Carol Browner on Cap and Trade

In this 5 minute clip we hear Carol Browner, President Obama's "Energy Czar", discuss the Climate Change legislation.

It's interesting that she says the bill is "all about creating jobs" and not saving the environment. She also dismisses Green Peace's opposition to the bill by implying that they are a bunch of kooks.

Thank you, Ann Kirkpatrick

I have to recognize Ann Kirkpatrick, my representative to the US Congress.

She's a Democrat, and a liberal one, at that. But on Friday she made a courageous stand against her party and heard the voice of the people she represents when she voted "NO" on HR 2454, the Climate Change Legislation.

Well done, Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you.

Gun Control Success Story - ChicagoLand...

Chicago has, for decades now, had among the strictest gun control laws in the country. It is illegal for a private citizen to posess a handgun in the city. Carrying any type of gun on one's person is a virtual legal impossibility.

Knowing this, how is it possible that 6 men in Chicago were shot and killed using handguns this weekend? A 9-year old boy was wounded by a handgun shot. Another man was shot by police.

You see, what criminals know is that, if you don't see a cop around, there is virtually no chance of your intended victim being able to fight back.

This is just human nature. Think about how fast you drive when you have a radar detector onboard. Now consider your speed as you approach a construction site with a highway patrol car's lights flashing on the shoulder.

Here's the article from CBS news in Chicago. Note the horrendous injuries described by non-gun violence at the end of the article.

Six Men Shot Dead In 24 Hours In Chicago
Several Others Shot Or Stabbed
And Wounded
CHICAGO (CBS) ―
Shootings claimed the lives of six men in the city in a bloody and violent 24 hours over the weekend.

The first shooting happened around 8:20 p.m. Friday, when Tijuan Edwards, 18, was talking to a 25-year-old man in the street at 1916 S. Trumbull Ave. when multiple gunmen approached on foot and shot both men. Edwards was dead on the scene, and the 25-year-old was taken to Mount Sinai Hospital with gunshot wounds to the left arm, chin and thigh, police said.

About 11:20 p.m. Friday, Jovon Lee, 24, was fatally shot at 5928 S. Maplewood Ave., and was dead on the scene, the Cook County Medical Examiner's office said. Police found Lee shot in the neck.

About 2 a.m. Saturday, a man was fatally shot across the street from his Northwest
Side home.

Melvin Vallejo, 29, of 6100 W. Diversey Ave., was shot at 6105 W. Diversey Ave. and was dead on the scene, the medical examiner's office said. Police said Vallejo was involved in an argument that became violent and he was shot in the head.

About 2:20 a.m. Saturday, a man was fatally shot on the South Side. Rodrick Scott, 21, of an unidentified home address, was pronounced dead about an hour later at 3:34 a.m. at Advocate Christ Medical Center in Oak Lawn, after he was found shot on the 1000 block of West 60th Street.

Streets were quiet until Saturday night, when Ricardo Valdez, 20, was shot at 5924 S. Whipple St. and later pronounced dead. Police responded to the shooting at 8:18 p.m., according to police, who said the man was confronted on the street by six
Hispanic men who fled south from Whipple Street after firing shots.

Also Saturday evening, Willie Short, 38, was shot and killed as he drove and
ultimately crashed into a fence Saturday night at 4103 W. Madison St. in the
West Garfield Park neighborhood, authorities said.

Others were wounded in shootings over the weekend, including a 9-year-old boy who was walking home with his family when was wounded during a Friday night shooting at 6758 N. Ashland Ave. in the Rogers Park neighborhood, police said. Nobody else was wounded.

The boy was taken in good condition to Children's Memorial Hospital with a gunshot
wound to the thigh, police said.

A 19-year-old man was also shot and wounded by police when he allegedly
pointed a gun at them at 6400 S. Wood St. in the Englewood neighborhood.
Tactical officers were working nearby when they attempted to approach the man,
who first fled, then pointed a gun at an officer, prompting him to shoot, police
said.

Violence with other weapons also sent a few people to the hospital over the weekend.

A woman was stabbed with a branch cutter early Saturday, allegedly by her boyfriend Albert Parker, 40, of 7024 S. Clyde Ave., according to a police report. Parker was arrested by police at 4:55 a.m. Saturday, while the woman was
taken to Northwestern Memorial Hospital in serious condition, police said.

In another incident, police say a man stabbed his girlfriend several times with a
screwdriver and set a fire in his South Side apartment during a domestic argument. The incident happened around 9:20 p.m. Saturday at 7930 S. Evans Ave.,
police said. The man and woman were taken to area hospitals in serious
condition. Both suffered smoke inhalation injuries and the woman also suffered
stab injuries, police said.

Employee Free Choice Act - Unconstitutional!

Okay, let me tell you a story.

When Tina and I were first married she was walking in the mall. As she passed a kiosk selling Bible video tapes (this was in the olden days before DVD) she was accosted by the sales person who made her believe that she would be a bad mom if her kids did not grow up learning values from these video tapes. As you certainly know, the pressure from these sales people can be immense, and telling them “no” can be nearly impossible.

The short story is that, when Tina left the mall that afternoon we were on the hook to receive nearly 100 video tapes over the next 5 years at a cost of more than $1700! This is not what Tina wanted, but again, the pressure was fantastic.

