Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Obama Energy Sec: High Gas Prices Are Good for You!

Obama Administration policy is NOT to lower gas prices but to force us to accept alternatives no matter how much they cost!

In speaking about high gas prices recently Obama disparaged GOP plans to lower high gas prices:
Step one is to drill and step two is to drill. And then step three is to keep drilling. (Laughter.) We heard the same line in 2007 when I was running for President. We hear the same thing every year. We’ve heard the same thing for 30 years.
And for 30 years Democrats have been blocking GOP plans to increase American energy supplies. Now, they no longer hide the fact. From Speaker Boehner's blog:
Is Addressing High Gas Prices a Goal for the Obama Admin? “No”
Posted by Don Seymour on February 29, 2012 

If you were wondering why the Obama administration has spent three years blocking and rejecting efforts to expand energy production as gas prices have skyrocketed, wonder no more: Secretary Chu admitted yesterday that addressing high gas prices isn’t a goal for the Obama administration:

  • The Energy Department isn’t working to lower gasoline prices directly, Secretary Steven Chu said Tuesday... High gasoline prices will make research into such alternatives more urgent, Chu said.” (Chu: DOE working to wean U.S. off oil, not lower prices, Politico, 2/28/12)
  • ‘Is the overall goal to get our price (down)?’ Nunnelee began. ‘No.’ interrupted Chu, ‘The overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil, to build and strengthen our economy and decrease our dependency on oil.’” (Chu: Decrease dependency on oil, not gas prices, Washington Examiner, 2/28/12)
This isn’t the first time President Obama’s energy secretary has admitted his goal isn’t to lower gas prices. In fact, in 2008 he told the Wall Street Journal “we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” And last year, Secretary Chu told Fox News Sunday “the price of gasoline over the long haul should be expected to go up just because of supply and demand issues” – as the Obama administration blocked efforts to expand America’s energy supply.

In other words, the next time you head to a gas station and prices have risen – again – remember: the Obama administration thinks you should be paying even more.

Addressing high gas prices that are hurting families and small businesses might not be a goal for the president, but it is for Republicans. The House has passed a series of jobs bills designed to remove barriers to energy production and stop policies that drive up gas prices for families and small businesses.

Join the more than 6,000 people who have “Liked” the American Energy Initiative on Facebook, and learn more about the Republican plan for jobs at jobs.GOP.gov.
Critics who say that the Obama Administration has no plan to address high gas prices are wrong. Obama's plan is to make prices go even higher!

Newest Global Warming Scare: Stop CO2 or You'll Cause Earthquakes and Volcanoes

What's next? Stop driving your car or an asteroid will strike the earth?
No matter how absurd, the scaremongering to protect the green money machine will not stop!

The left wing Guardian newspaper in Great Britain is ground zero for global warming propaganda. So, it's no surprise that they published the latest example of the global warming scaremongering. But seriously, claiming that man made CO2 emissions will cause volcanoes and catastrophic earthquakes is a new low especially considering how every spectacular global warming scare has been exposed as a fraud and a hoax.

The author, Bill McGuire is professor of geophysical and climate hazards at University College London, hopes to sell copies of his book: "Waking the Giant: How a Changing Climate Triggers Earthquakes, Tsunamis and Volcanoes." The Guardian article is a condensed version of his claim.

In short, McGuire buys the clearly disproven theory that man made CO2 emissions will dramatically warm the planet. The Warmers predictions that global temperature would rise dramatically over the last 20 years have been proven false by observation of actual temperatures. But that hasn't stopped the Warmers and McGuire insists that despite a leveling off of temperature increases we are in for a rise of "several degrees" in global temperature.

Should that happen, McGuire suggest that melting glaciers in Greenland, Alaska and elsewhere will lighten the load on the earth's crust. Lifting such enormous weight will release the pressure holding faults in the crust from moving and thus, cause earthquakes and volcanoes.

The problem with McGuire's theory is that the ice isn't melting at anything like the rate needed to release the weight from the frozen faults. A while back I linked to news about the results from the  Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite. GRACE was launched in 2002 and it's job was to survey global ice and measure it's weight, or gravity. The is one of those instruments that the Warmers insisted would prove the theory of global warming. But like so many other advanced instruments GRACE showed that the loss of ice was nothing like the doom and gloom predictions.

But the fact that there is no observable evidence to support McGuire's fantastic claim won't matter. There is too much money at stake and the Warmers know that they have to get their "green" quick before the rest of their scaremongering facade collapses.

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Mitt Romney "Mr. Mud" and King of Attack Ads Complains About Santorum Calls

Romney once said he was "a big boy" and could take the heat. I guess that was when he was in the lead!

A few days before Christmas, Mitt Romney told Newt Gingrich to stop complaining about the avalance of attack ads his the Romney campaign and PAC were directing at Gingrich in key states:
“I’m a big boy,” Romney told reporters today at the Stage Restaurant, referring to Gingrich’s complaints about the barrage of negative advertising against him. “That’s the nature of a campaign, to point out distinctions with one another.

“And with regards to the heat associated with ads, you know, if you can’t stand the relatively modest heat in the kitchen right now wait until Obama’s hell’s kitchen shows up,” Romney added.
“The American people, I trust, will be able to look through those things that are said, determine what’s true and what’s not true, and make the decision on an informed basis,” he said. “It’s probably a good thing for us to get this out in the air right now so people can have the chance to know what is going to come down the road if any one of us happens to become the nominee.”
That last line has been echoed by many others who want Mitt Romney fully vetted. Rick Santorum is one candidate trying to do just that. Listen to the robocall Santorum is running in Michigan:
"Michigan Democrats can vote in the Republican primary on Tuesday. Why is it so important? Romney supported the bailout for his Wall Street billionaire buddies, but opposed the auto bailouts. That was a slap in the face to every Michigan worker, and we're not going to let Romney get away with it. On Tuesday, join Democrats who are going to send a loud message to Massachusetts' Mitt Romney by voting for Rick Santorum for president.

