordered that the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), in which the United States participates pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 263a, is hereby designated as a public international organization entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions and immunities conferred by the International Organizations Immunities Act; except those provided by Section 2(c), the portions of Section 2(d) and Section 3 relating to customs duties and federal internal-revenue importation taxes, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act. This designation is not intended to abridge in any respect the privileges, exemptions or immunities which such organization may have acquired or may acquire by international agreement or by Congressional action.
The sections highlighted in red are the provisions that President Reagan put in place to ensure that international police were not free to usurp our Constitution using the same privileges as diplomats, and are the very protections that Obama has removed with his Executive Order 13524.

Why would the POTUS reverse a predecessor's order that was specifically designed to protect the people from Constitutional abuses? Why would the POTUS issue an order that freed INTERPOL to operate unfettered in our country while our own law enforcement is severely hamstrung - albeit thankfully - by that very document?

And the biggest question of all is, why is this story such a non-story in a nation where the press hammered away for months at "warrantless wiretaps" directed at the genuine enemies we face?

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, December 26, 2009

Speed Versus Haste

With the Democrat-controlled Congress steamrolling its way to "history" through constitutional skulduggery and a collective ignorance of the wishes of its constituency, a potential legal battle looms on the horizon.

In light of the "Cornhusker Kickback" - in which the Senate secured its precious 60th vote in Ben Nelson of Nebraska for Health Care Reform (HCR) passage - 10 of the nations 19 Republican State Attorneys General have formed a coalition poised to issue a serious constitutional challenge to final passage of the bill. Predictably, Democrats have already begun to prepare their cookie-cutter defense, accusing the group of partisan obstructionism.

Nelson, who was the lone Democrat holdout on passage of the bill in the Senate, was bought out by the leadership in the form of a promise to force the other 49 states to subsidize Nebraska's state share of the Medicaid expansion. South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster, a Republican, is heading the group of State Attorneys General in challenging the constitutional authority of the federal government to offer such preferential treatment to one state at the expense of others.

McMaster received a letter from his state Senators Lindsay Graham and Jim Demint asking his to investigate the matter. From the letter, Graham and Demint write:

“We have serious concerns about this Nebraska compromise as it results in special treatment for only one state in the nation at the expense of the other 49. While South Carolina has to struggle to come up with hundreds of millions of dollars to comply with the massive new Medicaid mandate, Nebraska does not have to come up with a single dollar.”
With McMaster and a handful of his Republican counterparts set to run for governor in 2010, the Democrats are claiming that this challenge is nothing more than a cheap "political stunt" designed to further advance the political careers of these AG's. In light of the about-face exhibited by Ben Nelson, this is disingenuous, to say the least.

Nelson was opposed to the health care bill on many levels, and vowed to vote against it. What changed? Did the language in the bill change? No, Ben Nelson got a sweetheart deal for his state - something that has enraged his constituency back home and the leadership of that state - and he sacrificed whatever shred of integrity he may have had. In an ABC interview, Nelson had this to say on his stance at the time:
"Well, first of all, it has more than a robust public option, it's got a totally government-run plan, the costs are extraordinary associated with it, it increases taxes in a way that will not pass in the Senate and I could go on and on and on. Faced with a decision about whether or not to move a bill that is bad, I won't vote to move it. For sure."
Can you say, "Read my lips"?

McMaster says that more State Attorneys General are expected to join the current coalition of ten, and it remains to be seen how successful they are in the endeavor. Meanwhile, regarding the "great job" Nelson did for his state, of the savings he secured for Nebraska, Governor David Heineman says "keep the money", telling Politico.com:
“The last few days have made Nebraskans so angry that now it’s a matter of principle. The federal government can keep that money.”
Also from Politico.com
With the Senate set to pass its version of the health care bill before breaking for Christmas, Alabama GOP Attorney General Troy King predicted that the probe would wrap up in the next few days.

“I think we’re moving rapidly,” he told POLITICO. “We’ve got to move quickly. We don’t have a choice.”
So with speed set to confront haste, let the games begin.

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Fido's Gotta Go

I can't wait for PETA to get wind of this. The most beloved and protected animals on the face of the Earth are now in the cross hairs of the Global Warming nuts, and we're being told that their very existence is going to kill us all. That's right kids, your pet doggie will not flip out and suddenly attack you when you're preoccupied...he is clandestinely killing you with his poo, and you're too dumb to notice.

According to a new "study" by a husband and wife author team, pet dogs are twice as likely than sport utility vehicles (SUV's) to harm our environment. New Zealanders Robert and Brenda Vale have published a book entitled "Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living". In this marvelous tome (which admittedly I have not bothered to read) they describe the peril of owning pet dogs and - to a lesser degree - cats.

SUV's have been around for perhaps several decades. Anyone care to take a stab at how long pets have existed? Anyone? I don't either, but I do recall something about Cleopatra and a pet asp. I wonder how toxic snakes are to our planetary atmosphere.

In this age of technology, with the wonders of Google Earth, we can take a giant step back and view our planet from the perspective of God, so we might think. (I am not one to be so presumptuous, but I think my point is made). We have the capacity now to view our planet from afar at the grace of NASA and our tax dollars, and the Google kids for their intuitive entrepreneurial spirit. What we see in these screenshots - and when contrasted with the size of the largest city on the planet - is an exercise in hubris the likes of which is unfathomable.