Incidentally, we noticed an increase in the level of violence in our home as our boys learned about stoning the prophets and fighting with swords. I’m still waiting to see evidence of the values that were taught.

Now, on to “card-check” legislation, or the Employee Free Choice Act.

Who’s not for “free choice”? Opposing this would seem to be un-American, right?

Wrong.

All employees in America have the right to organize and to form or join labor unions and collective bargaining units. This right is already vigorously protected by the Constitution and by the Department of Labor.

The current process allows for employees to express interest in organizing via the card check. This begins a period of education, discussion, and debate among the employees and gives them time to consider the benefits that a particular union would bring to their work lives.

Then there is a secret vote. This is important. Union organizers are often very enthusiastic. In fact, sometimes they are perceived as aggressive. This can be even more intimidating than the video tape sales person my wife ran into!

Bullying and violence are tools long used by union organizers. There are many well-documented cases of union organizers making harassing phone calls to undecided workers’ homes or making late evening visits to the homes of outspoken opponents to organizing to discuss the bad things that could happen to the worker or his family if the union fails.

There is tremendous pressure to decide one way or the other. There is fear of retaliation from management if you are known to be in favor of organizing. There is fear of reprisal by co-workers if you are known not to support the movement.

Imagine now, that there is no secrecy when a worker expresses his opinion. He’s caught in a “catch-22”. If he does not sign the card his peers know he is a management lap dog. If he does sign the card his boss knows he’s for the union. In either case the worker is exposed to the risk of retaliation.

The secret vote mitigates those fears and allows the worker to exercise his full rights under the First Amendment. The worker is the only one who knows how he exercised his conscience.
The Employee Free Choice Act is the boldest move by Big Labor to limit Free Speech that I have seen in my lifetime.

Imagine a psychopath who puts a knife to your throat and says, “I like to kill people whose favorite color is blue. What’s your favorite color?” Will you say that it’s blue? Not on your life!

Now consider the worker who hears his peers talking angrily about how badly management treats them and mocking those who stay under the “Man’s” thumb. How likely is he to speak out in favor of management or against the organizing movement?

The Employee Free Choice Act will open the door for bullying and will cause people to fear expressing their own opinions. It will stifle debate. It will ultimately benefit only the union bosses and will be a detriment to the worker, the work place, the company, and the economy.

This harks back to Benjamin Franklin’s observation that those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither. In this case, deserve it or not, workers will lose both the liberty to speak their minds and the security of anonymously voting their conscience.

Cap and Trade Disaster

The photo links to a Wall Street Journal article detailing the "Cap and Trade" legislation pending in the House of Representatives.

While the authors touch the subject obliquely, they do not outline or address the effect this will have on things we buy.

How much will a jar of peanut butter or a head of lettuce cost? Will the cost of carbon be laid only on American farmers and producers? That would have the effect of making imported food (and other items) even more attractive to consumers. That would result in fewer American jobs and greater dependence on foreign trade for life-sustaining items.

The optimistic estimate of Representative Markey of "only" $178 per year per household is sure not to have considered this.

Let's face it, carbon emissions are a part of virtually EVERY thing we use.

I live in a rural town with no railroad service. Every item I can purchase or every item we manufacture and sell is transported via truck (that burns carbon-based fuel) to and from our town. The nearest metropolitan area to us is 2 hours away. What will the burden of the carbon tax be on our cost of goods relative to our urban "neighbors"?

This has the potential to devastate the rural economy of America. Once that economy has been destroyed, we will see interstate trade impacted, and ultimately there will be an effect on the urban economies.

But, boy! will we have blue skies and clear water! We'll stop global warming and everyone will enjoy the same climate that currently is only available in Santa Barbara, CA! Never mind that I'll need to work for a week to purchase a loaf of bread - IF my employer hasn't been driven out of business by the rising cost of carbon credits.

Stop the madness!

President Obama Starts Schooling

This article is from the Wall Street Journal.

By FOUAD
AJAMI
President Barack Obama did not "lose" Iran. This is not a Jimmy Carter moment. But the foreign-policy education of America's 44th president has just begun. Hitherto, he had been cavalier about other lands, he had trusted in his own biography as a bridge to distant peoples, he had believed he could talk rogues and ideologues out of deeply held beliefs. His predecessor had drawn lines in the sand. He would look past them.

Thus a man who had been uneasy with his middle name (Hussein) during the presidential campaign would descend on Ankara and Cairo, inserting himself in a raging civil war over Islam itself. An Iranian theocratic regime had launched a bid for dominion in its region; Mr. Obama offered it an olive branch and waited for it to "unclench" its fist.

It was an odd, deeply conflicted message from Mr. Obama. He was at once a herald of change yet a practitioner of realpolitik. He would entice the crowds, yet assure the
autocrats that the "diplomacy of freedom" that unsettled them during the presidency of George W. Bush is dead and buried. Grant the rulers in Tehran and Damascus their due: They were quick to take the measure of the new steward of American power. He had come to "engage" them. Gone was the hope of transforming these regimes or making them pay for their transgressions. The theocracy was said to be waiting on an American opening, and this new president would put an end to three decades of estrangement between the United States and Iran.