"This call is supported by hard-working Democratic men and women and paid for by Rick Santorum for president.
Romney outraged by Santorum "dirty trick"

ROMNEY: "It’s a dirty trick," he said on Fox News' Fox & Friends. "It’s outrageous to see Rick Santorum team up with the Obama people and go out after union labor in Detroit and try and get them to vote against me. Look, we don’t want Democrats deciding who our nominee is going to be, we want Republicans to decide who our nominee is going to be."

"I just think it’s outrageous and disgusting," he said of Santorum's attempt to take advantage of the state's open primary.

"I think Rick Santorum has a lot of explaining to do," he added, calling the robocall "a new low for his campaign—and that's saying something."
So much for being a "big boy" who could take the heat. And it comes from a candidate whose own scorched earth campaign tactics used vile robo calls and mailings against Newt Gingrich in SC and bombarded Florida airwaves with negative ads that ran 65 to 1 against Gingrich.

Now, Santorum has Romney on the ropes in Michigan and he whines about ads? PLEASE!

If Romney can't take the heat now, will he fold like a cheap suit when "Obama's hell's kitchen shows up?"

Sunday, February 26, 2012

More Bad Math for Obama

To paraphrase Obama's Pastor Rev. Wright: Obama's chickens are coming home to roost!

The Washington Post had this headline for the latest Gallup Poll: "Gallup: Obama’s favorability lowest of any nominee since Bob Dole." Here's an excerpt:
The latest Gallup-USA Today poll holds grim news for the White House. While 44 percent of Americans says President Obama’s time in office has been a success, 50 percent say it’s been a failure.

The poll also finds that his favorability rating is 50 percent — presumably that’s the 50 percent that doesn’t think his presidency is a failure. That’s lower than every presidential nominee in the last five contests save for Bob Dole. And Dole lost.
But the lastest bad news from Gallup is just the tip of a very large iceberg of bad news for Obama:
USA Today: “Americans Are More Likely To Say His Presidency Has Been A Failure Than A Success, 50%-44%.” (Susan Page, “Poll: Optimism On The Economy Doesn’t Lift Views Of Politics,” USA Today, 2/23/12)

Epic Fail! Obama by the Numbers

When it comes to Obama math, re-electing him  just doesn't add up!

A month or so ago I posted two versions of Obama by the numbers. The first, which every conservative should print out and hand to a independent voter spells out the story in an easy to read and compelling graphic formula. The second is a line by line refutation of the claim that the economy is getting better.

Below are some new numbers to add to the mountain of evidence which documents the economic disaster wrought by Obama and the Democrats. I like the last number best: "0: Other People Obama Will Have Left To Blame For The Failures Of His Economic Policies In 2012."

The Big Fail - Obama By The Numbers

$45.1 Trillion:  Total Federal Spending Proposed By Obama’s FY2012 Budget Through 2021. (OMB, 9/1/11)
$24.0 Trillion:  Projected Federal Debt In 2021 Due To Obama’s Binge Spending. (OMB, 9/1/11)
$15.3 Trillion:  Current National Debt ($15,351,406,294,640.49). (U.S. Treasury Department, Accessed 2/6/12)
$9.1 Trillion:  Amount Obama’s FY2012 Budget Would Add To The Debt Through FY2021. (OMB, 9/1/11)
$6.4 Trillion:  Cumulative Deficits Caused By President Obama’s Deficit Reduction Proposal. (OMB, 9/19/11)
$5.2 Trillion:  Total Interest Payments On The National Debt Due To Obama’s Proposed Budget, FY2012-2021. (OMB, 9/1/11)
$4.7 Trillion:  Added To The National Debt Since Obama Took Office. (U.S. Treasury Department, Accessed 2/3/12)
$2.6 Trillion:  True Cost Of ObamaCare Once Fully Implemented. (Office Of The Speaker Of The U.S. House Of Representatives, Report, 1/6/11)
$1.75 Trillion:  Annual Cost Of Federal Regulations. (Small Business Administration, September 2010)
$1.57 Trillion:  Tax Hikes In Obama’s Deficit Reduction Proposal. (OMB, 9/19/11)
$1.416 Trillion:  Federal Budget Deficit For FY2009 – Highest In U.S. History. (CBO, 10/7/10)
$1.334 Trillion:  Projected FY2012 Budget Deficit Under Obama’s “Deficit Reduction” Proposal. (OMB, 9/19/11)
$1.298 Trillion:  Federal Budget Deficit For FY2011 – Second Highest In U.S. History. (CBO, 10/7/11)
$1.294 Trillion:  Federal Budget Deficit For FY2010 – Third Highest In U.S. History. (CBO, 10/7/10)
$1.17 Trillion:  Total Cost Of Obama’s First Stimulus With Interest. (CBO, 8/24/11, CBO, 1/27/09)

Graves of Allied WWII Heroes Descecrated in Libya in Protest of Koran Burnings

The honored dead shed their blood on Arab soil to save Arab lives from fascist tyranny. Now this!

