So much for Al Gore's prediction that Arctic summer ice may all disappear by 2013 due to global warming caused by carbon emissions. Recently we learned that Arctic ice has grown by 60% since last year
at the same time. This is contrary to the 'expert' opinions that it
would completely disappear in a few years. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/09/12/remember-all-those-breathy-predictions-about-an-ice-free-arctic-by-2015-nevermind/ And, in yet another study on climate research, the latest being published in science journal, Nature Climate Change, it was revealed that global warming has been wildly overestimated. Comparing 117 predictions on climate change made in the 1990's, only 3 have been roughly accurate, leaving 114 predictions flat, that there would be more warming than what has actually occurred.
According to John Christy, professor at University of Alabama, he "looked at 73 climate models going back to 1979 and every single one predicted more warming than happened in the real world.
Many of these 'overestimations also made their way into the popular
press.' For instance, the Associated Press in 1989 reported, 'Using
computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise
average annual temperatures nationwide 2 degrees by 2010.' Such articles
then became the launching point for many other stories in local papers
and national newscasts. According to NASA, though, 'global temperature
has increased by less than half that—about 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit—from
1989 to 2010.'" http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/13/Study-Climate-Predictions-Wildly-Overestimated-Global-Warming
According to climate scientist and professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg, Hans Von Storch, "despite predictions of a warming planet the temperature data for the past 15 years shows an increase 'very close to zero'." When asked why the Earth's temperatures have not increased in any significant way in the past 15 years, despite the fact that CO2 emissions have increased more than expected, Storch attributes to unreliable climate models which forecast temperatures. http://www.theclimategatebook.com/global-warming-virtually-zero/
This seems to reinforce the 'climategate' scandal of 2009, which indicated that major climate scientists were manipulating data to support a global warming thesis, according to thousands of emails and documents (which were hacked into) from the Climate Research Unit in England. While there is some controversy over whether this scandal was a direct repudiation on global warming or not, one must be
somewhat skeptical of a science that is presented on sketchy evidence. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2009/11/30/global-warming-e-mails-scandal-show-scientists-may-have-cooked-the-facts
And yet, Obama recently stated, “we also know that the climate is
warming faster than anybody anticipated five or 10 years ago.” However, at a Senate hearing of Environment and Public Works, expert witnesses were asked if Obama's assertions were true. Apparently, after several seconds of quiet, Heidi Cullen, former meteorologist for the Weather Channel, chimed in that warming has slowed, not accelerated. A while later, another Senator looked for answers to the same question about the acceleration of global warming. This time, no one answered. Many of these witnesses were called by Senator Barbara Boxer, who must've been disappointed not to get the confirmation she was looking for about global warming. She and others did not get the justification they needed for this administration to impose costly carbon emission restrictions. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/07/19/senator-barbara-boxers-own-experts-contradict-obama-on-global-warming/
The President added, “I don’t have much patience for people who deny climate change.” The new head of the EPA, Gina McCarthy, stated that the Obama administration is planning to bypass Congress on legislation regarding climate change. Is it possible that it's his impatience to pass a redistributive political agenda that's growing? http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/14/climate-change-obama-epa-plan-action-sans-congress/ While Obama plans to make this a priority in his second term, this doesn't fit with how most Americans prioritize their concerns. In a recent Pew Poll, dealing with global warming came in 21st on a list of issues important to the country. http://www.pewresearch.org/key-data-points/climate-change-key-data-points-from-pew-research/
The ramifications on our country will be significant.
Major reform on energy policies will undoubtedly affect productivity
and industry, as well as individual costs to support these reforms. While our President may not have much patience for deniers, many Americans don't have much patience for those who want to turn our economy even more upside down with suffocating restrictions, higher taxes, and fewer energy sources. Skepticism is important. Let's be clear about the science before this country is negatively impacted.
Sunday, September 15, 2013
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Friday, August 30, 2013
Whose Side Do We Take Anyway?
In My Opinion
When President Obama drew a red line over the use of chemical weapons by Syria, he committed us to honoring that red line. Now it seems one of the factions in the civil war there has crossed that line. One of the main problems with this scenario is that the two sides fighting both include radical Islamists. President Assad and his supporters include Hamas and Hezbollah. The other side includes Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. Who are we supposed to side with? Neither side deserves our 'help'. Had the U.S. intervened two years ago, the outcome may have been different since the oppositional fighters were largely secular and pro-democracy. Not that I'm suggesting we should have intervened then either. But now, after 2 years of fighting, that faction has been diminished. In that time, at least 100,000 Syrians have been killed, and now our President decides he must take a stand because a few hundred people died from chemical weapons? The video footage is wrenching, and maybe that was intentional. After all, having us intervene stresses our resources. It forces us to take sides, but again, neither side is friendly to us. Intervening now offers our country no benefit economically nor does it offer any national security benefit. In fact, it puts Israel at risk for attack because that's the word coming from Assad. Hit us, he said, and we hit Israel. So why, then?
This whole issue raises more questions than we have answers for.
Why does Obama want to intervene?
What's the benefit to the United States to do so?
Why was the President not concerned after so many people were killed prior to the use of chemicals?
Where is the national security concern for America?
What is the economic benefit?
Who does benefit if we intervene?
Who stands to take control of Syria if we help the oppositional side 'win' this civil war?
Why would he want us to engage in another war front when our military is already spread thin and our economy is in such bad shape?
Who actually is using the chemical weapons?
Why is the president so sure that Assad is behind the chemical warfare when Intelligence says it's not definite?
Why are John Kerry and Joe Biden pushing the idea that Assad must be punished?
Why is the administration so eager to do something when they were so adamantly against Bush taking action in Iraq for similar reasons?
Why were they warning and (in Biden's case) calling for impeachment if Bush acted without Congress, but it's okay for them now to act without Congress?
Is this all about the red line that Obama drew?
Why would Obama reveal to the world what kind of attack he would launch, the duration, and the location?
Why is Obama in such a rush to make a move?
What is the objective he's trying to achieve?
Does he have an objective?
Does it even matter if Britain and France drop out of the picture?
Is he willing to strike unilaterally?
What will be the impact on Israel?
Why is Obama willing to put Israel in peril over this?
If the reason is humanitarian, then why not get involved in other genocides?
Was the use of chemicals intentional to bait us into intervening in this war?
If so, who is baiting us?
Too many unanswered questions, too many costs. Obama needs to take this to the Congress and the people.
When President Obama drew a red line over the use of chemical weapons by Syria, he committed us to honoring that red line. Now it seems one of the factions in the civil war there has crossed that line. One of the main problems with this scenario is that the two sides fighting both include radical Islamists. President Assad and his supporters include Hamas and Hezbollah. The other side includes Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. Who are we supposed to side with? Neither side deserves our 'help'. Had the U.S. intervened two years ago, the outcome may have been different since the oppositional fighters were largely secular and pro-democracy. Not that I'm suggesting we should have intervened then either. But now, after 2 years of fighting, that faction has been diminished. In that time, at least 100,000 Syrians have been killed, and now our President decides he must take a stand because a few hundred people died from chemical weapons? The video footage is wrenching, and maybe that was intentional. After all, having us intervene stresses our resources. It forces us to take sides, but again, neither side is friendly to us. Intervening now offers our country no benefit economically nor does it offer any national security benefit. In fact, it puts Israel at risk for attack because that's the word coming from Assad. Hit us, he said, and we hit Israel. So why, then?
This whole issue raises more questions than we have answers for.
Why does Obama want to intervene?
What's the benefit to the United States to do so?
Why was the President not concerned after so many people were killed prior to the use of chemicals?
Where is the national security concern for America?
What is the economic benefit?
Who does benefit if we intervene?
Who stands to take control of Syria if we help the oppositional side 'win' this civil war?
Why would he want us to engage in another war front when our military is already spread thin and our economy is in such bad shape?
Who actually is using the chemical weapons?
Why is the president so sure that Assad is behind the chemical warfare when Intelligence says it's not definite?
Why are John Kerry and Joe Biden pushing the idea that Assad must be punished?
Why is the administration so eager to do something when they were so adamantly against Bush taking action in Iraq for similar reasons?
Why were they warning and (in Biden's case) calling for impeachment if Bush acted without Congress, but it's okay for them now to act without Congress?
Is this all about the red line that Obama drew?
Why would Obama reveal to the world what kind of attack he would launch, the duration, and the location?
Why is Obama in such a rush to make a move?
What is the objective he's trying to achieve?
Does he have an objective?
Does it even matter if Britain and France drop out of the picture?
Is he willing to strike unilaterally?
What will be the impact on Israel?
Why is Obama willing to put Israel in peril over this?
If the reason is humanitarian, then why not get involved in other genocides?
Was the use of chemicals intentional to bait us into intervening in this war?
If so, who is baiting us?
Too many unanswered questions, too many costs. Obama needs to take this to the Congress and the people.
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
The Silence Over the Coptic Christians
While this administration beats the war drum for Syria, attention is being diverted from the horrific situation in Egypt. Although the administration doesn't like to talk about it, the fact is, that Christians there are being killed, churches are being burned, houses are being marked, and schools and businesses are being destroyed. Since the ouster of President Mohammed Morsi, of the Muslim Brotherhood, violence against the Coptic Christians has spiked, although murder of Christians there has been going on for years. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/15/egypt-coptic-church-islamists/2640419/
Although human rights groups recently condemned the hateful rhetoric of the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies, nothing is being done to stop the violence. To date, hundreds of Christians have been killed. Since the takeover of the Muslim Brotherhood last year, tens of thousands of Coptic Christians have fled the country in fear. Currently, the Copts in Egypt represent 10% of the population of 80 million people. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/9798777/Egypts-Coptic-Christians-fleeing-country-after-Islamist-takeover.html
Several days ago, Egyptians, both Christian and Muslim, rallied in front of the White House, protesting our president's alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood. "Don't support terrorists!" they yelled.
In June, the UN Ambassador to Egypt put pressure on the Copts not to demonstrate against Morsi and the Brotherhood.
"Egyptian Christians and U.S. citizens of Egyptian ancestry feel abandoned by the United States, which currently refuses to acknowledge persecution of Christians by Muslims, lest it offend the Muslim world." http://www.newsmax.com/JamesWalsh/Coptic-Christians-persecution-Egypt/2012/05/24/id/440236
Remember that Obama helped oust Mubarek and supported the Muslim Brotherhood, who have been visiting the White House over the past few years, still do, and also currently hold government jobs. Remember when John Brennan, now CIA Director, claimed they were secular and benevolent? Nothing could be further from the truth.
The silence about the persecution of Christians speaks volumes. Interesting to see who this president chooses to stand with.
Although human rights groups recently condemned the hateful rhetoric of the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies, nothing is being done to stop the violence. To date, hundreds of Christians have been killed. Since the takeover of the Muslim Brotherhood last year, tens of thousands of Coptic Christians have fled the country in fear. Currently, the Copts in Egypt represent 10% of the population of 80 million people. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/9798777/Egypts-Coptic-Christians-fleeing-country-after-Islamist-takeover.html
Several days ago, Egyptians, both Christian and Muslim, rallied in front of the White House, protesting our president's alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood. "Don't support terrorists!" they yelled.
"The protestors are also angered by Western media coverage of the situation in Egypt. They rallied against the Washington Post, accusing both the newspaper and Obama of being biased in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood."
"So the Obama administration helps the Muslim
Brotherhood in Egypt; that's not right," anti-Brotherhood protestor
Sawers Kamel said. "That has a lot of question marks. Why? Why?" http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2013/August/Egyptian-Christians-Muslims-March-against-Obama/
In Nashville, TN recently, hundreds of Coptics took to the streets also pleading with Obama, "don't you care?" http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/21/coptic-christians-chant-tennessee-streets-obama-do/
"Egyptian Christians and U.S. citizens of Egyptian ancestry feel abandoned by the United States, which currently refuses to acknowledge persecution of Christians by Muslims, lest it offend the Muslim world." http://www.newsmax.com/JamesWalsh/Coptic-Christians-persecution-Egypt/2012/05/24/id/440236
Remember that Obama helped oust Mubarek and supported the Muslim Brotherhood, who have been visiting the White House over the past few years, still do, and also currently hold government jobs. Remember when John Brennan, now CIA Director, claimed they were secular and benevolent? Nothing could be further from the truth.
The silence about the persecution of Christians speaks volumes. Interesting to see who this president chooses to stand with.
Monday, August 26, 2013
Crickets
Chris Lane, a white college student from Australia was visiting in Oklahoma when he was shot and killed "for the fun of it." One of the 3 black teens who killed him had tweeted prior to this, "90% of white people are nasty. Hate them." He also boasted about "knocking out" 5 whites since the Zimmerman trial. Seems like a racial crime, right? Unlike the Martin/Zimmerman case in which the media never stopped talking about race and even went so far as to concoct Zimmerman into a 'white Hispanic', one would never know this had anything to do with race if they were reading NBC news online. Nowhere in this article is race mentioned at all. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/20/20102447-2-teens-charged-with-first-degree-murder-in-ballplayers-killing-in-oklahoma?lite
In March, a former Marine was beaten to death by a group of 4 black men during an altercation in a parking lot.
In April, several black men got out of a car shouting "Trayvon" to pummel a 27 year-old white man who was walking home. Although he survived the beating, one side of his face is permanently disfigured.
In Chicago, back in April, 2 black teens beat a white 19 year-old to the ground and admitted later on they were angry about the Trayvon Martin case.