But in truth Iran had never wanted an opening to the U.S. For the length of three
decades, the custodians of the theocracy have had precisely the level of enmity
toward the U.S. they have wanted -- just enough to be an ideological glue for
the regime but not enough to be a threat to their power. Iran's rulers have made
their way in the world with relative ease. No White Army gathered to restore the
dominion of the Pahlavis. The Cold War and oil bailed them out. So did the false
hope that the revolution would mellow and make its peace with the world.

Mr. Obama may believe that his offer to Iran is a break with a hard-line American
policy. But nothing could be further from the truth. In 1989, in his inaugural,
George H.W. Bush extended an offer to Iran: "Good will begets good will," he
said. A decade later, in a typically Clintonian spirit of penance and contrition, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright came forth with a full apology for America's role in the 1953 coup that ousted nationalist Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh.

Iran's rulers scoffed. They had inherited a world, and they were in no need of opening it to outsiders. They were able to fly under the radar. Selective, targeted deeds of terror, and oil income, enabled them to hold their regime intact. There is a Persian pride and a Persian solitude, and the impact of three decades of zeal and indoctrination. The drama of Barack Obama's election was not an affair of Iran. They had an election of their own to stage.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- a son of the Ayatollah Khomeini's revolutionary order, a
man from the brigades of the regime, austere and indifferent to outsiders, an
Iranian Everyman with badly fitting clothes and white socks -- was up for re-election.

The upper orders of his country loathed him and bristled under the system of controls that the mullahs and the military and the revolutionary brigades had put in place, but he had the power and the money and the organs of the state arrayed on his side. There was a discernible fault line in Iran. There were Iranians yearning for liberty, but we should not underestimate the power and the determination of those moved by the yearning for piety. Ahmadinejad's message of populism at home and defiance abroad, his assertion that the country's nuclear quest is a "closed file," settled and beyond discussion, have a resonance on Iranian soil.

His challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi, a generation older, could not compete with him on that terrain.

On the ruins of the ancien régime, the Iranian revolutionaries, it has to be conceded, have built a formidable state. The men who emerged out of a cruel and bloody struggle over their country's identity and spoils are a tenacious, merciless breed. Their capacity for repression is fearsome. We must rein in the modernist conceit that the bloggers, and the force of Twitter and Facebook, could win in the streets against the squads of the regime. That fight would be an Iranian drama, all outsiders mere spectators.

That ambivalence at the heart of the Obama diplomacy about freedom has not served American policy well in this crisis. We had tried to "cheat" -- an opening to the regime with an obligatory wink to those who took to the streets appalled by their rulers' cynicism and utter disregard for their people's intelligence and common sense -- and we were caught at it. Mr. Obama's statement that "the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as had been advertised" put on cruel display the administration's incoherence.

For once, there was an acknowledgment by this young president of history's burden: "Either way, we were going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically
been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the
neighborhood and is pursuing nuclear weapons."

No Wilsonianism on offer here. Mr. Obama will have to acknowledge the "foreignness" of foreign lands. His breezy self-assurance has been put on notice. The Obama administration believed its own rhetoric that the pro-Western March 14 coalition in Lebanon had ridden Mr. Obama's coattails to an electoral victory. (It had given every indication that it expected similar vindication in Iran.)

But the claim about Lebanon was hollow and reflected little understanding of the forces at play in Lebanon's politics. That contest was settled by Lebanese rules, and by the push and pull of Saudi and Syrian and Iranian interests in Lebanon.

Mr. Obama's June 4 speech in Cairo did not reshape the Islamic landscape. I was in Saudi Arabia when Mr. Obama traveled to Riyadh and Cairo. The earth did not move, life went on as usual. There were countless people puzzled by the presumption of the entire exercise, an outsider walking into sacred matters of their faith. In
Saudi Arabia, and in the Arabic commentaries of other lands, there was unease
that so complicated an ideological and cultural terrain could be approached with
such ease and haste.

Days into his presidency, it should be recalled, Mr. Obama had spoken of his desire to restore to America's relation with the Muslim world the respect and mutual interest that had existed 30 or 20 years earlier.

It so happened that he was speaking, almost to the day, on the 30th anniversary
of the Iranian Revolution -- and that the time span he was referring to, his
golden age, covered the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the American standoff
with Libya, the fall of Beirut to the forces of terror, and the downing of Pan
Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. Liberal opinion would have howled had
this history been offered by George W. Bush, but Barack Obama was granted a
waiver.

Little more than three decades ago, Jimmy Carter, another American
president convinced that what had come before him could be annulled and wished
away, called on the nation to shed its "inordinate fear of communism," and to
put aside its concern with "traditional issues of war and peace" in favor of
"new global issues of justice, equity and human rights." We had betrayed our
principles in the course of the Cold War, he said, "fought fire with fire, never
thinking that fire is quenched with water." The Soviet answer to that brave, new
world was the invasion of Afghanistan in December of 1979.

Mr. Carter would try an atonement in the last year of his presidency. He would pose as a born-again hawk. It was too late in the hour for such redemption. It would take
another standard-bearer, Ronald Reagan, to see that great struggle to victory.

Iran's ordeal and its ways shattered the Carter presidency. President Obama's Persian tutorial has just begun.