From the Daily Mail:


Desecrated: The headstones commemorating the deaths of allied servicemen, who fought in the Western Desert campaigns between 1942 to 1943, lay smashed on the ground in a Libyan cemetary as an apparent protest to the burning of several copies of the Koran which captured terrorists had defiled and used to pass messages in prison.
British, American and allied troops died to free Libya from the grip of the Nazis in WWII. More recently, allied efforts led to the overthow of the tyrant Khaddafi. Twice in less than one hundred years Western help has freed the Libyan people. To what end?

And despite this outrage are riots breaking out in cities across Western nations where Islamic people are being murdered in retaliation?

Friday, February 24, 2012

Cause and Effect: How Obama's Energy Policy Goes Hand in Glove with Higher Gas Prices

And Obama's only new solution is to do research on pond scum!

In a speech Thursday in Miami Florida Obama recycled once again all the excuses he could muster to say that high gas prices are not his fault. That fact that he's repeated these false and misleading statements over and over again does not make them any more true this time.

House Speaker John Boehner put together the following graphic along with links to examples of how Obama has done his best to choke off efforts to bring new supplies of energy to market that would help alleviate gas prices.

Run your cursor over the points on the graph for more info...

Running on Empty
House Speaker John Boehner's Blog
February 24, 2012
In yesterday’s speech defending his failed energy policies – under which gas prices have nearly doubled and are rising faster than ever – President Obama called for the kind of “all of the above” energy strategy long-championed by Republicans. But far from supporting “all of the above,” the Obama administration has spent more than three years blocking efforts to expand energy production and bring down gas prices, while pushing job-crushing tax hikes and taxpayer-backed loans to companies like Solyndra.

The president even sought to pin the blame for rising prices elsewhere, citing instability in the Middle East as one example. But as this chart shows, the Obama administration simply hasn’t focused on reducing our dependence on foreign energy. In fact, energy production on federal lands has dropped by 11 percent.
While these represent only a fraction of the Obama administration’s efforts to stifle new energy production, here’s a look at some of the key data points from above:
  • MARCH 7, 2009ABC News says the White House is closely monitoring the expedited Solyndra loan project even as it was delaying new American energy production that would help make us less dependent on foreign energy. Gas is $1.94 a gallon.
  • JUNE 27, 2009 - President Obama urges the Senate to adopt House Democrats’ “cap and trade” national energy tax, the same one the president once admitted would cause electricity rates to “necessarily skyrocket.” Then-GOP Leader Boehner later said the bill “would raise electricity prices, increase gasoline prices, and ship American jobs to countries like China and India.” Gas is $2.50 a gallon.
  • MARCH 31, 2010 – Instead of opening new areas to energy exploration and development, President Obama blocks deep-ocean energy production on 60 percent of America’s Outer Continental Shelf. Gas is $2.80 a gallon.
  • DECEMBER 1, 2010 The president re-imposes and expands the moratorium on offshore energy production. Gas is $2.86 a gallon.
  • JANUARY 2, 2011TIME reported that the Obama administration issued the first in a series of regulations on January 2 designed to unilaterally impose a national energy tax. Gas is $3.05 a gallon.
  • JUNE 21, 2011 - The White House opposes the House-passed Jobs & Energy Permitting Act that would unlock an estimated 27 billion barrels of oil and 132 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Gas is $3.65 a gallon.
  • NOVEMBER 8, 2011 – The Obama Administration releases a plan for a five-year moratorium on offshore energy production, placing “some of the most promising energy resources in the world off-limits,” according to the House Natural Resources Committee. Gas is $3.42 a gallon.
Republicans are working to address high prices and create new jobs by removing government barriers to energy production and stopping policies that drive up costs. You can “like” the American Energy Initiative on Facebook and learn more about the GOP Plan for America’s Job Creators at jobs.GOP.gov.
More facts from the House Natural Resources Committee:
  • Obama Administration policies are NOT responsible for increased energy production. President Obama is trying to take credit for previous Presidents Clinton and Bush’s pro-energy policies. The President is also failing to mention that the vast majority of increased production is occurring on private lands, not public. For example, North Dakota alone produced almost 16 million barrels of oil in January 2011, compared to only a little more than 2 million in January 2002. The majority of North Dakota’s production is on state and private land where the Obama Administration’s restrictive policies cannot hinder production. Any increase in oil and natural gas production is happening in spite of, not because of, President Obama’s energy policies.
  • Last year, the Obama Administration released a new draft offshore drilling five-year lease plan that CLOSES the majority of the OCS to new energy production through 2017. There is LESS offshore acreage open for energy production now than there was when President Obama took office when nearly 100% of the OCS was open for production. The Administration’s draft five-year plan prohibits offshore drilling in NEW areas and only allows lease sales to occur in the Gulf of Mexico and parts of the Arctic, areas that are already open.
  • President Obama’s budget shows DECLINING revenue from offshore drilling. According to the President’s own FY 13 budget proposal, in 2011, the federal government collected $1 billion in OCS rents and bonuses from lease sales. In 2012—the last year of the current five year plan, the budget anticipates collecting over $2 billion in rents and bonuses. In the first year of President Obama’s five year plan, rents and bonuses fall by 58 percent to only $852 million. By the last year of President Obama’s five year plan, the government is only collecting $569 million—a 72 percent drop from 2012 anticipated returns.
  • Obama Administration has BLOCKED energy production on federal lands. The total onshore acreage leased under the Obama Administration in 2009 and 2010 is the lowest in over two decades, stretching back to at least 1984. Under the Obama Administration, 2010 had the LOWEST number of onshore leases issued since 1984.
Despite Obama's repeated attempt to suggest that drilling won't solve the problem, A November 2010 study from the Congressional Research service shows just how much untapped oil and gas potential exists within the U.S.:


With the U.S. using approximately 7 billion barrels of oil per year, we have enough supply to last for decades as we transition to viable "green" alternatives using market forces, not uneconomical government subsidies.