I beseech thee, go and see. When even the most intellectually challenged among us sees and grasps the magnitude of the planets girth, and then - as is the wont of the human brain - automatically calculates the scale of humanity's presence as a percentage of the Earths surface, the first question that should arise in the most fertile of minds is how it could be possible for such a minute entity to wreak such damage.

The Enviros want us to stop driving. They want us to stop breathing. They want us to desist from existing and now they want our dogs to die. How odd that they advocate the consumption of these lovable companions while simultaneously condemning the same treatment for animals that were traditionally considered food. Is it possible that I could be alone in my shock?

How far down this treacherous road will we ride? How much manure can we ingest? At what point do we - as a people - say enough is enough?

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, December 18, 2009

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

The Demise Of Patriotism

Probably my most favorite classical piece of all time is Tchaikovsky's Overture 1812, which in retrospect seems at odds with my personal feelings about Russia or, more specifically, the Soviet Union. Tonight, seeking a brief respite from the world and politics, I decided to don the headphones and get lost in music, and the 1812 was one of my choices. As fate would have it, listening elicited thoughts which I needed to share.

I have long been aware of the significance of Tchaikovsky's 1812, but my love for the bare emotion of the piece has always been one of peripheral and generic appreciation for the brilliance of a mind that could create the glory of war and country with musical notes, combined into a magnificent tapestry of sound. Listening tonight, however, I achieved a cognizance that skirted my awareness before. For all of my past loathings of the Soviet empire, they did share one common thread with us, their mortal enemy; they loved their country with a pride that seems an alien emotion today.

Perhaps my epiphany can be attributed to the particular version of the Overture 1812 I listened to tonight, since I have never heard it performed with a choir of human voices. Hearing the singing mixed with strings and horns made me think of the movie Hunt For Red October when the crew broke into a spontaneous rendition of the Soviet Anthem. Their breast-bursting devotion to country was touching despite the nature of that particular beast, and it bears mentioning that at least the animosity of those days was contained within boundaries that today have evaporated.

But I do not write this to compare the current rules of engagement for our military to those of days of yore, although that may well be a discussion on the horizon, and part of what I have to say does indeed affect the sad state of affairs for our current soldiers. It is the dissolution of our spirit as Americans that has me troubled.

Many of us who have remained silent for generations as our world crumbled around us use the excuse of having been too busy building the nation into what it is to become involved with the urchins who take to the streets to attempt to tear it down. That excuse has been a valid one, make no mistake, but it has expired only because we assumed that our success would draw others into its wake. The few who slipped over the side of the rooster tail and floundered at sea have been busy multiplying and have formed a coalition of the "disenfranchised", and they have found it easier to develop into a powerful, plaintive lobby than to actually work harder to get ahead.

Thus it became fashionable to rally against the nation that made such a practice possible in the first place, and what have the plaintiffs accomplished? Nothing short of the steady decline and possible destruction of the greatest nation ever to grace the Earth.

The thought of national pride on even a small scale has been made into the act of radicals, to hear the networks tell it. The officials we elect, and who swear an oath to uphold our Constitution, work overtime instead to return our system to that which we fled to conceive America. Sovereignty is now considered xenophobia and pride ruled as dirty. I can't even smack the hat off of some idiot at a sporting event who neglected to remove it for the Star Spangled Banner. Most have lost their way.

There is hope, however. Whenever I see the Tea Parties in action, I think of millions of citizens who proudly sing the national anthem, even unabashedly in poor tune. I think of patriots who truly love their country not out of fear of the State, but out of confidence of control of that entity. I see people who have not let the fire die in the dead of night, who have remained vigilant with kindling to keep the others warm until morning.

And I see the dawn approaching. REM sleep is slowly fading as the slumbering begin to scratch itchy noses and fuss with the covers. As dark slowly yields to day, and the smoke thickens from a lovingly tendered fire, Americans are beginning to rouse from sleep.

A morning tribute to Francis Scott Key would be magnificent right about now. Then coffee...

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Try, Try Again

President Barack Hussein Obama is back on the attack against the banking industry, (which he blamed for his "inherited" economic woes) beseeching them to "help the economy" by restarting the very same practices that are responsible for the state in which we now languish. Incredibly, he reiterates the lies that helped get him elected, and no one in a position to effectively refute his nonsense has uttered a word.

Near the end of the Bush 43 administration, our banking system nearly crashed. With the inevitable economic cycle sliding toward recession, the problem was exacerbated by a rash of loan defaults that wreaked havoc on the housing industry and the banks themselves. Democrats - true to form - eagerly seized on the opportunity to exploit the misery of others for political gain, while successfully casting the blame on the opposition party with the aide of a compliant media and a myopic constituency.

Way back in late September 2008, I wrote about the criminal machinations of Congress regarding the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debacles in a piece titled Champions Of The Poor. In that article - which contains some useful links - I spelled out how the Democrats engineered the collapse by pretending to care for the downtrodden while effectively kicking the legs out from under our economy. It now seems that they have left the job incomplete and are intent on finishing it once and for all.