Mr. Ajami, a professor at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University and a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, is the author of "The Foreigner's Gift: The Americans, the Arabs, and the Iraqis in Iraq"

Kudos to Secretary Napolitano and DHS!

I did not anticipate this, but I have to applaud Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security for her initiative described in the following article from Siobahn Gorman at the Wall Street Journal.

As I disagree with the premise of the Patriot Act, I concur with Ms. Napolitano's assessment, here.

In February, 1775, Benjamin Franklin wrote, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Here's what Secretary Napolitano is doing:

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration plans to kill a controversial Bush
administration spy satellite program at the Department of Homeland Security,
according to officials familiar with the decision.

The program came under fire from its inception two years ago. Democratic lawmakers said it would lead to domestic spying.

The program would have provided federal, state and local officials with extensive access to spy-satellite imagery — but no eavesdropping capabilities— to assist with emergency response and other domestic-security needs, such as identifying where ports or border areas are vulnerable to terrorism.

It would have expanded an Interior Department satellite program, which will continue to be used to assist in natural disasters and for other limited security purposes such as photographing sporting events.

The Wall Street Journal first revealed the plans to establish the program, known
as the National Applications Office, in 2007.

"It's being shut down," said a homeland security official.

The Bush administration had taken preliminary steps to launch the office, such as acquiring office space and beginning to hire staff.

The plans to shutter the office signal Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's decision to refocus the department's intelligence on ensuring that state and local officials get the threat information they need, the official said. She also wants to make the department the central point in the government for receiving and analyzing terrorism tips from around the country, the official added.

Lawmakers alerted Ms. Napolitano of their concerns about the program-that the program would violate the Fourth amendment right to be protected from unreasonable searches-before her confirmation hearing.

Once she assumed her post, Ms. Napolitano ordered a review of the program and
concluded the program wasn't worth pursuing, the homeland official said.

Department spokeswoman Amy Kudwa declined to speak about the results of the
review but said they would be announced shortly.

The lawmakers were most concerned about plans to provide satellite imagery to state and local law enforcement, so department officials asked state and local officials how useful that information would be to them. The answer: not very useful.
"In our view, the NAO is not an issue of urgency," Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton, wrote to Ms. Napolitano on June 21.

Writing on behalf of the Major Cities Chiefs Association, Chief Bratton said that were the program to go forward, the police chiefs would be concerned about privacy protections and whether using military satellites for domestic purposes would violate the Posse Comitatus law, which bars the use of the military for law enforcement in the U.S.

Rep. Jane Harman (D., Calif.), who oversees the House Homeland Security subcommittee on intelligence, said she was alarmed when she recently saw that the Obama administration requested money for the program in a classified 2010 budget
proposal. She introduced two bills that would terminate the program.

"It's a good decision," Ms. Harman said in an interview. "This will remove a distraction and let the intelligence function at [the department] truly serve the community that needs it, which is local law enforcement."

Supporters of the program lamented what they said was the loss of an important new terrorism-fighting tool for natural disasters and terrorist attacks, as well as border
security.

"After numerous congressional briefings on the importance of the NAO and its solid legal footing, politics beat out good government," said Andrew Levy, who was deputy general counsel at the department in the Bush administration.

Huh???

This is a question by a reporter and President Obama's answer.

The first thing that struck me was the President's appeal to "universal values" of "freedom of assembly and speech" as well as the "universal value" of government's tolerant and peaceable response to dissent.

Where is there a list of "Universal Values"?

Another point: The President almost apologizes to the world for speaking out too strongly in favor of the Iranian opposition candidate. He claims that, in Iran, his remarks are being mistranslated and understood to incite rioting!

I've looked all over the Internet and haven't found any other reference to the unfortunate mistranslation and the ensuing blood bath that the President inadvertently instigated.

Is anyone listening? This man is not telling the truth. He has a fundamental misconception of universality and is a serial apologizer.

Reform "Now or Never" ... Really?

I’ll give you that there are people hurting without healthcare.

Reform has been ignored by every administration prior to President Obama.

In response to the President's urging outlined below, I ask, “Why does the President insist that this ‘reform’ be made this year? Why does he believe that failure this year will result in ‘never’ reforming healthcare in America?”

If healthcare reform is a good thing, and the President’s plan or idea is the best one, why will people realize that in 2009, but not in 2010 or future years? Is it a problem with the public schools? Are we teaching our children less effective critical reasoning skills every year? Will they not be able to understand the complexities of the issue? Is the electorate’s collective intelligence really decaying that rapidly?

Come on! Reasonable people will agree that, ceteris paribus, a good idea today will still be a good idea tomorrow.

I believe that, when someone gives a “now or never” ultimatum, it is because they are trying to hide something that others may find more objectionable than the status quo. Think back on every decision that someone has tried to rush you into making and see if that does not hold true.

This article was at Politico.com in late May 2009.

Since it’s primarily quoting the President’s conference call comments, there’s not much room for bias; and I don’t sense an overly active slant either way on the part of the writer.

"Obama: it's now or never"
By AMIE PARNES
05/28/09 2:13 PM
On a conference call with Organizing for America volunteers
Thursday, Obama urged thousands of callers to “work in your communities” to help
pass health care reform this year.

“If we don’t get it done this year, we’re not going to get it done,” Obama cautioned.