Obama All In for Pond Scum

The big news from Obama's speech was the initiative to replace lost oil production with algae. Democrats who constantly point to the 5 year lag time in bringing new oil resources online (far less in many situations) haven't yet chimed in to remind the President that any such plan for using algae would take far longer to implement and may not be as economic and feasible as the readily available oil.

Charles Krauthammer had his unique take on it all:

Thursday, February 23, 2012

More Scientists Commit Global Warming Heresy

And the usual suspects are out to get  them even if they have to fake it!

When I first read the op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by 16 esteemed scientists expressing their skepticism regarding global warming theory and their concern that the science surrounding this issue had been corrupted I passed it by. After all, we've seen dozens of such stories over the years and there are hundreds and hundreds of scientists who have gone on record in one way or another with similar views.

But their op-ed, titled "No Need to Panic - There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy," stirred up another hornet's nest. Hopefully, these brave 16 already have the funding locked down for their next project.

In response to the wave of criticism from the usual suspects in the alarmist Warmer community, these 16 scientists have written a follow up letter. In it they boil down the arguments in a way that is understandable and compelling. You may have read similar ideas expressed frequently at this blog.

Concerned Scientists Reply on Global Warming
Wall Street Journal
February 21, 2012

[A]an important gauge of scientific expertise is the ability to make successful predictions. When predictions fail, we say the theory is "falsified" and we should look for the reasons for the failure. Shown in the nearby graph is the measured annual temperature of the earth since 1989, just before the first report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Also shown are the projections of the likely increase of temperature, as published in the Summaries of each of the four IPCC reports, the first in the year 1990 and the last in the year 2007.

These projections were based on IPCC computer models of how increased atmospheric CO2 should warm the earth. Some of the models predict higher or lower rates of warming, but the projections shown in the graph and their extensions into the distant future are the basis of most studies of environmental effects and mitigation policy options. Year-to-year fluctuations and discrepancies are unimportant; longer-term trends are significant.

From the graph it appears that the projections exaggerate, substantially, the response of the earth's temperature to CO2 which increased by about 11% from 1989 through 2011. Furthermore, when one examines the historical temperature record throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, the data strongly suggest a much lower CO2 effect than almost all models calculate.
In summary, science progresses by testing predictions against real world data obtained from direct observations and rigorous experiments. The stakes in the global-warming debate are much too high to ignore this observational evidence and declare the science settled. Though there are many more scientists who are extremely well qualified and have reached the same conclusions we have, we stress again that science is not a democratic exercise and our conclusions must be based on observational evidence.

The computer-model predictions of alarming global warming have seriously exaggerated the warming by CO2 and have underestimated other causes. Since CO2 is not a pollutant but a substantial benefit to agriculture, and since its warming potential has been greatly exaggerated, it is time for the world to rethink its frenzied pursuit of decarbonization at any cost.

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antoninio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.
The letter goes on to debunk other fantastic claims made by the Warmers such as "97% of scientists []agree that climate change is real and human caused," and the absurd idea that somehow it's really warming but we just can't prove it. And of course, the laughable idea that green technology will "drive decades of economic growth."

At the heart of this issue is the very nature and definition of scientific study. The Warmers point to the number of scientific academies that repeat the man made climate change mantra as proof of their claim. But history shows how earlier scientific institutions insisted the earth was flat and that our planet was the center of the solar system. Science based on observations proved them wrong.

Scientific discovery is based on the concept that you test your theory with experiment or observation. The full panoply of satellite and ocean monitoring systems that have been deployed over the past two decades have been designed to provide the data to test global warming theory. Ironically, the data undermines, not supports the Warmers theory. In short, as seen from the chart above, the theory has failed.

Some on the left who continue to push the "man is to blame" model insist that those who disagree are somehow "anti-science" but as is so often the case, the opposite is true. Those who refuse to recognize that factors other than CO2 may be the principle drivers in climate change are themselves "anti science."   Was Galileo anti-science when he bucked

Another Warmer Caught Faking It

Another arrow in the Warmer, or Enviro-zealot's quiver is to attempt to smear, discredit or punish those who disagree with their view that man is to blame and drastic action is required. Allegre, et.al. discuss that topic briefly in their response and we've certainly seen ample additional evidence over the years.

Another example comes from an anonymous source who claimed to be an "Insider" at the Heartland Institute; an organization which has been very critical of global warming theory. The "Insider" released several documents meant to discredit Heartland's mission of telling the other side of the climate change story. The most damning of these purported to show that Heartland was anti-science because a "confidential strategy memo" advised "dissuading teachers from teaching science."

Columnist Robert Tracinski said this raised immediate red flags for him:
But if you are an actual global warming skeptic, this is a big red flag, because we skeptics view ourselves as the defenders of science who are trying to protect it from corruption by an anti-capitalist political agenda. We never, in our own private discussions, refer to ourselves as discouraging the teaching of science. Quite the contrary.
It turns out that the Heartland document is a fake and the man behind it is Peter Gleick, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and head of a Californian research organisation called the Pacific Institute.