After magnanimously taking taxpayer money and riding to the rescue of the banks, Obama is beginning to yank the many strings he assumed were attached to those bailouts. Though he tried to resist, those banks have repaid the money they received, with interest. They wanted no part of the fiscal oppression being foisted upon them and, as a result, Obama has been pulling up empty lines. Not to worry, he is nothing if not persistent and cunning. And the masses who have been conditioned to despise success mindlessly cheer his version of "progress".

After the disaster of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac succeeded only in slowing the pace of America's economic juggernaut, Obama seems to have decided that the only way to acheive our ultimate ruination is to apply a fresh round of the same insanity. See the video below to hear him demand that banks begin anew to lend on a willy nilly basis:



Am I the only one who interprets this president's actions as akin to telling people to "douse this fire while I pour lighter fluid on it"? To demand that banks revert to the same practices that Congress insisted upon five years ago, and to ignore the lesson learned from that course of action, seems to me to be the definitive description of insanity.

In his press conference - which is part of the video - Obama pressed banks to refinance failing mortgages, despite the fact that many of those failures are due to the insistence of Barney Frank and Maxine Waters that Fannie and Freddie were "not in trouble". I can only equate this to telling your friend to hit his toe with a hammer.

"Did it break"?

Friend: "No."

"Hit it again, harder".

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, December 13, 2009

Wild About HARRY

There has been much ado about the leaked - or hacked, depending on the point of view - emails from the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia in the U.K., not that the alleged "mainstream" media has paid much heed. But while the argument against their significance has been child's play for the likes of Al Gore, there is a much deeper problem with the "settled science" of which Gore proudly speaks, and it is revealed in the .txt file called HARRY_READ_ME.txt.

Just who is Harry? According to Pajamas Media, he is a researcher at the CRU named Ian “Harry” Harris. I have pored over the entire text file and, if critiqued as a novel, I could best sum it up as a poignant tale of relentless and bitter frustration as a man, tasked with the impossible and given faulty tools, tries frantically to meet an equally impossible deadline.

As we're constantly reminded in print accounts of the email scandal, the CRU of East Anglia is nearly always preceded by the word "prestigious". It should be, since most of the IPCC's findings are based on that institution's research. But reading the notes of "Harry" gives one pause when asked for explicit trust. Just a few examples of "Harry's" tribulations:

So, uhhhh.. what in tarnation is going on? Just how off-beam are these datasets?!!

Unbelievable – even here the conventions have not been followed. It’s botch after botch after botch.

22. Right, time to stop pussyfooting around the niceties of Tim’s labyrinthine software suites – let’s have a go at producing CRU TS 3.0! since failing to do that will be the definitive failure of the entire project..

How handy – naming two different files with exactly the same name and relying on their location to differentiate! Aaarrgghh!!

If the latest precipitation database file contained a fatal data error… then surely it has been altered since Tim last used it to produce the precipitation grids? But if that’s the case, why is it dated so early?

So what’s going on? I don’t see how the ‘final’ precip file can have been produced from the ‘final’ precipitation database, even though the dates imply that. The obvious conclusion is that the precip file must have been produced before 23 Dec 2003, and then redated (to match others?) in Jan 04.

There is no way of knowing which Tim used to produce the current public files. The scripts differ internally but – you guessed it! – the descriptions at the start are identical. WHAT IS GOING ON?

Where is the documentation to explain all this?!

So what the hell did Tim do?!! As I keep asking.

It’s halfway through April and I’m still working on it. This surely is the worst project I’ve ever attempted. Eeeek.

Oh bugger. What the HELL is going on?
!

Considering the draconian impact the actions currently being proposed in Copenhagen would have on the world's economy and personal liberties, it stands to reason that they must be viewed as more than drastic given the tortured route of the diagnosis. And it may not be "Harry's" fault at all but, rather, the fault of those who placed the burden of time on him.

Imagine taking your new car for service because the "check engine" light is constantly lit. Not being a mechanic, you naturally take it to the experts. After an hour of watching the technician curse and scratch his head in confounded exasperation, you become suspicious that perhaps he is not so expert after all. Then, to make matters worse, the station manager comes to you and says that your best bet is to just buy another car.

Reading the "Harry" file is like watching the same, tortured process with an even more horrendous outcome. Cap and trade, and a global governance on carbon emissions based on the uncertain findings of a frazzled process is madness.

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, December 12, 2009

Boo For Hollywood

It is only slightly comforting to hear of a handful of conservative actors coming out of the liberal closet, so to speak, but the effect they are having on the overall ideological battle is negligible, providing little more than comfort to those who share their beliefs. The real power still lies in the monolith of the creative machine to shape the opinions of their somewhat hypnotized viewers.

These viewers are, by and large, not political creatures and as such absorb the twisted visions of the purveyors of "entertainment" without an awareness of doing so. It is nearly a subliminal indoctrination, and therein lies the danger. Seeking the simple refuge of fantasy from a tough day in the real world, people are easy targets for messages that may ordinarily run contrary to their own beliefs if they were actively engaged in the debate.

For example, mention Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly to someone who has never cared to discover for themselves the messages delivered by these men, and they will invariably roll their eyes and say, "Oh, that guy?". This is because they hear the likes of Joy Bahar or Barbara Walters cavalierly complain that talk radio personalities "spew hate".