Obama urged volunteers to build on their experiences from the campaign and
“remobilize” to pass health care reform, calling it “one of our biggest priorities.”

“This is our big chance to prove that the movement that started during the campaign isn’t over,” he said. “We know what’s at stake. We know we need reforms. Businesses and families are just getting hammered… Millions of Americans have lost their health care.”

The president argued to supporters that Americans “want action.”

“Inaction on health care leads to unsustainable lives…everywhere,” he said. “If we want to cut our deficits…the most important thing we can do to close our budget gap is to rein in health care costs.”

This was interesting on a personal level.

The title raised an emotional – almost visceral – reaction in me.

I once had a girlfriend who wanted to marry me when we were 17 years old. I thought it was a good idea at the time, but (by the grace of God) the realities of life struck me and I asked her to wait for just a few months while I got established and settled in a career (read “finished Army Basic Training).

This thought was based on my uncle Dick’s advice that, “If you’re in love and it’s right now, you’ll be in love and it’ll be right in 6 months, so give it some time.” That was wisdom from a man who’d been there and (hadn’t) done that.

When I posited the idea, her emotional response was VERY similar to President Obama’s appeal below. It was “now or never”.

In the end, I avoided a REALLY bad mistake because I chose the more reflective path and insisted on waiting.

It wasn’t that I didn’t want to marry her! After all, when you are young and naïve, you know exactly what you want in life.

Within weeks we realized that we were not right for each other (read "got mad and broke up") and went our separate ways.If healthcare reform is really the best thing, and approaching it in the President’s proposed manner is really the best way, wouldn’t time bear that out, rather than threaten its chances of success?

There is far too much rushing and pushing and scaring in politics today.

We see it from our knee-jerk reaction to Afghanistan’s harboring Bin Laden, to our calculated and misguided invasion of Iraq, to the bailout of the banking industry, to the election of Barack Obama to the presidency, to closing Guantanamo Bay, to confirming Sonia Sotomayor as a Supreme Court Justice, to “reforming” healthcare.

Do we really understand the causes of the problems we see with healthcare?

Costs are high. Other than that, availability is excellent as compared to that in other countries and as compared to the population of the US.

The hospital I worked at in Cleveland had the same sign in the ER as every other hospital in America. It let everyone know that NO PERSON WOULD BE DENIED TREATMENT BECAUSE OF AN INABILITY TO PAY.

Quality is excellent by any standard.

So, we need to understand why healthcare is so expensive to the consumer. Above I cited one reason. You and I, who have the ability to pay for care, are subsidizing those who do not.

Another reason is anecdotal, but I believe it is common and would bear out under empirical scrutiny. About 5 years ago, I asked Tina’s OB/Gyn what her malpractice insurance premiums were on an annual basis. She paused briefly and matter-of-factly answered, “About $500,000.” I was stunned. She was telling me that before she paid a penny for medical office rent, utilities, continuing education, medical supplies, office staff, licensing fees, student loans, groceries, mortgage, car, insurances, her OWN healthcare, she had to earn HALF A MILLION DOLLARS. That is a LOT of pap smears!

If she is just one physician, imagine what the insurance costs are to “big pharma” or to hospitals themselves, or to medical device manufacturers, or to anyone else involved in your and my medical care!I don’t know much, but that could be a major factor in the cost of medicine in America.

John Edwards would probably have us look at greedy insurance companies, fat-cat hospital administrators, or doctors who drive BMWs. Small potatoes, if we did the math, I’ll bet. But then, John Edwards and his ilk make fortunes off of the “high cost of healthcare” in America.

If REFORM is a good thing today, then it will still be a good thing when we've had the chance to talk through it and come up with a well-reasoned solution to the problem.

Some Evidence in FAVOR of Global Warming!

Global Climate Change, Or "Two Points Do Not Indicate a Trend"

A while back I found this article and thought it was good enough to save.

I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

"Year of Global Cooling"
December 19, 2007
By David Deming -

"Al Gore says global warming is a planetary emergency.

It is difficult to see how this can be so when record low temperatures are being set all over the world. In 2007, hundreds of people died, not from global warming, but from cold weather hazards.

Since the mid-19th century, the mean global temperature has increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius. This slight warming is not unusual, and lies well within the range of natural variation. Carbon dioxide continues to build in the atmosphere, but the mean planetary temperature hasn't increased significantly for nearly nine years.

Antarctica is getting colder.

Neither the intensity nor the frequency of hurricanes has increased. The 2007 season was the third-quietest since 1966. In 2006 not a single hurricane made landfall in the U.S.

South America this year experienced one of its coldest winters in decades. In Buenos Aires, snow fell for the first time since the year 1918. Dozens of homeless people died from exposure. In Peru, 200 people died from the cold and thousands more became infected with respiratory diseases. Crops failed, livestock perished, and the Peruvian government declared a state of emergency.

Unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007. Johannesburg, South Africa, had the first significant snowfall in 26 years. Australia experienced the coldest June ever. In northeastern Australia, the city of Townsville underwent the longest period of continuously cold weather since 1941. In New Zealand, the weather turned so cold that vineyards were endangered.