One of the missions of the Pacific Institute is something called the "Integrity of Science:"
The Pacific Institutes's Integrity of Science Initiative responds to and counters the assault on science and scientific integrity in the public policy arena, especially on issues related to water, climate change, and security.
Glieck is repeatedly on the record denouncing climate change "deniers" and claiming the scientific moral high ground for the warmers. James Delingpole at the Daily Telegraph mockingly said "Golly is "Integrity" Peter Gleick's middle name? Truly the man is a paragon!" So, I guess faking documents that purport to stain the character of those who disagree with you is the new and highest standard for scientific integrity?

Gleick drew attention to himself as the faker by making himself a target of the phony memo. After his fraud was exposed he fell back on the usual left wing excuse that it was fake but accurate ( or should we refer to this as the Dan Rather excuse?).

Increasingly, the Warmers have to lie about global warming because the science which they expected would support their wild claims is doing just the opposite. I challenge you to find a better example of exquisite irony!

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Crop Circles in the Snow

There were NOT caused by aliens from outter space!

Simon Beck, who studied engineering at Oxford University gets his excercise at a ski resort in France by making patterns in the snow. The Daily Mail has a series of photographs of his work which is considerable:


I wonder if he's applied for a grant from Obama Stimulus funds?

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

That Old Double Standard When it Comes to GOP or Dems Discussing Religion

The reason? Republicans believe what they say when talking about faith. Democrats worship power above all else!

Santorum's remarks on prenatal testing like amniocentesis, questions about Obama's political "theology" and old comments from 2008 about Satan have stirred up the left wing media. If Santorum is the nominee we can expect an endless number of questions and stories painting his views as extreme.

Never mind that Obama invokes the Bible in support of his tax increases or that his own political bible, Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals is dedicated to the Devil. Any critical questioning about Obama's faith, or the lack of it, will never be permitted to become an issue in the mainstream "news" media.

Santorum will have to be very careful to avoid stepping on the landmines of social issue controversy that the press will be only too happy to place in his way if he wishes to avoid becoming marginalized as a fringe candidate representing orthodox Catholic views. Remember the adage from Bill Clinton's first campaign "it's the economy stupid." Santorum will only hurt his cause if he spends any more time talking about birth control.

That being said, there is another reason that the media don't highlight what Obama and the Dems say about religion. It's because they don't take these statements seriously and they know that Obama doesn't take religion seriously either. The only thing that Dems believe in is the acquisition and use of power in the greater socialist cause. Religion will be used as a tool and discarded afterwards.

Sunday, February 19, 2012

Former Obama Backer Now Thinks Obama More Incompetent than Keystone Kops!

Obama's dithering over Keystone Pipeline shows he puts politics ahead of the national interest!

Mort Zuckerman, the New York billionaire real estate magnate and publisher of U.S. News and World Report was an early cheerleader for Obama. No more. In August he penned an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal titled: "Obama and the 'Competency Crisis'," The subtitle was: "Like many Americans who supported him, I long for a triple-A president to run a triple-A country."

In light of Obama's decision to delay the Keystone oil pipeline from Canada, Zuckerman writes again. You'll want to read it all. Here are some highlights:
It's not right to compare the Obama administration's performance in the matter of the Keystone XL pipeline to the Keystone Kops. Yes, the bunglers of the Charlie Chaplin silent movies are so busy blowing whistles that they arrest the victim while the bad guy makes off with the swag. But that was very funny, and the confused cops didn't know what they were doing. The administration knows full well what it is doing.
The original Keystone pipeline won approval after two years and is operational. But in 2013, the Keystone XL (extension) will be in its fourth year of review, a Great Dither not justified when the State Department conducted three consecutive environmental reviews to reach its conclusion of minimal environmental impact. In that time, there have been many public hearings to satisfy local communities and private property owners. More than a dozen alternative routes have been surveyed, and TransCanada Corp., the builder, agreed to 57 special conditions beyond current federal pipeline regulations.

The president wants a relatively short section of the route from Alberta through Nebraska reconsidered. It means the State Department will have to agree to a new understanding with Nebraska and secure the governor's approval.
It's a calculation which assumes that the voters concerned about the energy future that Obama paraded will be less active than the more extreme environmental lobbyists—who, in fact, will never be satisfied with anything to do with villainous Big Oil. Throwing a sop to the leftist anti-oil campaigners and "four more years" are apparently more important to the president and his campaign advisers than reducing our dependence on those unstable regions he mentioned and maintaining the momentum of the small improvement in the lamentable unemployment totals.
A final go-ahead for the $7 billion shovel-ready project would have supported tens of thousands of jobs now: 20,000 in new, direct well-paid construction and manufacturing jobs, and roughly 100,000 in indirect jobs along the pipeline, according to the developer, TransCanada. But the president's political concerns seem more important than enraging the Canadians, than giving China more edge in economic competition, than the defense and national security interests of truly independent energy.