According to a recent article on WND website, there has been a wave of many more incidents of black on white violence since the Martin case. And yet, what do we hear coming from the black leaders?....Crickets. And what do we hear from the media about these racially charged crimes?....More crickets. The under-reporting of these cases is criminal in and of itself and given the 24/7 coverage of the Martin case as a racial crime (even though race was not an issue according to both the defense and the prosecution), one cannot overstate the double standard here. If all of the crimes documented in the following article were reversed as white on black violence, would we hear crickets? I doubt that we could over the cries of racism.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/wave-of-black-mobs-brutalizing-whites/
In March, a former Marine was beaten to death by a group of 4 black men during an altercation in a parking lot.
In April, several black men got out of a car shouting "Trayvon" to pummel a 27 year-old white man who was walking home. Although he survived the beating, one side of his face is permanently disfigured.
In Chicago, back in April, 2 black teens beat a white 19 year-old to the ground and admitted later on they were angry about the Trayvon Martin case.
According to a recent article on WND website, there has been a wave of many more incidents of black on white violence since the Martin case. And yet, what do we hear coming from the black leaders?....Crickets. And what do we hear from the media about these racially charged crimes?....More crickets. The under-reporting of these cases is criminal in and of itself and given the 24/7 coverage of the Martin case as a racial crime (even though race was not an issue according to both the defense and the prosecution), one cannot overstate the double standard here. If all of the crimes documented in the following article were reversed as white on black violence, would we hear crickets? I doubt that we could over the cries of racism.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/wave-of-black-mobs-brutalizing-whites/
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Enough is Enough
In My Opinion
Recently, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, "I hope that's based on substance and not the fact that he's an African-American" when referring to Republicans who are opposing Obama and his policies. Reid should be ashamed. Ashamed for two reasons. One, this is a man of power and authority, the leader of the Senate, stoking racial fires. The other reason is that he dares to suggest that the Republicans who disagree with this president do so because of his race. As a conservative, I am so sick of the left crying racist when anyone disagrees with Obama. It's as if no one has ever disagreed with a president before. What did the left attribute prior criticisms to when race could not be used?
Over the past weekend, a rodeo clown at a state fair in Missouri wore an Obama mask and proceeded to do whatever comedy that rodeo clowns do. The fallout over this from the political left has been inexplicable. The Senator, the Governor, and the Lt. Governor of Missouri, plus the state fair officials, all denounced the 'insensitivity' shown by this clown. The clown himself has been banned from performing at this state fair. Why? This has been going on for years. And, since when can't we poke fun at our president? Do these people believe that this president can't be touched? We all know about the incessant mocking and belittling of George Bush during his tenure. I don't recall the outrage. This has been going on forever in this country...until now. Now, when this president is mocked, there is retribution and apologies. Let's remember, this is our president, not a divine figure. And yet, the left has no tolerance for any criticism towards this man. What's up with that?
What's up is that the political left is trying to shut down any oppositional speech or thought. What's up is that the political left throws the weight of the government behind targeting conservatives because of political beliefs. What's up is that the political left tries to intimidate anyone who is not in lockstep with this administration. What's up is that the political left labels conservatives as the enemy.
What's up is that the political left has become an oppressive place to be for free speech and thought. And, while the political left prides itself on being tolerant of all people, we know they do not tolerate a Republican/conservative. Shame on Harry Reid. Shame on the political leaders who cowered over a clown.
Recently, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, "I hope that's based on substance and not the fact that he's an African-American" when referring to Republicans who are opposing Obama and his policies. Reid should be ashamed. Ashamed for two reasons. One, this is a man of power and authority, the leader of the Senate, stoking racial fires. The other reason is that he dares to suggest that the Republicans who disagree with this president do so because of his race. As a conservative, I am so sick of the left crying racist when anyone disagrees with Obama. It's as if no one has ever disagreed with a president before. What did the left attribute prior criticisms to when race could not be used?
Over the past weekend, a rodeo clown at a state fair in Missouri wore an Obama mask and proceeded to do whatever comedy that rodeo clowns do. The fallout over this from the political left has been inexplicable. The Senator, the Governor, and the Lt. Governor of Missouri, plus the state fair officials, all denounced the 'insensitivity' shown by this clown. The clown himself has been banned from performing at this state fair. Why? This has been going on for years. And, since when can't we poke fun at our president? Do these people believe that this president can't be touched? We all know about the incessant mocking and belittling of George Bush during his tenure. I don't recall the outrage. This has been going on forever in this country...until now. Now, when this president is mocked, there is retribution and apologies. Let's remember, this is our president, not a divine figure. And yet, the left has no tolerance for any criticism towards this man. What's up with that?
What's up is that the political left is trying to shut down any oppositional speech or thought. What's up is that the political left throws the weight of the government behind targeting conservatives because of political beliefs. What's up is that the political left tries to intimidate anyone who is not in lockstep with this administration. What's up is that the political left labels conservatives as the enemy.
What's up is that the political left has become an oppressive place to be for free speech and thought. And, while the political left prides itself on being tolerant of all people, we know they do not tolerate a Republican/conservative. Shame on Harry Reid. Shame on the political leaders who cowered over a clown.
Thursday, August 8, 2013
Exempt Us All From Obamacare!
In My Opinion
It seems too obvious for words. The people who write laws for the citizens to follow, should be required to follow those same laws themselves. The common sense of this is glaring.
When Congress started whining that Obamacare will cause them to pay higher premiums imposed by the new law that they created (!) Obama himself reassured them that he would 'take care of it.' And so he did. Obama promised that now the government (aka the taxpayers) will continue to contribute to the health care premiums for Congress and their staff. Just add them to the long list of groups to get Obamacare waivers, even though the law specifically states that this was not to happen. So, once again, our President skirts the law and makes it happen. Aside from the obvious law-breaking, it begs the question as to why all these groups are requesting waivers anyway? Why? Isn't this a great bill? Isn't this what the Democrats desired? Isn't this what the unions pushed for? Isn't this what his corporate bedfellows begged for? This was supposed to be a much better system for everyone!
So, let me get this straight. Obama and his Democrat cohorts force this 2800 page bill down the throats of the American people through several maneuvers and back room deals in Congress (remember all the town hall meetings and rallies that Americans held over this plan?). Thanks to the Democrats turning their backs on the will of the people, we can look forward to about 20,000 pages of new regulations associated with this bill (according to Sen. McConnell). This new law will force businesses across the country to fire workers, downsize their workers hours, and refrain from new hires. This new law will cause premiums to rise dramatically, will cause doctors to drop out of the force, and will cause people to get rationed care as determined by Washington bureaucrats. This new law represents one sixth of our economy and will ultimately help bring about the fundamental transformation of this country that Obama promised/threatened (depending on your viewpoint).
This is not a good law and Congress knows it. Even Obama knows it. But it will redistribute the wealth, as he so desperately wants, and it will allow for the government to take control over every aspect of our lives. There is one more exit off this dangerous highway and that is to defund Obamacare. Sign this petition now and let Congress know that if it's not good enough for them, it's not good enough for us either. http://www.dontfundobamacare.com/
It seems too obvious for words. The people who write laws for the citizens to follow, should be required to follow those same laws themselves. The common sense of this is glaring.
When Congress started whining that Obamacare will cause them to pay higher premiums imposed by the new law that they created (!) Obama himself reassured them that he would 'take care of it.' And so he did. Obama promised that now the government (aka the taxpayers) will continue to contribute to the health care premiums for Congress and their staff. Just add them to the long list of groups to get Obamacare waivers, even though the law specifically states that this was not to happen. So, once again, our President skirts the law and makes it happen. Aside from the obvious law-breaking, it begs the question as to why all these groups are requesting waivers anyway? Why? Isn't this a great bill? Isn't this what the Democrats desired? Isn't this what the unions pushed for? Isn't this what his corporate bedfellows begged for? This was supposed to be a much better system for everyone!
So, let me get this straight. Obama and his Democrat cohorts force this 2800 page bill down the throats of the American people through several maneuvers and back room deals in Congress (remember all the town hall meetings and rallies that Americans held over this plan?). Thanks to the Democrats turning their backs on the will of the people, we can look forward to about 20,000 pages of new regulations associated with this bill (according to Sen. McConnell). This new law will force businesses across the country to fire workers, downsize their workers hours, and refrain from new hires. This new law will cause premiums to rise dramatically, will cause doctors to drop out of the force, and will cause people to get rationed care as determined by Washington bureaucrats. This new law represents one sixth of our economy and will ultimately help bring about the fundamental transformation of this country that Obama promised/threatened (depending on your viewpoint).
This is not a good law and Congress knows it. Even Obama knows it. But it will redistribute the wealth, as he so desperately wants, and it will allow for the government to take control over every aspect of our lives. There is one more exit off this dangerous highway and that is to defund Obamacare. Sign this petition now and let Congress know that if it's not good enough for them, it's not good enough for us either. http://www.dontfundobamacare.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)