Last January, $1.42 billion worth of California produce was lost to a devastating five-day freeze. Thousands of agricultural employees were thrown out of work. At the supermarket, citrus prices soared. In the wake of the freeze, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked President Bush to issue a disaster declaration for affected counties. A few months earlier, Mr. Schwarzenegger had enthusiastically signed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, a law designed to cool the climate. California Sen. Barbara Boxer continues to push for similar legislation in the U.S. Senate.

In April, a killing freeze destroyed 95 percent of South Carolina's peach crop, and 90 percent of North Carolina's apple harvest. At Charlotte, N.C., a record low temperature of 21 degrees Fahrenheit on April 8 was the coldest ever recorded for April, breaking a record set in 1923.

On June 8, Denver recorded a new low of 31 degrees Fahrenheit. Denver's temperature records extend back to 1872. Recent weeks have seen the return of unusually cold conditions to the Northern Hemisphere. On Dec. 7, St. Cloud, Minn., set a new record low of minus 15 degrees Fahrenheit. On the same date, record low temperatures were also recorded in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Extreme cold weather is occurring worldwide. On Dec. 4, in Seoul, Korea, the temperature was a record minus 5 degrees Celsius. Nov. 24, in Meacham, Ore., the minimum temperature was 12 degrees Fahrenheit colder than the previous record low set in 1952. The Canadian government warns that this winter is likely to be the coldest in 15 years. Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri are just emerging from a destructive ice storm that left at least 36 people dead and a million without electric power.

People worldwide are being reminded of what used to be common sense: Cold temperatures are inimical to human welfare and warm weather is beneficial. Left in the dark and cold, Oklahomans rushed out to buy electric generators powered by gasoline, not solar cells. No one seemed particularly concerned about the welfare of polar bears, penguins or walruses. Fossil fuels don't seem so awful when you're in the cold and dark.

If you think any of the preceding facts can falsify global warming, you're hopelessly naive. Nothing creates cognitive dissonance in the mind of a true believer. In 2005, a Canadian Greenpeace representative explained “global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.” In other words, all weather variations are evidence for global warming. I can't make this stuff up. Global warming has long since passed from scientific hypothesis to the realm of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.

David Deming is a geophysicist, an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis, and associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma. "

Rightwing Extremist Threat?

I read the entire (U//FOUO) text of the Department of Homeland Security Assessment on Rightwing Extremism recently.

I am struck by a number of things.

First, the department is completely out of touch with what constitutes a threat to the United States of America. Citing millions of Americans applying for criminal background checks so that they can purchase weapons LEGALLY is not evidence of an increased threat. Criminals and terrorists do NOT register their weapons or submit themselves to the law when acquiring the tools of their violent trade. This is the TRUE threat, and one that is impossible to measure.

A preoccupation with the domestic political "right" will make mitigation of the threat of terrorism even more difficult, as the Department of Homeland Security is barking up the proverbial "wrong tree."

Second, the department fails to recognize that supporters of the 9th and 10th amendments to the US Constitution do not pose a threat to the United States of America. An increase in a movement supporting those amendments should be no more threatening than a surge in 1st or 5th amendment support.

One would do well to recognize that the true threat to our Constitution, and subsequently to the American way of life, comes from those who despise its principles and would overthrow it; not from those who read, interpret, and agree with it.

Third, the "right" or conservative part of the population of the United States are proportionally less likely to be involved in criminal activity or terrorism than are the "left" or the apolitical. Witness the leftwing "anti-war" movement of the 1960s and the gang activity among those who are uninvolved in the political process.

All who work for the security of our nation need to work hard to overcome personal and ideological prejudices and to focus on the threats to our country and our way of life in a rational and prioritized manner.

Fourth, linking a person’s moral or religious views on abortion or same-sex marriage to extremist ideology espoused by “white supremacists” is supremely offensive. There can be no rational or logical connection between private morality and activities aimed at toppling the government of the United States or harming its citizens.

The authors of this Assessment have let their morality color their views of all other belief systems. The prejudice is glaringly apparent in this part of the report. It will serve to blind the authors to the real threats to the nation’s security.

And fifth, to imply that returning war veterans as a group are weak-minded and susceptible to recruitment and exploitation by an extremist group on either end of the political or ideological spectrum is patently repugnant and infinitely small-minded. As a veteran of the US Army (1988 – 1999) I take personal offense for myself and professional offense for the fine people I served with. We swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same.

If the authors think that such a person, willing to lay down their life for the rights of people they have never met, is a threat to their idea of what government should be, perhaps they should reconsider their views.

This Assessment has painted conservative citizens of the United States as "terrorists" while the Department of Homeland Security has whitewashed true terrorism with the euphemism of "man-made disasters".

I understand that this is one in a series of reports on terrorist threats to the United States. Please make the other reports public and available.

Happy Father's Day, 2009!

Here's the story of Bill, a garbage man with five kids.

It's told by his children and his wife after 34 years of being a family.

Happy Father's Day!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhqRMP9meMc

Watch This to Feel Good and Regain Perspective!

Even if you're not a golfer, this video is a must. It's a true story of adversity and overcoming.

I was moved when I saw this and made it required viewing for my kids this summer.

I'm trying to make it part of my daily life. I hope you will, too.

http://sports.espn.go.com/videohub/video/video?id=3696478

Watch This and Wonder!

This video shows Democrat Alan Grayson questionning Inspector Elizabeth Coleman of the Federal Reserve.

He is direct, respectful, and on point.

This might just blow your mind!

http://dailybail.com/home/there-are-no-words-to-describe-the-following-part-ii.html

The President, the King, and the Letter

I recently read an Internet circulation of a letter to the President by an angry citizen. The writer had recently seen news reports of President Obama's visit to Europe and his speeches in which he seemed rather apologetic for his Americanism.

The tone of the writer disagrees with me, and I disagree with some of his content. The letter was passionate and disrespectful.

Some have said that it was a hateful letter. I don't think any of this person's opinions crosses the line between obnoxious and hateful, though. The First Amendment still protects that, doesn't it?

My cousin was bothered by the letter. He said that it understated President Obama's performance. In many respects I agree that President Obama is a fine representative of the United States in the larger world.

I believe that diplomacy is the first and an essential step in establishing or re-establishing relationships in our own lives and in our world.

I disagree with the direction that his administration and the congress appear to be taking the domestic affairs of the country.

One small change I think I would have made in the President's remarks - and I did not hear or read a lot of them - on his recent tour of Europe around the economic meetings would have been to acknowledge in some small way the American role played in the great and proud histories of each of the countries he visited.

I would have liked to have heard him reference specific aspects of a long and cooperative relationship between the US and his host country. What I did hear reported on the network news was very polite, and I felt it was so polite that it was almost one-sided. Just my opinion.

On the matter of bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia (or any other monarch, for that matter), I think that proper polite respect is warranted in given situations. If, for example, President Obama had been invited to visit the court of the king of Thailand, it would have been appropriate for him to bow to the king as he entered and departed the throne room.

In the context of President Obama's meeting of the king of Saudi Arabia, however, his bowing was inappropriate. The two heads of state (peers) met in a crowded hall outside a meeting room where many other heads of state were gathering. The president appeared to have had an "OMG! Like... it's the Saudi king!" moment.

When I first saw the video, I was taken aback. In retrospect, I'll admit, since I've never just bumped into a king before I might have bowed, too. (Although I would have a hard time forgetting that this guy's government - meaning himself - is busy paying for training and equipment for people who think it's in accordance with the will of Allah to blow up people who disagree with you on a philosophical basis and who allows, and tacitly endorses, the mutilation and torture of Muslim women, among other horrific violations of human rights outlined in the first ten amendments to the US Constitution.)

My cousin believes that President Obama is coming under far more ugly and personal attacks than any president he can remember. (And he is not a young guy.) As far as the personal attacks and animosity aimed at President Obama go, I believe that every president of the United States has dealt with that - except, perhaps, George Washington.

I don't notice an increase in the level of animosity over the George W. Bush years. It's just different voices, now. But all that is anecdotal.

I feel very strongly that, as Americans and as some of us profess to be Christians, we have a duty to respect the President of the United States. By no means does that imply that we must agree with his policy stances or appreciate his personal style or turn a blind eye to his mistakes.

Americans on both sides of the aisle have never been much for that. And those are two of the things (respectful dissent and vigilant oversight) that place our nation among the very greatest in the history of this world.

My aunt read the letter and was REALLY mad. I understand being upset by the way someone expresses an idea or opinion. Even if I agree, I'm often offended.

We need to consider her statement very closely. She said, "The danger in this vitriol is real. In a Democracy this guy will vote...."

Is there really "danger" in ideas? Is there "danger" in a particular American citizen exercising his or her right to vote? Those thoughts leave me suspended somewhere in time between Confederate 1863 and Orwellian 1984.

When thought and expression in America become dangerous, undesirable, or illegal, then we will have real problems!

When is it Okay to Question?

Okay, so when is it okay to point out what even the most ardent supporters of the President are realizing: He either doesn't know what he's doing, ie. out of his depth; or, he is really making some bad decisions and taking our government and our country in a direction that we are uncomfortable with?

Extend an open hand to Islamic terrorists and their state sponsors - get open derission and mocking from them.

Announce the abandonment of the US anti-missile program - get 2 North Korean nuclear tests and a North Korean missile test aimed at Hawaii.

Attack the last president for firing all of his attorneys general - fire 3 Inspectors General who have disagreed with you in the past or are investigating your supporters.

Say you'll get a White House dog from a shelter or a rescue program - accept an expensive purebred dog from a political crony.

Promise to preserve American manufacturing jobs - force 2 of the "Big 3" auto makers into bankruptcy.

Pledge to have the most open and transparent administration in history - refuse to publish a list of visitors to the White House.

Promise to bring our troops home from Iraq in 16 months - have no clear exit strategy, even 8 months after winning the election.

Insist that he wants no part of running private sector industries - take over the auto making and banking industries and push for control of the health care industry.

Guys - even those of you who voted for him - is this really what you expected? Right now the President has carte blanche and is running unchecked by either of the other branches of government.

His populist appeal is proving to be just a mask. Even his great social pushes are aimed only at the big businesses, and none of the benefit is "trickling down" to the working man. He works his plans and policies to benefit the already rich oligarchy of bourgeois business fat-cats, while the proletariat continues to be oppressed and feels no relief, no hope... no change.