Keystone XL became a political issue only after the environmental lobby focused on a modest adjustment to the route involving about 100 miles of the pipeline, which would carry some 800,000 barrels of oil south each day. The state of Nebraska was unhappy about even this modest adjustment, given that its own exhaustive studies in three environmental impact statements over three years concluded that there would be "no significant impact" from the pipeline. The environmentalists argued that the state's ecologically sensitive Sand Hills region might be threatened by this minor change, but TransCanada had already said it would be willing to adjust the route in consultation with Nebraska officials. This did not suffice, because the more leftist environmentalists are just dead set against the development of Canada's oil-rich tar sands, which they wish to stifle by cutting off the export route to get the oil to market.
The business community is also up in arms. As the U.S. Chamber of Commerce put it, "The president's decision sends a strong message to the business community and to investors: Keep your money on the sidelines, America is not open for business." The president's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness restated the concern that if the United States is going to have inexpensive and reliable energy, it needs "to optimize all of its natural resources and construct pathways (pipelines, transmission and distribution) to deliver electricity and fuel."
Remember this story next time you are filling up your gas tank with prices that will likely top $4 a gallon quite soon and keep on heading higher. Obama's own Administration took three years to determine that there were few environmental risks from the pipeline yet it will be stalled or killed so that Obama can retain the loyalty of environmental zealots during the presidential campaign. Meanwhile, it's not just higher gas prices, but fewer jobs, lower tax revenues and increased dependence on overseas oil. None of that is as important to Obama as pleasing environmental zealots!

UPDATE: Get this! At a recent White House briefing Obama Press Secretary Jay Carney denies that Obama delayed the Keystone pipeline and blames Republicans!
Jake Tapper: "How can you say that you have an all the above on approach if the President turned down the Keystone pipeline? And you blame the Republicans for making it political."

Carney: "But the President didn't turn down the Keystone pipeline. There was a process in place, with long precedent, run out of the State Department because of the issue of the pipeline crossing an international boundary, that required an amount of time for proper for review after an alternate route was deemed necessary through Nebraska at the request of the Republican Governor of Nebraska and other stakeholders in Nebraska and the region that needed to play out, to be done appropriately. You can't review and approve a pipeline, the route for which doesn't even exist.

"The RepublicansThey decided to play politics with this decision and attack the payroll tax cut extension. Even though it was made clear by the State Department that doing so would make it impossible for them to conduct the review responsibly, they did it anyway knowing what the result would be.
It's amazing that the White House Spokesman can lie so brazenly and have the press corps sit there and not break out laughing every single minute!

It's abundantly clear that it was Obama who was playing politics with this issue. It was his Administration that took over three years to complete the necessary reviews before overturning their own findings and stalling the project.

It used to be a joke to say "how do you know a Democrat is lying? His lips are moving." It's more and more true every day!

Saturday, February 18, 2012

A Shame Obama Won't Learn Germany's "Expensive, Inefficient" Lesson on Solar Power

German families paid hundreds more for electricity for no net carbon savings!

Last week we learned that last year the Obama Administration gave mega industrial real estate developer Prologis a $1.4 billion loan to buy solar panels from the now defunct Solyndra. Prologis, one of the top 1% in revenue growth earners could well have afforded to pay for the panels themselves is they were a sound business decision. But the Obama Administration was desperate to prop up Solyndra, Obama's poster child company for green energy investments.

All the while Obama is going whole hog for green energy, the nation's of Europe which led the way in this field are backtracking as fast as they can. Spain, Europe's leader in green energy was first to put a stop to any further subsidies without which the projects cannot go forward.

Now Germany. Bjorn Lomborg writes in Slate that 7.5 gigawatts of solar power have run up electric costs by an average of $260 annually for German families despite a government subsidy of $130 billion (and that money had to come from somewhere).

Solar power has turned out to be a costly loser for Germans because it relies on the sun. It doesn't work at night or when it's cloudy which it often is in northern Europe. Who knew?

All this was done to reduce carbon emissions. But here too, the story is a disappointment. CO2 emissions would be reduced approximately 1% for the next 20 years. Unfortunately, due to carbon trading schemes (scams is a better word. They end up enriching brokers) the equivalent CO2 will be released by other partners of the carbon trading scam.

So, the bottom line: electricity rates skyrocket (sound familiar?), big investors in green energy get rich and absolutely NO decrease in carbon emissions overall. Does this sound like a good idea?

Why then would we want to do the same in the U.S.?

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Why Conservatives Don't Trust "Severely Conservative" Romney

There are just too many moderate skeletons in his closet!

On February 28 Michigan holds it's primary. It was supposed to be a slam dunk for Romney who was born there and whose father was a popular governor. But all the recent polls show Rick Santorum leading by a wide margin. Romney's problem with the GOP base has not only not gone away but has gotten worse after his slash and burn campaign to defeat Newt Gingrich in Florida.

It didn't help when Romeny showed up at CPAC, the conservative meeting in Washington a week ago and said he was "severely conservative." Is that like severely disabled?

Ed Rollins, political guru of times past has a great column highlighting Romney's problem. The bottom line? Romney says he is a conservative now but his family roots and his record in Massachusetts don't match the rhetoric.

Mitt Romney used the word conservative and conservatism more than two dozen times, according to the Washington Post’s Dan Balz , in his speech last week at the CPAC convention. That rhetoric is quite different from ten years ago when he was running for Governor of Massachusetts.

He stated during that campaign that he was “not a partisan Republican" but rather a "moderate" with "progressive" views.”

In his CPAC speech he described his four years in office as: “I was a severely conservative governor of Massachusetts.” Whatever that means, many will argue that his most far reaching accomplishment, the implementation of “Romney care," betrays all conservative principles. President Obama has on many occasions stated this was the model for his ObamaCare.

He also stated in the CPAC speech, that he had learned his conservatism from his family. “My path to conservatism came from my family, my faith, and my life’s work. I was raised in a home shaped by and rooted in conservative values.”

The values and religious beliefs may have been conservative but the family politics certainly were not!

Mitt Romney’s father, George, was the three term moderate governor of Michigan. Like his son, George Romney was a successful business leader before entering politics.