Combined with liberal writers who cleverly weave into their scripts the same sort of condemnation, people receive a visual enforcement of the false indictment. Case in point: The episode of Law And Order that aired earlier this week revolved around a man who was killing the children of illegal immigrants ostensibly at the behest of a local radio talker. But Law and Order took make-believe a step further.

Actor John Larroquette's character in the show condemns real life radio personalities by name, saying, "Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly, all of 'em, they are like a cancer spreading ignorance and hate...They've convinced folks that immigrants are the problem, not corporations that fail to pay a living wage or a broken health care system...". Here is a clip of Bill O'Reilly's reaction to that airing:



Dick Wolf, the shows producer, and his ilk are the one's using an unwitting audience for their propaganda, shaping the opinions of those who are merely seeking some down time and who passively receive the misguided views of the propagandists. The people who listen to talk radio for the purpose of obtaining information do so proactively and are therefore much better informed.

This insidious practice of the left goes virtually unchecked while liberals are actually attempting to silence the rest of us. It is ironic that the denizens of the fantasy world accuse radio talk show hosts of "spreading ignorance and hate", using lies to accomplish their agenda. While there may be an errant whacko on the right who engages in a violent act, violence is an epidemic mainstay of the left.

The Earth Liberation Front (ELF), was responsible for torching millions of dollars worth of SUV's because they wanted to save the planet. (Never mind the toxic fumes from all that burning gas, plastic and rubber). Compare how many liberal demonstrations end in violent clashes with police and property destruction with the number of incidents by conservative protests (Tea Parties).

Some radio hosts go into the streets to interview ordinary people going about their day, and the listener is "treated" to some astounding views. Many young people have clearly been so brainwashed that they think socialism is a great idea. They actually believe that the federal government should give everyone housing, transportation, health care, etc. Many of these people were born after the collapse of the Soviet Union and have no conception of the bleak existence that such a society delivers.

Law and Order's version of America's true problems, along with silly talk shows such as The View is where these kids get their "ideas". Perhaps they would do well to at least be personally exposed to the other side before making such an important decision. It would also be a fine day when conservative actors did not need to live in fear for their jobs.

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, December 11, 2009

What Child Is This

"One of the central goals of this administration is restoring fiscal responsibility". - Barack Hussein Obama, Brookings Institution, December 8th 2009
Through the first two months of fiscal year 2010, the Obama administration has racked up $292 billion in deficits, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Factored out over the entire fiscal year, that equates to a deficit of just over $1.75 trillion. Add that to the deficit in Obama's first year, $1.4 trillion, and we're talking some serious coinage. What's even more striking is that in one year, this administration is set to surpass its previous year's deficit by nearly the entire total deficit of the last year of the Bush administration, and yet Obama speaks of "restoring fiscal responsibility"?

The coming projected deficit might even be a conservative estimate, since Obama is talking about "spending our way out of this trouble". This is coming from a man who has presided over only one budgetary venture in which he ended up squandering over $20 million. I wonder who he blamed for that fiasco? Did he blame his predecessor at the Annenberg Challenge then, too?

Speaking at Brookings on jobs, Obama incredibly tried to portray the first "stimulus" as such a success that he was preparing to launch a new wave of spending; a second stimulus. The first question this raises is, if it was such a success, why is another needed? If by success he means a .2% reduction in a near-record unemployment rate, how much more non-existent money is he planning to spend, and to what end?

I have compared this president to Don Quixote, but the more I watch him, the more I am convinced that such a comparison may have been too kind. Perhaps a more accurate description may be that of a young boy dressed in his father's suit, playing at being grown up. Having won the prize that dazzled his eyes, he now finds himself tripping over the cuffs of the pants that extend far beyond his shoes.

Having discovered that the presidential waters are much deeper and much more treacherous than he probably imagined, he flails and fumbles while blaming everything on Bush, all the while whining about how hard he's working. And just like the child who plaintively wails to Mom to buy him that candy, he is determined to get his health care horror passed into law, and right now, and he cares not a whit if it takes Mom's last dollar.

In spite of the terrible state of our nation, I still can't help but chuckle at the recollection of the claims of the left that "we finally have a grown-up in charge". I wonder if they're mature enough themselves to realize and admit that they've been duped?

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, December 7, 2009

A Brilliant Scheme With Some Assembly Required

Relax, and put those tools away. This one I will deliver with the assembly complete, gratis. The only work required on your part is the capability to actually see the finished product. It is a monstrous vision, so be prepared.

The Cloward-Piven Strategy of Manufactured Crisis is not only a masterpiece of tactical brilliance but also one of excruciating patience, the magnitude of which is unimaginable to people of the new generation. What this duo conceived, and what their students have constructed and employed, makes the building of the Pyramids pale in comparison.

Effortlessly hurdling the few obstacles placed in their path by simple happenstance and minor miscalculation along the way, the liberal machine has meticulously managed the journey to world domination while free peoples enjoyed the fruits of their labors, albeit to lesser and lesser degrees, and as such were unaware of the peril gaining ground on them. Now, Conservatives have awakened to the intruder in the room and it remains to be seen as yet if the fog of slumber can be shaken in time to prevent the offending knife from severing an artery.

While the famed "Communist Manifesto" and its multiple points on defeating America may be a fact embroiled in some form of dispute, the points made in it are a clear blueprint to what the left has perpetrated up to now. A takeover of the education system in this country, the indoctrination of our youth, the erosion of morality and the elevation of perverse practices have all contributed to the weakening of our very structure. With the people scrambling amid the social turmoil, the agents of our demise have been nothing but covertly industrious.

With the successful decay of our moral foundation fomented, the enemies of freedom set about tackling the economic engine of that freedom. This was accomplished under the guise of compassion, plaintively pleading the plight of the "poor" and attacking affluence as unfair. This is where their success took root because the people who worked hard to achieve their wealth - which has always been the essence of the American Dream - were ground down to accepting the guilt heaped upon them. Here, they were convinced that it was too easy, despite their sweat and labor, to succeed, and like so many sons of possessive mothers, were now willing to "make things right".

Thus it became insufficient for Americans' unsurpassed generosity to care for the downtrodden, and we yielded that task to our public servants, the government. The problem is that for them to undertake such a task they had to seize the money from all of us, the affluent as well as the struggling. We no longer had the luxury of deciding how much we could afford to donate; that would now be done by fiat.

Still not satiated, the government decided that it needed to confiscate more from the taxpayer to fund "affordable housing" in the forms of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. When those two organizations were so mismanaged that they were nearing catastrophe, our "Representatives" claimed that everything was just fine. We now know how that worked out. The plan was working beautifully thus far...

Back in the mid '70's, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decided that cars caused pollution, and mandated that cars manufactured beginning in 1975 were equipped with catalytic converters to reduce the effects of automobile exhaust on our environment. It sounds like a reasonable plan, right? Wait.

What the catalytic converter did was to convert carbon monoxide (poisonous) to carbon dioxide (benign). Now the very same EPA has taken advantage of a ludicrous Supreme Court ruling that so-called greenhouse gasses are pollutants, and is poised to severely regulate the once-benign gas of CO2, paving the way for more economic ruin on our country. (Can we initiate a class action lawsuit against the EPA for insisting on the catalytic converter?)

If the EPA actually mandates that "greenhouse gasses" must be regulated, some serious questions arise immediately, at least in this fertile mind. First, are we going to kill every cow on the planet? Cattle are the foremost contributors of CO2, so we're told. What about our own exhalations? If CO2 is a danger to humans, as the EPA is set to rule, will we be required to exhale while walking backward, and away from other humans? Will there be EPA-approved "Exhale zones" in sporting arenas and public parks? And what of evaporation? Greenhouse gas is 95% water vapor. Will the EPA regulate evaporation?

Virtually every move this Democrat-controlled Congress and our new president have made is one of misdirection and magic. All moves have not only seemed to be designed to further damage our country, but have actually proved detrimental. And haste is still the call.

Meanwhile, the Copenhagen meetings move forward in an attempt to corral the last vestiges of liberty worldwide even as the poem of Al Gore is hailed as splendor and truth by Vanity Fair. And we all await our shackles. Is this what we have labored so hard to achieve?

If any of you have had doubts about the reality of a one world government, you should rethink your position. It's not that hard to fathom and even worse, it is not that far away. For those who anxiously await its arrival, may God have mercy on your souls.

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, December 6, 2009

A Network Breaks The Silence

Will wonders never cease? After two weeks of ignoring the ClimateGate scandal, CBS has finally - if not grudgingly - reported on the story:

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, December 5, 2009

'Twas Something Like Christmas

Five years ago I wrote a Christmas poem in rebuttal to the grinches who seem to become more vocal each year. I drag it out each Christmas season, dust it off and post it up again. This year has special meaning in light of the Conservative Renaissance and the awesome spectacle of the Tea Parties, so it is with a sense of pride that I offer it once again.

‘Twas Something Like Christmas
A Poem By Daniel James Wood
2004





‘Twas some months before Christmas and the Christian avowed
Were under attack from the secular crowd
From cities to small towns across the land
The ACLU tried to get Christmas banned
They declared Merry Christmas was not to be said
Happy Holidays was to be used in its stead
At work every person was warned not to say
Anything other than “Happy Holidays”
They went to the schools and removed every song
To praise Jesus Christ was in every way wrong
At town halls Nativities were not permitted
With something generic were they to be fitted
The landscape was barren, devoid of all cheer
Until a few brave souls came for’ard without fear
It began rather small, but the movement soon grew
And it wasn’t long before the faithful all knew
That with their strong numbers they couldn’t go wrong
So they decorated like crazy and filled the air with song
When the protesters arrived they were madder than heck
“Take those Christmas lights down, you’re a pain in the neck!”
They huffed and they puffed, even cursed out the Elves
But the Faithful responded, “MERRY CHRISTMAS to all…
Now go screw yourselves!!”

Sphere: Related Content

The Hilarious Hubris Of Humanity

California may be considered another world by many who do not live there, but just how far away is it that its governor doesn't receive the memos from Earth? Arnold Schwarzenegger on Wednesday unveiled a dramatic "climate-change" map showing a flooded San Francisco of the future. And it will all be your fault, Ebenezer, unless you submit to the will of Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

It appears that Ahnold is not alone in his insulation from reality, as many disciples of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) have also accelerated the train in spite of the damning revelations from the Climate Research Unit in the U.K. and the manipulation of climate data by a group of scientists there. The Copenhagen meetings are going to go on as planned, and Al Gore, the messiah of man-made disaster, is claiming that even if successful, the meeting won't be enough to save us from ourselves.

Of course, the myth that there is a "consensus" among scientists that man is responsible for global warming wasn't enough to deter them even when 31,478 scientists came forward to question the 2,500 IPCC scientists claims. Alarmists scoffed that many of the 31,478 weren't climate scientists and, therefore, unqualified to comment. The science was still "settled", they said, and the debate was over. Yet the alleged "consensus" was drawn by the 2,500 IPCC scientists that the U.N. admits is comprised of 80% non-climate scientists.

Let's assume the same percentage as the opposition, shall we? That means that the alarmists' "consensus" is the opinion of 500 climate scientists versus 6,296 climate scientists who say they are wrong. It still doesn't matter to them, they plod ahead anyway, and rely on their Grand Poobah to keep the wheels greased, despite the fact that he's not a scientist of any discipline.

Real evidence is also meaningless to the alarmists, for it is clear that we have been in a decade-long cooling trend. "Well, that is only temporary", they say, "it's going to warm again even more rapidly!" I ask, "why?" and they will say it's because of the CO2 we're pumping into the atmosphere and we must stop it, at once! Here's where it gets ridiculous.

So far we have avoided the terrible measures these people plan to foist upon us. What that means is that there has been no reduction in CO2 atmospheric concentration. And yet it is cooling, so how are we to believe the lie that increased CO2 causes warming? Better still is how can they continue to perpetrate that lie? This question has been debated based on past plotting, which clearly shows that there is a lag between warming and rising CO2 levels, but we are currently living it and anyone can see that the theory is dead wrong. Warming is not caused by CO2.

We're also told of the devastating effect that warming has had and will have on the poor polar bears, who have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. How did the polar bears manage to survive the Medieval Warm Period without the aid of Man? How can people still believe in Al Gore when his movie has been punctured so badly, and his picture of the stranded polar bears clinging to an iceberg having been exposed for the fraud that it was?

This video is very long, but it is well worth an hour and a half. Lord Monckton walks us through the myth:



I hope and pray that the Copenhagen meetings turn out to be nothing more than a mini vacation for the attendees. Remember, the thermostat is in God's room, and he insists that you knock before entering.

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, December 4, 2009

Sign Post Behind Us: We Have Entered The Twighlight Zone

There is a story from yesterday by Andrew McCarthy of National Review Online that covers what can only be the work of Rod Serling or Gene Roddenberry, for it is so difficult to comprehend that it resembles more science fiction than reality. Sadly, it appears that the two have collided, and we are living in a bizarre place in time.

Even if the Hasan murders had not happened at Fort Hood, this development nevertheless has so many things wrong with it that I scarcely know where to begin to sort it out. The fact that the story actually is about a Muslim instructor at the very same Fort Hood only adds to the blurring of the lines of sanity.

The soldiers at Fort Hood who are about to deploy to Afghanistan are receiving, at the behest of the Defense Department, an education on the wonders of Islam from an "instructor" named Louay Safi. According to McCarthy, "Safi is a top official of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and served as research director at the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT)." And now, after the terrorist attack by Major Hasan, our Defense Department decided that it would be just swell to have this man teach our kids before they go fight the Taliban, who are Muslim.

I am struggling at the moment to resist the urge to launch into a profanity-laced tirade, and the knowledge that readers here have come to trust that their eyes are safe from such things is weighed heavily against the enormity of this idiocy, which begs for a break from protocol. It is only knowing that doing so would not change anything that prevents me, so consider yourselves spared, this time.

Louay Safi has his own website. On this website, he writes on the aftermath of the Fort Hood attack by Hasan, and he complains of the unfair treatment of Muslims in its wake.

"When a person who happens to be a member of an established religion, say a Christian or a Jew, commits a crime, the media refers to him as a criminal and questions his act. When, however, the one who commits the crime happens to be a Muslim, the media refers to him as a Muslim and question his faith."
What seems to be lost on Safi (or is he simply equivocating) is the fact that Christian criminals don't yell "For Jesus" before they kill people, and Jewish criminals, to my knowledge, have not been reported to yell "Lachaim!" before the commission of their crimes. Does Safi not know that Hasan shouted the terrorist trademark, "Allahu Akbar!" before gunning down his victims? Or is he using the Muslim practice of rewriting history to suit the whims of Muhammed?

The bigger question is; is this the sort of twisted logic he is attempting to stuff into the heads of those young men and women in Fort Hood before they are sent to battle the Taliban? I am automatically wired to lay this at the new Commander in Chief's feet, but I have to question the command at Fort Hood for allowing this to go on. I also have to wonder what happened to common sense and integrity at the Department of Defense.

Obama's speech to the West Point Cadets seems to have been aimed more at the Muslim world, a message that we're coming in on the 4:17 PM flight at gate #3 and our itinerary is to hang around for perhaps 18 months, after which we'll be heading home. Now it seems that he's also letting them know that our contingent will be comprised of soldiers who "feel your pain".

Good God, when can I awake from this nightmare?

