The "Nudge" Man Cometh
As you know Obama hired Progressive Cass Sustein as his Regulatory Czar. Sustein is earning his bloated salary big time by increasing government regulation on a scale unprecedented in American history. He's the author of "Nudge" the book that describes how to change people's behavior forcibly by "nudging" them the way YOU want them to behave. In his present position, he is trying to accomplish this by expanding government regulations and by IGNORING Congress.
Sustein has been busy working with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which explains why they have bypassed Congress with their own version of Cap & Trade. The EPA is now telling us that carbon dioxide is DANGEROUS and they will regulate emissions. Forget about Congress! Hey, we exhale carbon dioxide! When will they regulate us?
Obama HATES COAL
Anyhow, the EPA is busy making new "regulations" to nudge us. In the next 18 months they will include regulations on: Mercury, smog, coal ash, water-intake, ozone, greenhouse gasses (CO2). All of these things are directly related to coal plants that generate electricity. Recall, coal plants generate about 45% of all the electricity produced here in the USA. Obama HATES COAL, so he has directed Sustein to close-down coal plants, causing electricity rates to SKYROCKET causing more blackouts and fewer jobs! That's why we didn't let Congress pass Cap & Trade! Congress? Who needs them anyway?
Over-regulating IS the Collapse Plan
This is no accident. If you want to "Fundamentally change America" you need to re-distribute the wealth. This is a major way to achieve those goals. This is not a secret. Obama is basically following Cloward and Piven and is slowly collapsing our system a piece at a time. It's right there in front of you! Just look through the BS and filter out the government spin! Look at the actions, don't listen to the words!
This explains why unemployment remains over 9.1%. This explains why Obama keeps borrowing astronomical amounts of money. This explains why Obama keeps repeating the same behavior over and over. It's deliberate and it's designed to accomplish HIS goals - NOT OURS!
You can expect to see several coal plants be forced to shut-down in the next 18 months because of these regulations. Why? Where will you and your family get your electricity? What will happen to the coal industry in America? Why are we ignoring the fact that we have the world's largest coal reserves? Isn't that a strength? Won't this help destroy the American economy?
Waking Up
Americans are waking up. Let's hope that it's not too late. It will take YEARS to un-do what this man has accomplished. It will be painful, but there is still a way out. Obama must become a ONE TERM PRESIDENT. We need to vote him out. Remember, we do NOT support violence!
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Friday, September 2, 2011
Congressional Bigotry
More Name Calling
Representative Andre Carson (D, IN) has been using incendiary words to attack the Tea Party. They have a hateful and deeply racial overtone. He is following Saul Alinski's tactics as outlined in "Rules For Radicals." Target your enemies. Isolate your enemies. And attack your enemies repeatedly. You don't have to prove your allegations, just keep repeating them over and over again. Sooner or later, the general public will believe your unfounded allegations. Do this to anyone who disagrees with you. In this case, it's the Tea Party. There is racism in America even today. Representative Carson illustrates it clearly!
Progressives Fight Dirty
This is old news. Progressives are using the tactics they always use. Only this time you should be Aware of them. Don't be fooled by their racial rhetoric. Representative Carson is trying to stimulate the Democratic base and black Americans into voting. The DEMs are afraid that they will loose the black voters in 2012. So they pick a target and go after it. Unite the people behind YOUR cause - even though you have to lie and use inflammatory language. The ends justify the means.
Don't Be Fooled
Pay attention to this tactic and don't be fooled into getting emotional about it. That's the whole point of the strategy. If you live in Indiana, let YOUR representative Andre Carson know that he is out-of-line with his HATE SPEECH language. Let him know that HE is the BIGOT! Race-based agendas have no place in the US Congress. Oh, and when it comes time for re-election, tell Congressman Carson to "Talk to the hand" and dump him from office.
Representative Andre Carson (D, IN) has been using incendiary words to attack the Tea Party. They have a hateful and deeply racial overtone. He is following Saul Alinski's tactics as outlined in "Rules For Radicals." Target your enemies. Isolate your enemies. And attack your enemies repeatedly. You don't have to prove your allegations, just keep repeating them over and over again. Sooner or later, the general public will believe your unfounded allegations. Do this to anyone who disagrees with you. In this case, it's the Tea Party. There is racism in America even today. Representative Carson illustrates it clearly!
Progressives Fight Dirty
This is old news. Progressives are using the tactics they always use. Only this time you should be Aware of them. Don't be fooled by their racial rhetoric. Representative Carson is trying to stimulate the Democratic base and black Americans into voting. The DEMs are afraid that they will loose the black voters in 2012. So they pick a target and go after it. Unite the people behind YOUR cause - even though you have to lie and use inflammatory language. The ends justify the means.
Don't Be Fooled
Pay attention to this tactic and don't be fooled into getting emotional about it. That's the whole point of the strategy. If you live in Indiana, let YOUR representative Andre Carson know that he is out-of-line with his HATE SPEECH language. Let him know that HE is the BIGOT! Race-based agendas have no place in the US Congress. Oh, and when it comes time for re-election, tell Congressman Carson to "Talk to the hand" and dump him from office.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Guest Article - Active Back Door AMNESTY
Political Path to Citizenship
By Tait Trussell, FrontPage.com
"For some Latinos, it is more than they could have hoped for. The Obama administration will stop deportation of illegal aliens if they are in school, have a family member in the military, are responsible for a family member’s care, or are elderly. Most criminal aliens can stay except “convicted felons.” Work permits will be available—meaning fewer jobs for U.S. jobless citizens.
But is this fairness or backdoor amnesty with unadulterated politics at its roots? What to do about illegal aliens is certain to be a major theme in the 2012 election.
The Hispanic vote has been one of the support structures for Barack Obama. But support is slipping, according to recent polling. And now that Texas Governor Rick Perry increasingly appears the Republican front-runner for president, the Hispanic vote is by no means in Obama’s corner. Perry won 38 percent of the Latinos in his 2010 race for Governor. He also supports in-state tuition for illegal immigrants who are high school graduates, even though he opposed the federal version of the pro-Hispanic DREAM Act.
Republicans generally stand for stricter enforcement and a closed border, with perhaps a temporary residence, but then a return home and application for citizenship, as required for any other foreigner.
The new administration plan for dealing with 300,000 illegal aliens currently involved in deportation proceedings “is blatant political pandering in an election cycle at the expense of American citizens.” That’s how an Investor’s Business Daily editorial described it.
No, insisted Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. It won’t be a free pass to citizenship. “This case-by-case approach will enhance public safety,” she said. “Immigration judges will be able to more swiftly adjudicate high-priority cases, such as those involving convicted felonies.” And supposedly send them home.
Congress has been deadlocked over the illegal immigration issue for years, as more aliens keep streaming in. Taxpayers are shelling out about $113 billion a year to support 11 million illegal immigrants, according to a current study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform.
For months, Obama said he didn’t have specific authority to halt deportations. He said that he was required to follow the laws as Congress had written them.
But then, there came a reversal. Homeland Security’s purported watchdog, Janet Napolitano, sent letters to Congress Aug. 18. She wrote that she did, by golly, have the discretion to set “priorities.” She said her department, along with the ever-trustworthy Department of Justice, will review all 300,000 cases of those who have been apprehended, but not yet ordered out of the U.S. to see who comes under the new liberal guidelines.
And what about those who had been deported “mistakenly” because they qualified for the Napolitano-described amnesty? Would agents be sent to Mexico to find them and retrieve them?
That would seem to be only fair under this new policy, wouldn’t it?
Proceedings at an administration task force hearing on deportation backfired, according to a STLtoday.com column earlier this month. The task force was set up to calm tensions over the new deportation policy. Immigrant, labor and church groups walked out partway through the hearing, banging drums and denouncing the hearing as a “sham” aimed at glossing over problems with the program known as “Secure Communities.”
Secure Communities began in 2008. In the program, the FBI shared fingerprints of those arrested by state and local law enforcement people with federal authorities so they could check for immigration law violations.
Immigrant groups marched out of hearings in Los Angeles and Chicago this month calling for an end to the Secure Communities program. The Obama administration since June has tried to focus on the deportation strategy for those convicted of serious crimes. Secure Communities was intended to expand across the country by 2013. Simultaneously, deportation proceedings would be cancelled for those who were not criminals.
A 21-member Secure Communities task force was created in June by John Morton, director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in response to discontent from cities and states. But a letter from more than 100 immigrant rights organizations called for the resignation of the task force, branding it a “rogue agency.”
“Inconsistent federal guidelines on the program have created confusion,” with some jurisdictions given more latitude than others, a Washington Post story reported in August. Immigration advocates have never liked it. So, John Morton notified state governors the Secure Communities program would be terminated.
In recent years, Obama has called on Congress to enact a comprehensive immigration bill to put illegals on the pathway to citizenship. The DREAM Act, which calls for giving college students and military enlistees brought here as children a route to citizenship, has gained some popularity. But it has failed to get through Congress. Some opponents have insisted that securing the Mexican-U.S. border is top priority. Obama has said the Republicans won’t be happy until a moat with alligators is built along the boarder. What a hilarious president we have.
Meanwhile, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), described as a non-partisan organization, has assembled a raft of data to alert Americans as to the cost of illegal immigrants.
“National anti-boarder groups,” FAIR said, “with government funds, are working” to undermine current immigration laws and reward aliens with “contrived ‘civil rights’” for successfully evading deportation aided by a “sympathetic mainstream media.”
Our political leaders are refusing “to acknowledge the huge costs of illegal immigration” and “put politics ahead of all other considerations.” The FAIR agenda also includes “reminding Americans that 7 million jobs in our nation today are held by illegal aliens.”
California is hit with an estimated $21.8 billion in annual expenditures for illegal immigrants. New York spends $9.5 billion each year. “What’s unknown to most Americans is the fact that the tally also runs over a billion dollars annually for states such as Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington. Even out-of-the-way Vermont spends $63 million annually on illegal aliens.”
Obama, with the whiff of 2012 in his nostrils, meanwhile continues to promise those promoting illegal immigration laws to “fix” the system to their liking."
By Tait Trussell, FrontPage.com
"For some Latinos, it is more than they could have hoped for. The Obama administration will stop deportation of illegal aliens if they are in school, have a family member in the military, are responsible for a family member’s care, or are elderly. Most criminal aliens can stay except “convicted felons.” Work permits will be available—meaning fewer jobs for U.S. jobless citizens.
But is this fairness or backdoor amnesty with unadulterated politics at its roots? What to do about illegal aliens is certain to be a major theme in the 2012 election.
The Hispanic vote has been one of the support structures for Barack Obama. But support is slipping, according to recent polling. And now that Texas Governor Rick Perry increasingly appears the Republican front-runner for president, the Hispanic vote is by no means in Obama’s corner. Perry won 38 percent of the Latinos in his 2010 race for Governor. He also supports in-state tuition for illegal immigrants who are high school graduates, even though he opposed the federal version of the pro-Hispanic DREAM Act.
Republicans generally stand for stricter enforcement and a closed border, with perhaps a temporary residence, but then a return home and application for citizenship, as required for any other foreigner.
The new administration plan for dealing with 300,000 illegal aliens currently involved in deportation proceedings “is blatant political pandering in an election cycle at the expense of American citizens.” That’s how an Investor’s Business Daily editorial described it.
No, insisted Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. It won’t be a free pass to citizenship. “This case-by-case approach will enhance public safety,” she said. “Immigration judges will be able to more swiftly adjudicate high-priority cases, such as those involving convicted felonies.” And supposedly send them home.
Congress has been deadlocked over the illegal immigration issue for years, as more aliens keep streaming in. Taxpayers are shelling out about $113 billion a year to support 11 million illegal immigrants, according to a current study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform.
For months, Obama said he didn’t have specific authority to halt deportations. He said that he was required to follow the laws as Congress had written them.
But then, there came a reversal. Homeland Security’s purported watchdog, Janet Napolitano, sent letters to Congress Aug. 18. She wrote that she did, by golly, have the discretion to set “priorities.” She said her department, along with the ever-trustworthy Department of Justice, will review all 300,000 cases of those who have been apprehended, but not yet ordered out of the U.S. to see who comes under the new liberal guidelines.
And what about those who had been deported “mistakenly” because they qualified for the Napolitano-described amnesty? Would agents be sent to Mexico to find them and retrieve them?
That would seem to be only fair under this new policy, wouldn’t it?
Proceedings at an administration task force hearing on deportation backfired, according to a STLtoday.com column earlier this month. The task force was set up to calm tensions over the new deportation policy. Immigrant, labor and church groups walked out partway through the hearing, banging drums and denouncing the hearing as a “sham” aimed at glossing over problems with the program known as “Secure Communities.”
Secure Communities began in 2008. In the program, the FBI shared fingerprints of those arrested by state and local law enforcement people with federal authorities so they could check for immigration law violations.
Immigrant groups marched out of hearings in Los Angeles and Chicago this month calling for an end to the Secure Communities program. The Obama administration since June has tried to focus on the deportation strategy for those convicted of serious crimes. Secure Communities was intended to expand across the country by 2013. Simultaneously, deportation proceedings would be cancelled for those who were not criminals.
A 21-member Secure Communities task force was created in June by John Morton, director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in response to discontent from cities and states. But a letter from more than 100 immigrant rights organizations called for the resignation of the task force, branding it a “rogue agency.”
“Inconsistent federal guidelines on the program have created confusion,” with some jurisdictions given more latitude than others, a Washington Post story reported in August. Immigration advocates have never liked it. So, John Morton notified state governors the Secure Communities program would be terminated.
In recent years, Obama has called on Congress to enact a comprehensive immigration bill to put illegals on the pathway to citizenship. The DREAM Act, which calls for giving college students and military enlistees brought here as children a route to citizenship, has gained some popularity. But it has failed to get through Congress. Some opponents have insisted that securing the Mexican-U.S. border is top priority. Obama has said the Republicans won’t be happy until a moat with alligators is built along the boarder. What a hilarious president we have.
Meanwhile, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), described as a non-partisan organization, has assembled a raft of data to alert Americans as to the cost of illegal immigrants.
“National anti-boarder groups,” FAIR said, “with government funds, are working” to undermine current immigration laws and reward aliens with “contrived ‘civil rights’” for successfully evading deportation aided by a “sympathetic mainstream media.”
Our political leaders are refusing “to acknowledge the huge costs of illegal immigration” and “put politics ahead of all other considerations.” The FAIR agenda also includes “reminding Americans that 7 million jobs in our nation today are held by illegal aliens.”
California is hit with an estimated $21.8 billion in annual expenditures for illegal immigrants. New York spends $9.5 billion each year. “What’s unknown to most Americans is the fact that the tally also runs over a billion dollars annually for states such as Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington. Even out-of-the-way Vermont spends $63 million annually on illegal aliens.”
Obama, with the whiff of 2012 in his nostrils, meanwhile continues to promise those promoting illegal immigration laws to “fix” the system to their liking."
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Guest Article - Destroy from Within
A Conspiracy of Counterfeiters
by Patrick J. Buchanan syndicated columnist.
""Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalist System was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens."
"Lenin was certainly right," John Maynard Keynes continued in his 1919 classic, "The Economic Consequences of the Peace."
"There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose."
Keynes warned that terrible hatreds would be unleashed against "profiteers" who enriched themselves through inflation as the middle class was wiped out. And he pointed with alarm to Germany, where the mark had lost most of its international value.
By November 1923, the German currency was worthless, hauled about in wheelbarrows to buy groceries. The middle class had been destroyed. German housewives were prostituting themselves to feed their families. That same month, Adolf Hitler attempted his Munich Beer Hall Putsch.
Today a coterie of economists is prodding Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke to induce inflation into the American economy.
Fearing falling prices, professor Kenneth Rogoff, former chief economist for the International Monetary Fund, is pushing for an inflation rate of 5 to 6 percent while conceding that his proposal is rife with peril and "we could end up with 200 percent inflation."
Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winner and columnist for The New York Times, is pushing Bernanke in the same direction.
Bernanke, writes Krugman, should take the advice he gave Japan in 2000, when he urged the Bank of Japan to stimulate the economy with "an announcement that the bank was seeking moderate inflation, 'setting a target in the 3-4 percent range for inflation, to be maintained for a number of years.'"
And who inspired Bernanke to urge Tokyo to inflate? Krugman modestly credits himself.
"Was Mr. Bernanke on the right track? I think so -- as well I should, since his paper was partly based on my own earlier work."
But Krugman is not optimistic about Bernanke's injecting the U.S. economy with a sufficient dose of inflation.
Why is Ben hesitant? Two words, says Krugman: "Rick Perry."
Krugman believes Bernanke has been intimidated by Perry's populist threat in Iowa after his first day of campaigning:
"If this guy (Bernanke) prints more money between now and the election, I don't know what y'all would do to him in Iowa, but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas. Printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost treasonous."
Perry was indulging in Texas hyperbole, and the press came down hard on him for language unbefitting a presidential candidate.
Yet Perry has raised a legitimate series of questions.
What should be done to high officials of the U.S. government who consciously set out to dilute and destroy the savings and income of working Americans? What should be done to those who have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution and then steal the wealth of citizens by secretly manipulating the value of the currency, the store of wealth upon which those people depend?
Is inducing inflation -- debauching the currency, the systematic and secret theft of the savings of citizens -- a legitimate policy option for the Federal Reserve? Has Congress authorized official thievery?
Who do these economists think they are?
Inflation rewards debt -- and erodes savings. It is legalized counterfeiting, the deliberate creation of money with nothing to back it up. [my emphasis]
If a citizen printed dollars bills, he would be tracked by the Secret Service, prosecuted and imprisoned. Why, then, is the Fed's clandestine printing of money with nothing to back it up a legitimate exercise and, according to Krugman & Co., a desirable policy for Bernanke and the Fed?
Schooled economists such as Rogoff, Krugman and Bernanke know how to shelter their wealth from the ravages of inflation -- and even to get rich. But what about widows whose husbands leave a nest egg of savings in cash and bonds? What are they supposed to do as the value of their savings is wiped out at 4, 5 or 6 percent a year -- or whatever annual rate of ruin the Rogoffs and the Krugmans decide upon?
This is not only an economic issue but a moral issue.
To inflate a currency is to steal the money citizens have earned and saved and entrusted their government to protect. Any government that betrays that trust and steals that wealth is not only unworthy of support. It is worthy of being overthrown.
On this one, as Keynes said, Lenin was right.
Perry and Ron Paul deserve the nation's gratitude for putting this issue of the unfettered power and the amorality of our unelected Federal Reserve on the political docket."
by Patrick J. Buchanan syndicated columnist.
""Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalist System was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens."
"Lenin was certainly right," John Maynard Keynes continued in his 1919 classic, "The Economic Consequences of the Peace."
"There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose."
Keynes warned that terrible hatreds would be unleashed against "profiteers" who enriched themselves through inflation as the middle class was wiped out. And he pointed with alarm to Germany, where the mark had lost most of its international value.
By November 1923, the German currency was worthless, hauled about in wheelbarrows to buy groceries. The middle class had been destroyed. German housewives were prostituting themselves to feed their families. That same month, Adolf Hitler attempted his Munich Beer Hall Putsch.
Today a coterie of economists is prodding Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke to induce inflation into the American economy.
Fearing falling prices, professor Kenneth Rogoff, former chief economist for the International Monetary Fund, is pushing for an inflation rate of 5 to 6 percent while conceding that his proposal is rife with peril and "we could end up with 200 percent inflation."
Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winner and columnist for The New York Times, is pushing Bernanke in the same direction.
Bernanke, writes Krugman, should take the advice he gave Japan in 2000, when he urged the Bank of Japan to stimulate the economy with "an announcement that the bank was seeking moderate inflation, 'setting a target in the 3-4 percent range for inflation, to be maintained for a number of years.'"
And who inspired Bernanke to urge Tokyo to inflate? Krugman modestly credits himself.
"Was Mr. Bernanke on the right track? I think so -- as well I should, since his paper was partly based on my own earlier work."
But Krugman is not optimistic about Bernanke's injecting the U.S. economy with a sufficient dose of inflation.
Why is Ben hesitant? Two words, says Krugman: "Rick Perry."
Krugman believes Bernanke has been intimidated by Perry's populist threat in Iowa after his first day of campaigning:
"If this guy (Bernanke) prints more money between now and the election, I don't know what y'all would do to him in Iowa, but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas. Printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost treasonous."
Perry was indulging in Texas hyperbole, and the press came down hard on him for language unbefitting a presidential candidate.
Yet Perry has raised a legitimate series of questions.
What should be done to high officials of the U.S. government who consciously set out to dilute and destroy the savings and income of working Americans? What should be done to those who have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution and then steal the wealth of citizens by secretly manipulating the value of the currency, the store of wealth upon which those people depend?
Is inducing inflation -- debauching the currency, the systematic and secret theft of the savings of citizens -- a legitimate policy option for the Federal Reserve? Has Congress authorized official thievery?
Who do these economists think they are?
Inflation rewards debt -- and erodes savings. It is legalized counterfeiting, the deliberate creation of money with nothing to back it up. [my emphasis]
If a citizen printed dollars bills, he would be tracked by the Secret Service, prosecuted and imprisoned. Why, then, is the Fed's clandestine printing of money with nothing to back it up a legitimate exercise and, according to Krugman & Co., a desirable policy for Bernanke and the Fed?
Schooled economists such as Rogoff, Krugman and Bernanke know how to shelter their wealth from the ravages of inflation -- and even to get rich. But what about widows whose husbands leave a nest egg of savings in cash and bonds? What are they supposed to do as the value of their savings is wiped out at 4, 5 or 6 percent a year -- or whatever annual rate of ruin the Rogoffs and the Krugmans decide upon?
This is not only an economic issue but a moral issue.
To inflate a currency is to steal the money citizens have earned and saved and entrusted their government to protect. Any government that betrays that trust and steals that wealth is not only unworthy of support. It is worthy of being overthrown.
On this one, as Keynes said, Lenin was right.
Perry and Ron Paul deserve the nation's gratitude for putting this issue of the unfettered power and the amorality of our unelected Federal Reserve on the political docket."
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Guest Article - Bad Science of Global Warming
Krugman Fails Climate Science 101
Posted By Rich Trzupek in FrontPage.com
"Economist Paul Krugman took to the pages of The New York Times on Sunday in order to regurgitate Sierra Club talking points regarding global warming and to castigate the Republican Party for being “anti-science.” As Roger Simon noted, like just about everybody else writing about the issue, Krugman doesn’t bother to explain or understand the science or the nature of the robust scientific debate that has been going on for some time. Instead, he relies on the Left’s preferred method for analyzing scientific issues: a moistened finger held up to the wind.
Krugman’s central thesis is that theory that mankind is causing catastrophic climate change has to be true, because “97 to 98 per cent of scientists” agree that it’s true. You’ll see the “97 to 98 per cent” number appearing quite often now. It’s become a key talking point of the alarmist crowd, as they struggle to regain relevance in a world that has a harder and harder time taking them seriously. But where does that amazing number come from? It arises from a 2009 survey that two University of Illinois researchers conducted. 10,257 Earth scientists responded and, much to the U of I professors’ chagrin, the results were far from satisfying to the alarmist crowd.
Many of the respondents indicated that they believe that natural forces are much more important than mankind’s paltry contributions to climate trends. Some questioned the validity of the models that have been used to predict massive forcing attributable to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. All in all, it wasn’t the kind of response that the researchers were looking for when they were trying to prove consensus. So, the professors decided that 10,180 of the scientists who responded weren’t qualified to comment on the issue because they were merely solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists, astronomers and the like. Of the remaining 77 scientists whose votes were counted, 75 agreed with the proposition that mankind was causing catastrophic changes in the climate. And, since 75 is 97.4% of 77, “overwhelming consensus” was demonstrated once again. See Laurence Solomon’s marvelous analysis of the survey for more details.
This attempt to silence dissent across scientific disciplines is a sad and troubling feature of the global warming alarmist movement. As a scientist and a skeptic, I often hear alarmists tell me that I’m not qualified to opine on global warming because I’m merely a chemist. I’m not a climatologist, so my vote should not count. Now, having specialized in air quality work for the past thirty years, having run many dispersion models (related to, but not the same as, climate models) and knowing a fair bit about thermodynamics, I’ll flatter myself to think that I know a whole lot more about the issue than 99% of the people writing about it in the mainstream media. And yet, people like Krugman feel no shame when they speak authoritatively about an issue they don’t understand in the slightest. I’ll make Mr. Krugman a deal: I won’t write about exchange rate instability if he will take a pass on atmospheric science.
There is no question that carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gases” play a role in the complex climate system that is planet earth. No scientist denies that. But the stupefyingly oversimplification that leftists like Krugman cling to – that global warming is wholly and directly caused by our use of fossil fuels – is about as idiotic as saying that unemployment rates in Arkansas determine growth in national GDP. The global warming question is, in fact, five distinct questions:
1. Is the planet’s climate changing?
2. If so, is the rate of change cause for concern?
3. If so, can human activities contribute to the rate of change?
4. If so, is the degree to which human activities contribute to the rate of change significant compared to other forces?
5. If so, is it wiser to attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that it is to adapt to the changing climate?
Only if one answers all five questions in the affirmative can one justify further reductions in fossil fuel use. When one considers how scientists answer those questions, we find that the number who would answer every one with an unqualified “yes” hardly represents any sort of consensus at all. See the Heartland Institute’s detailed analysis, “You Call This Consensus,” for more.
Ironically, while leftists like Krugman rave on and on because conservatives like Rick Perry have the courage to question the supposed “consensus,” they appear to be blissfully ignorant of the fact that the United States has been and will continue to do exactly what they want: make massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Let’s assume for a moment that Krugman is right and that I and the thousands – and there are thousands – of other scientists that disagree with the alarmists are wrong. Let’s say that it is indeed vitally important for the United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. What else do you want us to do? The fact is – and I am shocked that as clever a fellow as Krugman couldn’t be bothered to do a little research to figure this out – the United States has made massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and will continue to do so because of all of the programs that are already in place.
A simple check of EPA data shows that greenhouse gas emissions in America have dropped fourteen percent over the course of the last decade. China and India have more than made up for that reduction with increased emissions of course, but to perpetuate the myth that the United States isn’t doing its part is ludicrous. Is some of our reduction due to the great recession? Sure. But the fact is that regulatory initiatives already in place guarantee that greenhouse gas emissions in the United States will continue to drop for decades to come. Before they trot out the tired old idea that Republicans are “anti-science,” it would be nice if mainstream journalists spent some time understanding and reporting on what’s in place. For example:
• Thirty-three states have Renewable Portfolio Standards in place. These programs massively reduce greenhouse gas emissions by forcing states to use less and less fossil fuel each year.
• Northeastern states banded together to put a regional cap and trade program in place that has been up and running since 2009, and consortia of Midwest and western states are working on their own cap and trade programs.
• The USEPA is going to start regulating all large greenhouse gas emissions sources under the Clean Air Act, and its permit program starting on July 1, 2011.
• By passing new, incredibly draconian ambient air standards and new regulations affecting power plants, Obama’s EPA has ensured that no new large coal-fired power plants will be built in the United States again, and that a significant portion of the existing fleet will shut down in the next decade or two.
• New CAFE standards will continue to drive down oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.
In spite of this, in spite of the massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that we have seen over the course of a decade, and in spite of the incredible reductions in air pollution emissions we have accomplished over the last forty years, it’s never enough for the environmental crowd. Of course it’s not. They have to keep moving the goal posts farther and farther back to keep themselves relevant. It’s the same old Sierra Clubs “the sky is falling” rhetoric. The fact is that Republicans like Perry are not anti-environment, they are rather sensible enough to recognize that the American people are sick and tired of signing off on every crackpot initiative that liberals expect us to accept just because they wrap a green bow around it."
Posted By Rich Trzupek in FrontPage.com
"Economist Paul Krugman took to the pages of The New York Times on Sunday in order to regurgitate Sierra Club talking points regarding global warming and to castigate the Republican Party for being “anti-science.” As Roger Simon noted, like just about everybody else writing about the issue, Krugman doesn’t bother to explain or understand the science or the nature of the robust scientific debate that has been going on for some time. Instead, he relies on the Left’s preferred method for analyzing scientific issues: a moistened finger held up to the wind.
Krugman’s central thesis is that theory that mankind is causing catastrophic climate change has to be true, because “97 to 98 per cent of scientists” agree that it’s true. You’ll see the “97 to 98 per cent” number appearing quite often now. It’s become a key talking point of the alarmist crowd, as they struggle to regain relevance in a world that has a harder and harder time taking them seriously. But where does that amazing number come from? It arises from a 2009 survey that two University of Illinois researchers conducted. 10,257 Earth scientists responded and, much to the U of I professors’ chagrin, the results were far from satisfying to the alarmist crowd.
Many of the respondents indicated that they believe that natural forces are much more important than mankind’s paltry contributions to climate trends. Some questioned the validity of the models that have been used to predict massive forcing attributable to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. All in all, it wasn’t the kind of response that the researchers were looking for when they were trying to prove consensus. So, the professors decided that 10,180 of the scientists who responded weren’t qualified to comment on the issue because they were merely solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists, astronomers and the like. Of the remaining 77 scientists whose votes were counted, 75 agreed with the proposition that mankind was causing catastrophic changes in the climate. And, since 75 is 97.4% of 77, “overwhelming consensus” was demonstrated once again. See Laurence Solomon’s marvelous analysis of the survey for more details.
This attempt to silence dissent across scientific disciplines is a sad and troubling feature of the global warming alarmist movement. As a scientist and a skeptic, I often hear alarmists tell me that I’m not qualified to opine on global warming because I’m merely a chemist. I’m not a climatologist, so my vote should not count. Now, having specialized in air quality work for the past thirty years, having run many dispersion models (related to, but not the same as, climate models) and knowing a fair bit about thermodynamics, I’ll flatter myself to think that I know a whole lot more about the issue than 99% of the people writing about it in the mainstream media. And yet, people like Krugman feel no shame when they speak authoritatively about an issue they don’t understand in the slightest. I’ll make Mr. Krugman a deal: I won’t write about exchange rate instability if he will take a pass on atmospheric science.
There is no question that carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gases” play a role in the complex climate system that is planet earth. No scientist denies that. But the stupefyingly oversimplification that leftists like Krugman cling to – that global warming is wholly and directly caused by our use of fossil fuels – is about as idiotic as saying that unemployment rates in Arkansas determine growth in national GDP. The global warming question is, in fact, five distinct questions:
1. Is the planet’s climate changing?
2. If so, is the rate of change cause for concern?
3. If so, can human activities contribute to the rate of change?
4. If so, is the degree to which human activities contribute to the rate of change significant compared to other forces?
5. If so, is it wiser to attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that it is to adapt to the changing climate?
Only if one answers all five questions in the affirmative can one justify further reductions in fossil fuel use. When one considers how scientists answer those questions, we find that the number who would answer every one with an unqualified “yes” hardly represents any sort of consensus at all. See the Heartland Institute’s detailed analysis, “You Call This Consensus,” for more.
Ironically, while leftists like Krugman rave on and on because conservatives like Rick Perry have the courage to question the supposed “consensus,” they appear to be blissfully ignorant of the fact that the United States has been and will continue to do exactly what they want: make massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Let’s assume for a moment that Krugman is right and that I and the thousands – and there are thousands – of other scientists that disagree with the alarmists are wrong. Let’s say that it is indeed vitally important for the United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. What else do you want us to do? The fact is – and I am shocked that as clever a fellow as Krugman couldn’t be bothered to do a little research to figure this out – the United States has made massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and will continue to do so because of all of the programs that are already in place.
A simple check of EPA data shows that greenhouse gas emissions in America have dropped fourteen percent over the course of the last decade. China and India have more than made up for that reduction with increased emissions of course, but to perpetuate the myth that the United States isn’t doing its part is ludicrous. Is some of our reduction due to the great recession? Sure. But the fact is that regulatory initiatives already in place guarantee that greenhouse gas emissions in the United States will continue to drop for decades to come. Before they trot out the tired old idea that Republicans are “anti-science,” it would be nice if mainstream journalists spent some time understanding and reporting on what’s in place. For example:
• Thirty-three states have Renewable Portfolio Standards in place. These programs massively reduce greenhouse gas emissions by forcing states to use less and less fossil fuel each year.
• Northeastern states banded together to put a regional cap and trade program in place that has been up and running since 2009, and consortia of Midwest and western states are working on their own cap and trade programs.
• The USEPA is going to start regulating all large greenhouse gas emissions sources under the Clean Air Act, and its permit program starting on July 1, 2011.
• By passing new, incredibly draconian ambient air standards and new regulations affecting power plants, Obama’s EPA has ensured that no new large coal-fired power plants will be built in the United States again, and that a significant portion of the existing fleet will shut down in the next decade or two.
• New CAFE standards will continue to drive down oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.
In spite of this, in spite of the massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that we have seen over the course of a decade, and in spite of the incredible reductions in air pollution emissions we have accomplished over the last forty years, it’s never enough for the environmental crowd. Of course it’s not. They have to keep moving the goal posts farther and farther back to keep themselves relevant. It’s the same old Sierra Clubs “the sky is falling” rhetoric. The fact is that Republicans like Perry are not anti-environment, they are rather sensible enough to recognize that the American people are sick and tired of signing off on every crackpot initiative that liberals expect us to accept just because they wrap a green bow around it."
Monday, August 29, 2011
Guest Article - We Are Under Attack
George Soros: Media Mogul: Executive Summary
Lefty Businessman Spends Millions Funding Journalism
By Dan Gainor and Iris Somberg - Business & Media Institute.
"George Soros is arguably the most influential liberal financier in the United States, donating more than $8 billion just to his Open Society Foundations. In 2004, he spent more than $27 million to defeat President George W. Bush and has given away millions more since to promote the left-wing agenda. But what goes almost without notice is Soros' extensive influence on and involvement with the media.
Since 2003, Soros has donated more than $52 million to all kinds of media outlets - liberal news organizations, investigative reporting and even smaller blogs. He has also been involved in funding the infrastructure of supposedly "neutral" news, from education to even the industry ombudsman association. Many other operations Soros supports also have a media component to what they do.
His media funding has helped create a liberal "echo chamber," in the words of one group he backs, "in which a message pushes the larger public or the mainstream media to acknowledge, respond, and give airtime to progressive ideas because it is repeated many times." The goal is "Taking Down Fox News," as the Soros-supported "Mother Jones" described it.
Despite his denials, Soros has extensive reach into the media. The Media Research Center's Business & Media Institute conducted a detailed analysis of George Soros and his influence on the media. It found:
Soros Spends More Than $52 Million on Media: Since 2003, Soros has spent more than $52 million funding media properties, including the infrastructure of news - journalism schools, investigative journalism and even industry organizations. That's a low estimate because many organizations have a media component to what they do but it is impossible to separate the operations.
Ties to Major Media: Soros has connections to more than 30 mainstream news outlets - including The New York Times, Washington Post, Associated Press, CNN and ABC.
Breach of Ethics: Prominent journalists like ABC's Christiane Amanpour, New York Times Executive Editor Jill Abramson and former Post editor and now Vice President Len Downie serve on boards of operations that take Soros cash. But according to the Society of Professional Journalists' ethical code, journalists should 'avoid all conflicts real or perceived.' Reporters and editors serving on boards of groups funded by Soros openly violate both aspects of this guideline.
Reaching More Than U.S. Population: Every month, reporters, writers and bloggers at the many outlets Soros funds - from big players like NPR to the little known Project Syndicate and Public News Service, both of which claim to reach millions of readers - easily reach more than 332 million people around the globe. The population of the entire United States is less than 310 million.
Fox News is Target No. 1: Nearly 30 groups funded by the liberal billionaire have attacked Fox News in the six months since the beginning of December, 2010. Soros-funded media operations claim Fox News has a "history of inciting Islamophobia and racial and ethic animosity" and that it tries to "race bait its viewers.""
Lefty Businessman Spends Millions Funding Journalism
By Dan Gainor and Iris Somberg - Business & Media Institute.
"George Soros is arguably the most influential liberal financier in the United States, donating more than $8 billion just to his Open Society Foundations. In 2004, he spent more than $27 million to defeat President George W. Bush and has given away millions more since to promote the left-wing agenda. But what goes almost without notice is Soros' extensive influence on and involvement with the media.
Since 2003, Soros has donated more than $52 million to all kinds of media outlets - liberal news organizations, investigative reporting and even smaller blogs. He has also been involved in funding the infrastructure of supposedly "neutral" news, from education to even the industry ombudsman association. Many other operations Soros supports also have a media component to what they do.
His media funding has helped create a liberal "echo chamber," in the words of one group he backs, "in which a message pushes the larger public or the mainstream media to acknowledge, respond, and give airtime to progressive ideas because it is repeated many times." The goal is "Taking Down Fox News," as the Soros-supported "Mother Jones" described it.
Despite his denials, Soros has extensive reach into the media. The Media Research Center's Business & Media Institute conducted a detailed analysis of George Soros and his influence on the media. It found:
Soros Spends More Than $52 Million on Media: Since 2003, Soros has spent more than $52 million funding media properties, including the infrastructure of news - journalism schools, investigative journalism and even industry organizations. That's a low estimate because many organizations have a media component to what they do but it is impossible to separate the operations.
Ties to Major Media: Soros has connections to more than 30 mainstream news outlets - including The New York Times, Washington Post, Associated Press, CNN and ABC.
Breach of Ethics: Prominent journalists like ABC's Christiane Amanpour, New York Times Executive Editor Jill Abramson and former Post editor and now Vice President Len Downie serve on boards of operations that take Soros cash. But according to the Society of Professional Journalists' ethical code, journalists should 'avoid all conflicts real or perceived.' Reporters and editors serving on boards of groups funded by Soros openly violate both aspects of this guideline.
Reaching More Than U.S. Population: Every month, reporters, writers and bloggers at the many outlets Soros funds - from big players like NPR to the little known Project Syndicate and Public News Service, both of which claim to reach millions of readers - easily reach more than 332 million people around the globe. The population of the entire United States is less than 310 million.
Fox News is Target No. 1: Nearly 30 groups funded by the liberal billionaire have attacked Fox News in the six months since the beginning of December, 2010. Soros-funded media operations claim Fox News has a "history of inciting Islamophobia and racial and ethic animosity" and that it tries to "race bait its viewers.""
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Barry's World
ObamaCare In Action
Obama's Voters
O's Military Strategy
Wrong Track Plan
Too Funny Not To Post
Obama's Voters
O's Military Strategy
Wrong Track Plan
Too Funny Not To Post
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