After being elected Governor in 1962, he broke with conservative Republicans in the legislature and with Democratic support implemented, for the first time, income taxes on Michigan’s citizens and also gave collective bargaining rights to public employees.

He, along with Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York and Gov William Scranton of Pennsylvania, were the moderate leaders fighting to deny the “conservative icon” Senator Barry Goldwater the Republican nomination in 1964.

As a 17-year-old high school student, Mitt Romney went to the San Francisco convention. as an aide to his father. He watched the bitter proceedings where the Romney-Rockefeller-Scranton efforts were defeated by the conservative delegations supporting Goldwater. George Romney never endorsed or supported the Goldwater-Miller ticket.

Mitt Romney’s mother, Lenore, was an unsuccessful candidate for the U.S. Senate running as a pro-choice Republican in 1970 (three years before Roe v. Wade decision) against liberal Democratic incumbent Phil Hart. Hart won the election with 67% of the vote.
Either for these reasons or others, Mitt Romney shied away from politics for decades and declined to register as a Republican until he shifted his voting status from independent to Republican in order to run against Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts in 1994.

He proudly stated in that campaign that: “I was an independent during Reagan –Bush; I am not trying to return to Reagan –Bush.” He even declined in 1992 to choose between President George Bush and challenger Pat Buchanan in the Mass presidential primary instead voting for Senator Paul Tsongas in the Democratic contest.

A lot can change, including core convictions, over two decades, but Mr. Romney still has to convince conservatives that he is not a “moderate with progressive views” and he won’t waffle back if he wraps up the nomination.
A lot has been said about Romney's inability to connect with conservative voters. Some have suggested that the reason he appears so uncomfortable discussing conservative issues is because it's not second nature to him. It's forced in a way that comes across as insincere and phony.

I had my own personal opportunity to judge Romney's conservative sincerity for myself four years ago in a face to face meeting. I came to the same conclusion as others have and see no reason to change my opinion. If you want a conservative to beat Obama, vote for someone other than Romney!

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

You Get a $40 Tax Cut. Obama's Backers Get $4 Billion in Green Grants

Obama takes care of the "1%" while the "99%" get crumbs!

So, Tuesday Obama was out there sharing the love on Valentines Day by showing his support for extending a $40 payroll tax cut for working Americans. As if that $40 bucks will do much to help working Americans (and there are record low number of Americans who are working).

But while Obama out there playing Santa Claus for the cameras on Valentines Day, behind the scenes, his buddies are hauling away billions in tax payer dollars.

From the Washington Post: "Federal funds flow to clean-energy firms with Obama administration ties:"
Sanjay Wagle was a venture capitalist and Barack Obama fundraiser in 2008, rallying support through a group he headed known as Clean Tech for Obama.

Shortly after Obama’s election, he left his California firm to join the Energy Department, just as the administration embarked on a massive program to stimulate the economy with federal investments in clean-technology firms.

Following an enduring Washington tradition, Wagle shifted from the private sector, where his firm hoped to profit from federal investments, to an insider’s seat in the administration’s $80 billion clean-energy investment program.

He was one of several players in venture capital, which was providing financial backing to start-up clean-tech companies, who moved into the Energy Department at a time when the agency was seeking outside expertise in the field. At the same time, their industry had a huge stake in decisions about which companies would receive government loans, grants and support.

During the next three years, the department provided $2.4 billion in public funding to clean-energy companies in which Wagle’s former firm, Vantage Point Venture Partners, had invested, a Washington Post analysis found. Overall, the Post found that $3.9 billion in federal grants and financing flowed to 21 companies backed by firms with connections to five Obama administration staffers and advisers.
White House officials stress that staffers and advisers with venture capital ties did not make funding decisions related to these companies. But e-mails released in a congressional probe of Obama’s clean-tech program show that staff and advisers with links to venture firms informally advocated for some of those companies.

David Gold, a venture capitalist and critic of Obama’s investments in clean tech, said that even if staffers had been removed from the final decision-making, they had the kind of inside access to exert subtle influence.

“To believe those quiet conversations don’t happen in the hallways — about a project being in a certain congressman’s district or being associated with a significant presidential donor, is naive,” said Gold, who once worked at the Office of Management and Budget. “When you’re putting this kind of pressure on an organization to make decisions on very big dollars, there’s increased likelihood that political connections will influence things.”

There's a lot more detail in the full Wash. Post story.

As I have said before, you can take the politician out of Chicago but you can't take the Chicago out of the politician. Obama promised to be a new kind of president. One that would break the old corrupt system and usher in a new era of competence and cooperation. But then, he promised a lot of things and he's broken nearly all of them.

When you're spending that $40 on $4 or $5 a gallon gas this summer you can't be faulted for wondering whether the guy filling up his Mercedes was in on Obama's billion dollar giveaway!

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Obama: Americans Need $40 Tax Cuts to Pay for Higher Gas Prices Caused by My Radical, Incompetent and Corrupt Administration

If he cared so much about high gas prices, or jobs for Americans, he would lead the way to new supplies of American energy!

Obama is out there telling Congress to pass yet another extension of the payroll tax cuts and deal with all the other bad business he and fellow Dems insisted be kicked down the road from last year. And as usual, it's a crisis that can't wait!

Now, Obama is using high gas prices as an excuse for the immediate passage of a Dem bill that will once again ignore nearly every GOP idea. So much for bipartisanship and listening to the other side.

In his recycled, rerun of a speech on Tuesday Obama said this:

OBAMA:“And when gas prices are on the rise again – because as the economy strengthens, global demand for oil increases – and if we start seeing significant increases in gas prices, losing that $40 could not come at a worse time,”

Yeah... that $40 bucks will go such a long way when it comes to filling up the tank!