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, December 3, 2009

A Belated Apology To Grandpa

I read something today that is not a new concept to me but rather a reminder of what we used to be, a reverie of a society nearly forgotten in the span of just a few generations. It was a stern admonition not only to the president, but to all of us who have squandered the sacrifices of our elders, and we are all guilty to one degree or another.

What I read was a letter to President Obama from a 95-year-old man who joined the Navy in 1934 and retired a Master Chief Bos'n Mate after serving through WWII. In the letter the author tells the president, "Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man.
Shape up and start acting like an American." Those two sentences set me about the task of writing this mea culpa.

I will have the memory of the United States Hockey Team beating the USSR team in the 1980 Olympics - despite the overwhelming odds - with me for the rest of my life. While a sporting event might sound a bit superficial, one would have to have experienced the event to understand. This was an accomplishment achieved before the concept of victory was stripped from our souls, before "equality" became something bestowed by government and not by God. For while it is true that all men are created equal, what we do with our lives from birth inherently involves a divergence from that bar. We do not ever remain equal.

There is the segment of society who - for whatever inexplicable reason - have deliberately and perhaps permanently altered our trajectory in history, and have smashed the gifts bestowed upon us by our predecessors like petulant children on Christmas morning who did not get exactly what we wanted. Perhaps just as painful a realization is that we did so without regard to our benefactors who - seeing what we have done to such a thoughtful gift - must be conflicted between righteous anger and bewildered pain.

But it is the rest of us who complain today of the damage we have witnessed who may bear most the burden of guilt, for it was we who allowed it to happen. To be certain it was not by deliberate cooperation but more so by acquiescence. Just as the mightiest cliff is eventually worn to sand by even the most gentle of waves, it is the unwavering persistence of the water that ultimately wins, and our societal composition has paid the ultimate price.

Our moral structure was slowly and steadily eroded via the patient redefinition by the left who have succeeded in convincing us all that discrimination is wrong. We capitulated, eager to be seen as culturally sophisticated beings, and the door was unlocked, when all we had to do was to point out that every simple choice is literally an exercise in discrimination. But we obediently fell aside.

From there, we allowed ourselves to be overcome like a sinking island, the shoreline creeping further inland so slowly that we barely noticed. We accepted behavior that once evoked in us utter revulsion because we wanted to avoid being cast as intolerant. What has happened, however, is that we conceived our own victimization, as our views have now become the target of a more insidious intolerance.

The very mindset we once considered detrimental to our nation has built for itself first a movement and developed into full-scale revolution, and we never coalesced in defense of the nation, perhaps because the enemy was so stealthy. Now, however, stealth is no longer necessary; the enemy has captured the Queen.

We have as our leader a man who may attempt to conceal his contempt for America, but it is a threadbare cloak he wears. As the gentleman responsible for this post pointed out, our president should never apologize to the world for America's very existence, and yet, he does. Our president also claims that America is "no longer a Christian nation" and declares that we are "arrogant". He bows to leaders of nations who should be grateful for our benevolence throughout our long period of ability to take whatever we wanted from the world, a time when we let the world be.

And we have as our leader a man who had the magnificent opportunity to bask in the historical moment of his election as leader of the greatest nation ever known to Mankind, a man who took that precious gift and smashed it to the ground once again. Ironically, his overtness may have been the blessing we sought from God.

As the Tea Party movement signals an unprecedented chain of events in America, it may be the vindication of all of us who have so disappointed men such as Harold B. Estes, the man who composed the letter I mentioned. Another statement in his letter was, "I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do, but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish." I hope that our awakening prevents this good man from outliving the country he helped to build and protect. I also pray his longevity continues sufficiently to witness the salvation I so desperately wish for. I think it is a gift he richly deserves.

Sphere: Related Content

The Mushroom Cloud That Wasn't

“This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud.” - Patrick J. Michaels, Climatologist


Well, we see what has become of that "mushroom cloud". The reaction of the people who have been humiliated by the release of the hacked emails has been one of utter defiance, bolstered by American network "news" outlets' refusal to cover the story. It is ironic that ABC Television News presented an hour-long, prime time infomercial for Obama to gush about the looming threat of global warming, but now that there is evidence of the grand hoax, the best the station can offer is a gigantic yawn.

In a climate (pardon the pun) of bleak economic prospects for the news industry, such a bombshell would presumably have been seized upon like a bounty by the hands of the hungry. The silence of the big three networks is akin to a starving person refusing food, however, and one must wonder just what it is that would be so important as to turn down sustenance. The only conclusion must be that of a greater reward.

The closest ABC got to even mentioning the scandal was on George Stephanopoulos' The Roundtable, on which George Will reminded us that the science is not settled. But the the New York Times Paul Krugman swung into defensive denial of the scandal. He said , "All those e-mails, people have never seen what academic discussion looks like, there's not a single smoking gun in there, there's nothing in there...". I may not have ever seen what academic discussion looks like, but I do know chicanery when I see it.

Here is an excerpt from a Phil Jones email. See if it resembles "academic discussion" to you. (emphasis mine).

At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone.

Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that.
Perhaps Mr. Krugman is unacquainted with incrimination and sees it instead as academic discussion.

Of course, many people are not even aware of these shenanigans because they rely heavily on network news for their information, and the networks - for whatever motive - simply will not report any truth that hurts their liberal agenda. Then they will vehemently deny any such agenda exists.

Meanwhile, the political leaders and their minions march ever onward toward Copenhagen where they hope to finally clamp the economic shackles on our wrists and ankles, praying that the networks can hold the floodgates closed long enough the secure their success. And just to add a bit of twisted irony to the trip, these fools will leave a carbon foot print the size of the Hiroshima bomb. (OK, so I made up the bit about Hiroshima, but you get the point).

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Obama's Afghan Troop Surge Speech

That was painful. Moments ago I gave thanks to God for the relative brevity of tonight's presidential address to the West Point Cadets regarding Obama's "decision" to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. I suspect the cadets are equally as grateful as am I, judging from their collective reaction to their new boss.

From the start of the speech I was struck by the obvious struggle of the audience between contempt and cordial respect. The applause at the entrance to the Commander in Chief was tepid, to be kind, and nothing resembling the raucous greetings George W. Bush enjoyed. I'm sure this will be excused by the left as somehow reflecting more on the composition of the crowd than on the character of the speaker.

From the outset, Obama couldn't have been more blatant in his attempt to supplant Nadia Komenich as champion of the balance beam. Beginning by reminding his audience of the outrage felt by Americans on September 11th, 2001, Obama proudly spoke of "his colleagues' work" in authorizing the use of force in response to that attack which emanated from Afghanistan. This quickly evolved into a cloaked attack on his predecessor, whom he blamed for the diversion of troops and funds to Iraq. If he's learned little on the job, Obama - or his writers - has learned to be more nuanced on such blame deflection.

While making the case, ostensibly to placate his weakening base, for his painstaking decision, Obama pointed out that those who have shared blood and sacrifice with us from the International Community were also on board in this endeavor. Yet as a senator, Obama joined in the chorus of "Bush went virtually alone", dismissing as irrelevant the 60 or more countries who participated in the Iraq War. To add some "street cred" with the most vitriolic of his fading supporters, he found a way to weave in the Vietnam War only to paint that as one of his younger crusades.

Meanwhile, the cadets valiantly battled slumber, treating the camera crew to some splendid shots. I think they cut away when a few fell out of their seats when Obama began complaining of the cost of Bush's wars and pointing out ways to save money with his "strategy". When he mentioned something about "nation-building" in America rather than abroad, I think more than a few awoke with a start.

The liberal red meat was tossed into the cage when Obama advocated an agenda of showing strength by "ending wars", and emphasized the need for more "finesse" in the prosecution of war. How much more finesse can we employ? He's already endorsed the mirandizing of enemy combatants. Do we now embed with the troops members of Levy, Phillips and Konegsburg? (I hate giving the Moore's such ideas).

I finally felt my revulsion at the speech change to anger and trepidation when Obama began speaking of "removing the tools of mass destruction", for he made it clear that he did not mean those of only the bad guys. (He can't differentiate between the real bad guys and us, after all). He wants all of us to drop our drawers and level the playing field. Socialized arsenals, anyone?

My final observation of this speech does bear a new wrinkle, one that I'm sure some of you may have noticed; Obama finally deployed the "Clinton Lip". He used it about three different times during his speech, and each time I fought the gales of laughter desperately fighting to escape me. I was afraid to miss a single word. During the speech he ended a cadence with the obvious expectation of the "applause line", and each time he was left to enjoy the sound of night insects. I could not help but notice his sour countenance upon his exit from the stage.

That was one ugly speech.

Sphere: Related Content

Obama Splits In Two

Look to Real Politics.com in the coming days to show a steep decline in Obama's approval rating. His speech tonight at West Point, in which he will announce a "troop surge" in Afghanistan, may draw a standing ovation from noted liberals such as Karl Rove, but the disciples of Michael Moore, the actual liberal extreme, will gravitate away from this president like similar poles of two magnets brought into close proximity. And Karl Rove's brief approval will still never translate into a vote for an Obama re-election bid.

Democrats who play to the whims of a popular breeze will also likely exhibit at least a tepid disdain for the president's decision to placate the likes of Cindy Sheehan and try to portray their subsequent approval of the president's request as reluctant. But let's remember the mood of the Democrats who were so opposed to the Iraq War that they exploited the Afghanistan War to club President Bush.

They complained that the Iraq War - illegitimate as it was - was a distraction that ignored the "real terror bed", Afghanistan. Their argument was that we should have been concentrating our efforts, and by extension our troop levels, on the Poppy Kingdom.

During the run-up to the election of 2008, Senate Majority Leader Harry - he of "the surge has failed in Iraq" fame - said on the Senate floor September 10th last year, "We know today that no more than a token shift of troop levels will take place until we have a new president committed to winning the war on terror by fighting the actual terrorists."

Would Reid consider Obama's offering of 75% of his commander's request a "token" shift? And why does Reid think that a smaller surge than requested will now miraculously be successful when he doubted General Petreus?

Perhaps the biggest question will be that, when the uber-liberal base finally jumps off the Obama ship, where will the Congressional Democrats be left standing? Will they follow the shallow lead of the Cindy Sheehan's or will they stand behind the empty suit in the Oval Office? And how will they react with one foot on the boat and one on the dock as the ship puts to sea?

Sphere: Related Content