He runs secret meetings at the White House, he allows billions of dollars to go to corporate interests, he either refuses to or cannot account for the way in which money is spent, he orders a pizza chef and his ingredients flown across the country to serve dinner at the White House, he makes trip after air-polluting, carbon-emitting, global-warming trip to continue the campaign he won in November!

This is not a man of the people. This is not a person who can relate to the commoner. This is not someone who shows concern for the environment, the budget, or much else beside his own interest.

He is the classic narcisist. He acts like a spoiled child and a condescending, contemptuous professor at the same time.

George Orwell had it right when he wrote in Animal Farm "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

I think that now it is okay to be worried. I'm not saying it's the end of the world as we know it, but we may get some change we weren't counting on if we don't speak up.

We may get it anyway, but at least I won't take it silently.

Universal Values?

Yesterday I heard an excerpt from a speech that President Obama gave. He was referencing the recent elections in Iran and mentioned the "universal value" of representative government (or something to that effect.)

I disagree with the President's assertion that individual involvement in government is valued universally, or that the concept is even part of every belief set and philosophy. It is apparent that the Supreme Ruler of Iran does not value individual representation in government if it interferes with his reign.

Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro do not value private property rights. The Saudi government does not value the rights or dignity of women. The US Government (separate from the Constitution) does not value many individual liberties in the supposed interest of the greater good. The Hutus of Rwanda did not value human life - if it belonged to a Tutsi. The Nazis did not value diverse sexual orientation or mental illness. The Skinheads of Germany and the US do not value cultural diversity.

But, I think it's an interesting idea. Is there really a set of Universal Values? Will some of you take on the challenge of cataloging the Universal Values?

If you can identify the Universal Values will you please tell me where they came from and why they are Universal?

If there is no set of Universal Values, what is President Obama doing referencing them? (It seems to me this is not the first time he has applied to the Universal Values to support his position.) Does his insistence upon the existence of Universal Values demonstrate wishful thinking, naivete, or a will to misrepresent facts in furthering his interests?

Some Thoughts on "Hate"

We are pretty free with the “hate” accusation in this country. Some of you accused some of us of being “racists” (Yes, you did.) because we did not want to vote for Barack Obama (the young, black, ambiguous guy with nebulous ideas from all over the place) in 2008. I would not have cared if it had been Harry Reid (the old, white, wealthy Mormon guy from Nevada) running for president, I would not have voted for him because I did not agree with his ideas.

I want to examine things a little more here. My refusing to give my vote to Barack Obama was “hateful.” This fellow who wrote and sent the letter to President Obama expressing his frustration, disgust, and disdain was “hateful.” The people who expressed their personal philosophical or religious views in supporting California Proposition 8 were “hateful.” And the list goes on and on and on….

A hateful statement would be one that said something terrible. Something more than an opinion. A hateful statement would be one that wished personal harm or injury to a person or group of persons, such as wishing all of a certain group would get a disease and die, or that a person’s airplane would crash on landing, killing all aboard. A hateful statement might even be one that compares a person with a particularly heinous or repulsive criminal, like comparing the President of the United States with Adolf Hitler (not simply comparing the actions of the US Government with those of Nazi Germany).

Calling a woman who is walking into a clinic who may be seeking an abortion a “murderer” is hateful. Opposing abortion is not hateful.

Delighting in the suffering of homosexuals as they seek to find their place in society is hateful. Opposing the social normalization of homosexual relationships by redefining traditional “marriage” is not hateful.

Standing outside someone’s church and shouting obscenities at them, calling out personal insults, is hateful. Opposing the views of that church, or its doctrine is not hateful.

Throwing blood, paint, or feces on GIs returning from Viet Nam and calling them “baby killers” was hateful. Believing that American involvement in the war in Viet Nam was wrong was not hateful.

I think a good example of a hateful statement would be Wanda Sykes, the comedienne, speaking recently at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.

Ms. Sykes, in the course of her comedy routine, said, “Rush Limbaugh said he hopes this administration fails, so you’re saying, ‘I hope America fails’, you’re, like, ‘I don’t care about people losing their homes, their jobs, our soldiers in Iraq.’ He just wants the country to fail. To me, that’s treason. He’s not saying anything differently than what Osama bin Laden is saying. You know, you might want to look into this, sir (turning to the President), because I think Rush Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker. But he was just so strung out on OxyContin he missed his flight…. Rush Limbaugh – I hope the country fails. I hope his kidneys fail, how about that? He needs a good waterboarding, that’s what he needs!”

The key there is the hoping for personal tragedy to befall the person, i.e. kidney failure. The rest of it, unless you believe that waterboarding is torture, is just opinion.

Aside from being a bad example of comedy, this is a good example of hate.

It is personal and it wishes specific bad things on the person.

I should note that, while the Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s comments about “America’s chickens coming home to roost” on 11 Sep 01 and his “damning” of America were tasteless, they do not cross the line of hate. Some of his comments about white people and Jews are obnoxious and inappropriate for a “Christian” preacher to make, but, not being a big listener of his, I have not heard him use “hate speech”.

Similarly, a white supremacist who advocates protecting the “purity of the race” is obnoxious and repulsive. When a person calls for harming others or for harm to come to others, they have crossed the line into the world of “hate.”

If we are EVER going to communicate effectively in our personal lives or in our political world we MUST find CLARITY and avoid using the rhetoric that only serves to obscure the substance of our arguments.