Nothing in his speech about opening up the vast areas where we know American oil and gas are available for the taking. Nothing about the tens of thousands that new American energy production would create. Nope.

Instead of working for REAL and PERMANENT solutions to America's economic and energy challenges Obama is all about Band Aids. And small, insignificant Band Aids at that!

And while Obama is passing out a paltry $40 to the great unwashed, his friends and campaign contributors are getting filthy rich off government grants and loans for unsustainable green energy programs.

Government School Lunch Inspector Rejects Parent Prepared Lunch

A government that can mandate you buy health insurance and force you to pay for contraception can tell you what to eat and punish you if you refuse!
Preschooler’s Homemade Lunch Replaced with Cafeteria “Nuggets”
State agent inspects sack lunches, forces preschoolers to purchase cafeteria food instead
By Sara Burrows
Carolina Journal
Feb. 14th, 2012

RAEFORD — A preschooler at West Hoke Elementary School ate three chicken nuggets for lunch Jan. 30 because a state employee told her the lunch her mother packed was not nutritious.

The girl’s turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the interpretation of the agent who was inspecting all lunch boxes in her More at Four classroom that day.

The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs — including in-home day care centers — to meet USDA guidelines. That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.

When home-packed lunches do not include all of the required items, child care providers must supplement them with the missing ones.

The girl’s mother — who said she wishes to remain anonymous to protect her daughter from retaliation — said she received a note from the school stating that students who did not bring a “healthy lunch” would be offered the missing portions, which could result in a fee from the cafeteria, in her case $1.25.

“I don't feel that I should pay for a cafeteria lunch when I provide lunch for her from home,” the mother wrote in a complaint to her state representative, Republican G.L. Pridgen of Robeson County.

The girl’s grandmother, who sometimes helps pack her lunch, told Carolina Journal that she is a petite, picky 4-year-old who eats white whole wheat bread and is not big on vegetables.

“What got me so mad is, number one, don’t tell my kid I’m not packing her lunch box properly,” the girl’s mother told CJ. “I pack her lunchbox according to what she eats. It always consists of a fruit. It never consists of a vegetable. She eats vegetables at home because I have to watch her because she doesn’t really care for vegetables.”

When the girl came home with her lunch untouched, her mother wanted to know what she ate instead. Three chicken nuggets, the girl answered. Everything else on her cafeteria tray went to waste.

“She came home with her whole sandwich I had packed, because she chose to eat the nuggets on the lunch tray, because they put it in front of her,” her mother said. “You’re telling a 4-year-old. ‘oh. you’re lunch isn’t right,’ and she’s thinking there’s something wrong with her food.”

While the mother and grandmother thought the potato chips and lack of vegetable were what disqualified the lunch, a spokeswoman for the Division of Child Development said that should not have been a problem.

“With a turkey sandwich, that covers your protein, your grain, and if it had cheese on it, that’s the dairy,” said Jani Kozlowski, the fiscal and statutory policy manager for the division. “It sounds like the lunch itself would’ve met all of the standard.” The lunch has to include a fruit or vegetable, but not both, she said.

There are no clear restrictions about what additional items — like potato chips — can be included in preschoolers’ lunch boxes.

“If a parent sends their child with a Coke and a Twinkie, the child care provider is going to need to provide a balanced lunch for the child,” Kozlowski said.

Ultimately, the child care provider can’t take the Coke and Twinkie away from the child, but Kozlowski said she “would think the Pre-K provider would talk with the parent about that not being a healthy choice for their child.”
Just further proof that the freedoms we enjoy are being ever more curtailed in the age of Obama. What's to stop them from telling you what kind of toothpaste to use?

Obama's Budget Proof of Reckless, Irresponsible, Corrupt and Incompetent Leadership

Massive deficit spending as far as the eye can see is not the path to prosperity!

Announcing his Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Obama went again to a familiar campaign backdrop in Northern Virginia and proclaimed that his budget was "a blueprint for an economy that is built to last."

Obama's "blueprint" is based on an unending mountain of debt that is anything but "built to last." From the CATO Institute the following chart shows the problem:

Obama's "blueprint" will add $7.9 TRILLION in new debt over ten years (charts ). That's on top of the projected $6.2 Trillion in new debt in Obama's first four years. This comes from a man who said this as a candidate for President in July 2008:

OBAMA: The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic!
Now, back to the present day. In that speech in Northern Virginia Obama pointed the finger back to President Bush and the Republicans when he said "the last thing we can afford to do right now is to go back to the very policies that got us into this mess in the first place. We can't afford it." By all accounts, going back to Bush spending plans would be the most responsbile thing we could do. "we can't afford" to keep going with Obama's reckless, endless spending spree.

And remember this comes form a man who promised to cut the deficit in half in his first term in office:

OBAMA, February 2009: We cannot and will not sustain deficits like these without end. Contrary to the prevailing wisdom in Washington these past few years, we cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences to the next budget, the next administration, or the next generation.That's why today I'm pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office.
Obama's "blueprint" has received nearly universal condemnation in even portions of the news media generally favorable to him.
*No Plan for Jobs, Just More “Short-Term Stimulus-Style Spending”: Instead of a plan for removing barriers to private-sector job growth, Fox News says the president’s budget has “$350 billion in short-term stimulus-style spending…” Associated Press says it is “laden with stimulus-style initiatives” and “small-bore initiatives.”
  • Tax Hikes on Families & