Only a Liberal…

If you watch Fox, you’ve been hearing the pundits keep saying that the Earth has been cooling for 10 years. While no one outright denied it as far as I saw, that information didn’t carry the weight necessary to spread.

Well now, a leading global warming believer, member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, has admitted the Earth has been cooling for a decade and may continue cooling for another decade.

Calgary Herald - “When a leading proponent for one point of view suddenly starts batting for the other side, it’s usually newsworthy.

So why was a speech last week by Prof. Mojib Latif of Germany’s Leibniz Institute not given more prominence?

Latif is one of the leading climate modellers in the world. He is the recipient of several international climate-study prizes and a lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He has contributed significantly to the IPCC’s last two five-year reports that have stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing the planet to warm dangerously.

Yet last week in Geneva, at the UN’s World Climate Conference–an annual gathering of the so-called “scientific consensus” on man-made climate change –Latif conceded the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering “one or even two decades during which temperatures cool.”

Latif did follow this up by saying he thinks warming will resume in 2020, but who knows why he assumes this. He didn’t predict the current cooling, yet acknowledges it, so how can we even be sure about his prediction of warming in 2020? What good is his warming prediction if he didn’t predict the cooling that has already happened?

Professor Latif still wholeheartedly believes in man-made global warming. His climate models told him so. His climate models told him human carbon emissions are warming the Earth, and yet the evidence shows the Earth is cooling, and Latif admits it.

This is all a moot point, as I pointed out in the past. Climate models are based on the data found in the Vostok ice core samples. Most non-political nerds know them from the graph Al Gore shows in his movie, “An Inconvenient Truth.” He shows a correlation between CO2 and Earth’s temperature, and claims the CO2 causes temperature increases, when in fact his own data shows the opposite. I lay out the explanation in an article on another site.

I also highly recommend my article talking about Michael Crichton. He explains how a scientific consensus is an oxymoron better than I could.

From Walter E. Williams, filling in for Rush Limbaugh’s radio show:

In 1966, the House Ways and Means committee said that by 1990 Medicare would only cost $12 billion. In 1966 it started out at $3 billion, but they said by 1990, it will cost $12 billion.

In 1990, Medicare was $107 BILLION. Nine times higher than the congressional estimate. Today, its $420 billion.

Forget Republicans and Democrats. The government is a virus for wealth and productivity. It wastes and wastes and wastes, and then it expects you to celebrate it for doing so. It doesn’t matter which party is in charge. It doesn’t matter who’s driving the metaphorical car.

Think of the government as an inefficient engine. We can get to almost all places without it, but occasionally we need to use it. Politicians are the “mechanics” so they want you to use it a lot. They will spend millions of dollars and poll small groups to find out the best way to convince you to “drive” the car more, but the fact remains you don’t need a car to get to most of your destinations.

Despite all that, our engine runs better than other countries’ engines. I’m not saying we should change the engine type. We need to “drive” less. Stop giving the government more power and money. They waste it at incredible rates… rates that make Bernie Madoff look tame.

Medicare has TENS OF TRILLIONS in unfunded liabilities, a number so high most Americans can’t even get their head around it. If a private company were to do that, no bank would give it a loan. Why do regular Americans assume the world will continue to fund our insanity? And why do otherwise regular Americans want to hand over even one more responsibility to the disease that is the federal government? What amount of waste is too much, where you’ll say, “Perhaps we’re better off paying for our own health insurance.”

Supporting government run health care requires a mindlessness I am unable to comprehend. Every argument for it is in fact an argument against it (except those supporting socialism) even if I disagree with the premise of that argument.

“Private companies are greedy and wasteful.” SO YOU WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO RUN IT?!

“Private companies will let someone die for money.” SO YOU WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO RUN IT?!

Do you know who is helping administer the TARP funds and stimulus money? Goldman Sachs executives who now work for the federal government. So the very people that liberals blame for the financial mess and think should go to jail are the ones now “fixing” it. Its as though if the government hires you, your past transgressions are wiped clean, and you are now pure as the wind-driven snow.

Guess who will be running government run health care when some politician essentially makes private insurance unfeasible? It will be a combination of politicians and the very health insurance company executives and pharmaceutical company executives that you liberals hate so much.

Use your flipping brains.

Just broke on Fox News… the prostitute scandal appears to have finally ended the insanity.

Keith Olbermann presents a convincing case that Joe Wilson was just flat-out wrong when he accused the President of lying in his address to Congress. Wrong in his incivility towards the Commander in Chief, but also wrong in his facts. I found that hard to believe. Let’s find out.

Olbermann cites in this video (go to 3:30 in video) on his show Countdown that H.R. 3200 Section 246 explicitly prevents illegal aliens from receiving health care. (You can see the bill and this section at the bottom of the post)

Sec. 246. No Federal Payment for Undocumented Aliens.

Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

After viewing this, I thought, “Wow, Olbermann’s right. It says no payment for undocumented aliens.” So I watched it again.

Oops

Do you see Olbermann’s mistake? It took me a couple views. I’ll show you again with bold…

Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

Well that’s odd? Why not say “Nothing in this bill”? Why isolate it to the “subtitle”?

Section 246 falls under Subtitle C: Individual Affordability Credits. I am still trying to determine exactly how inclusive these credits are, but there are multiple divisions, titles and subtitles. There are 51 subtitles total, and only one has a provision for not allowing payments to “individuals who are not lawfully present in the U.S.”

Other subtitles shall allow coverage for illegals

So if nothing in Section 246 of Title II Subtitle C “shall allow” payments for these credits, what is to stop other subtitles from “allowing” payments? Absolutely nothing. Other subtitles include “Standards guaranteeing access to essential benefits,” “Governance,” and “Public Health Insurance Option.” Keith Olbermann is being lazy at best and disingenuous at worst.

Olbermann puts the fake nail in Joe Wilson’s non-existent “coffin”:

You got it wrong! There is no ambiguity. There is no disagreement. The bill says those here illegally will not be covered.

No, Keith, it does not. Coverage to illegals is only forbidden in 1 out of 51 subtitles. You got it wrong!

On top of all that, Mr. Olbermann, even if Section 246  of Subtitle C covered the entire bill, the bill has no provisions for enforcement.

As Rep. John Boehner pointed out, Republicans attempted to apply Section 246’s restriction to the entire bill with an amendment explicitly banning coverage for illegal aliens. The committee headed by Democrats voted it down. I am unaware whether the amendment addressed enforcement or not.

President Obama, Rep. Wilson was correct.

You lie

You are lying about coverage for illegal aliens.

While one could argue yelling in the middle of your speech was inappropriate, he broke no law, and its certainly not the first time a negative noise has been made by an elected official during a Presidential address.

And that, along with saying Fox News is worse than Al Qaeda and the KKK, is why Keith Olbermann gets less viewers than 10 Fox News programs, including Shephard Smith TWICE.

Text of HR3200

Subtitle C

I’m reading the current issue of Golf magazine…

Fifty years ago Fidel Castro took power in Cuba. Two years later, after losing a golf match to Che Guevera, the dictator bulldozed most of the country’s courses.

Liberals are constantly celebrating Fidel Castro. What would have been the reaction if George W. Bush had been losing a chess match to Dick Cheney, and decided he was gonna flip the chess board? The guy bulldozed all the golf courses. For what?

Despite the ruthless dictatorship of Fidel Castro, American politicians and celebrities routinely jump at the chance to celebrate or praise him.

Representative Diane Watson (D):

You can think whatever you want about Fidel Castro but I can tell that he was one of the brightest leaders that I have ever met.

Rep. Laura Richardson (D):

He looked directly into my eyes! Then he asked: how can we help President Obama? Fidel Castro really wants President Obama to succeed!

Rep. Barbara Lee (D):

It was quite a moment to behold! Fidel Castro was very engaging and very energetic.

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D):

He’s one of the most amazing human beings I’ve ever met!

Rep. Bobby Rush (D):

Raul Castro was a very engaging, down-to-earth and kind man, someone who I would favor as a neighbor. It was almost like listening to an old friend… In my household I told Castro he is known as the ultimate survivor.

The guy destroyed an entire sport for no apparent reason. He incarcerates people with AIDS as well as homosexuals. Reports of torture, State department listing Cuba on the terrorist list, yet Democrats still find themselves celebrating Fidel Castro. How does this happen?

The answer is simple. Liberals hate America in its current form. They hate it, and anyone who opposes it is a friend to them. The media speaks highly of Hugo Chavez, despite his vicious hatred of the Venezuelan media (ask the radio stations he shut down). Michael Moore celebrates the Cuban health care system in one movie and attacks capitalism in another, despite making MILLIONS off the very movies he made attacking the very system that allows him to make those millions.

The hypocrisy is breathtaking. To a liberal, Bush is a war criminal and Castro is “bright” and “engaging” and “energetic.” Could this be classified as a psychiatric disorder? I’m not a psychiatrist, but these inconsistencies on the left are troubling.

I’m sorry it took a story about golf for me to comment on Fidel Castro, but I found the story illustrative of what happens when you don’t live in the freedom liberals so take for granted.

Fox News- “James O’Keefe, a 25-year-old independent filmmaker, posed as a pimp with a 20-year-old woman named “Kenya” who posed as a prostitute while visiting ACORN’s office in Baltimore. The couple told ACORN staffers they wanted to secure housing where the woman could continue to maintain a prostitution business.”

You can view the video from O’Keefe at BigGovernment.com. Here is a good edited version… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNYU9PamIZk

More from the Fox article…

The “pimp” later says that he and “Kenya” plan to bring up to 13 “very young” girls from El Salvador to work as prostitutes. Although an ACORN staffer points out their plans are illegal, she also suggests that the girls can be claimed as dependents.

“What if they are going to be making money because they are performing tricks too?” the pimp says.

“If they making money and they are underage, then you shouldn’t be letting anybody know anyway,” the ACORN staffer says, and laughs. “It’s illegal. So I am not hearing this, I am not hearing this. You talk too much. Don’t give up no information you’re not asked.”

ACORN will be counting heads in the 2010 census. An organization whose primary function appears to be causing trouble and where at least one office doesn’t even blink when a pimp comes in asking how to deal with the tax implications of underage prostitutes will be charged with honestly reporting on the population for the purpose of determining how many representatives there will be in Washington.

Helluva job, James O’Keefe. Helluva job.

John Holdren is the Science and Technology adviser to President Obama.. one of his many czars. In an interview he gave in 2007 in the virtual reality “Second Life” game, he said this:

I think ultimately that the rate of growth of material consumption is going to have to come down, and there’s going to have to be a degree of redistribution of how much we consume, in terms of energy and material resources, in order to leave room for people who are poor to become more prosperous. (watch video at Hotair.com)

I suppose pointing out that one of Obama’s czars believe in redistribution of wealth isn’t that damning, considering Obama himself already admitted that in his exchange with Joe the Plumber.

Forced abortions and sterilization

I actually brought him up for much worse comments, like supporting forced abortions and sterilizations to control overpopulation. You can’t make this stuff up. From Fox News:

Those plans include forcing single women to abort their babies or put them up for adoption; implanting sterilizing capsules in people when they reach puberty; and spiking water reserves and staple foods with a chemical that would make people sterile.

Holdren co-authored a book in 1977 called Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment. That is the source Fox News is talking about.  You can view scanned portions of the book here.

It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.

So he co-authored a book recommending forced abortion. Here’s a sterilization quote:

Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control…To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements.

Dr. Holdren, there is no situation where that is “acceptable.” Zombietime.com has a ton of quotes from this book that all fit the same ideological mold.

Dr. Sterilize in charge of billions of federal dollars

Its hard to pinpoint how much in federal funds Dr. Holdren is in charge of allocating, but its billions according to the website for his department.

Does that worry anyone?

Denial

Of course in the typical liberal fashion, Holdren’s office denies all of it.

“Dr. Holdren has stated flatly that he does not now support and has never supported compulsory abortions, compulsory sterilization, or other coercive approaches to limiting population growth,” the statement said.

Dr. Holdren, YES YOU DID. Then his office clarified…

“Straining to conclude otherwise from passages treating controversies of the day in a three-author, 30-year-old textbook is a mistake.”

If he never supported such things, why mention that something happened 30 years ago? I’m fairly certain 30 years ago is not “never.” If he “never” said something, then no one could “strain to conclude” anything from a book he co-authored.

‘Willing suspension of disbelief’

How often do you suppose someone puts their name on the cover of a book they so strongly disagree with? If he “never” agreed with sterilization, perhaps he said so immediately after the release of the book. If he had, perhaps his office would be citing the non-existent 1978 interview where he said he disagreed with sterilization and forced abortions. They didn’t cite it, because it never happened.

I am amazed at the number of politicians or their appointees who still operate in a pre-internet world of misinformation. They think they can say something and then literally deny they said it in the face of concrete evidence that they did.

So how many more kooks does Obama get to be friends with before a majority of Americans accepts he might be one too? Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, Bill Ayers, Frank Marshall Davis, Rashid Khalidi, Van Jones, John Holdren, etc. Why does he hang out with such radicals if he’s such a moderate?

Hugo Chavez and Oliver Stone were spotted hanging out together, smiling all the way.

Stone hates George W. but loves Hugo Chavez. Liberalism is so confusing to me.

I’m gonna miss watching Any Given Sunday. Oliver Stone and Sean Penn should just go ahead and move to Venezuela. You’re not countrymen of mine.

I highly recommend the following video…

The American Form of Government

It explains the spectrum of government, from monarchy to anarchy, with great clarity. The spectrum ranges from lots of centralized government control to zero control.

Monarchy-Oligarchy-Democracy-Republic-Anarchy

The main focus is the differences between a Republic and a Democracy, and why a Democracy is inferior. Democracies can make slavery of one race into law, while a true Republic cannot. America was founded as a Republic (the Constitution does not mention the word democracy at all), but unfortunately the electorate’s ignorance of the difference has led to many democratic policies.

For instance, any entitlement program where money is taken from the rich and given to the poor in unconstitutional in a pure republic, but thanks to democracy, a majority of people can vote themselves other people’s money. A democracy can decide with a majority vote to do anything, while a Republic restricts a tyrannical majority from doing unlawful things.

A Democracy is rule by majority, while a Republic is rule by law. This is fundamental to understanding why so many people are just plain wrong when they cite polling data as justification for legal action. A Republic recognizes that the majority, or EVERYONE, can be wrong, while a Democracy does not. A Democracy can vote itself free health care while a Republic says the government is not allowed to control such an important freedom.

I recognize that in many ways we are a Democracy, but the point is we are not supposed to be. We are supposed to be a Republic, and the day we move back in that direction will be a great one.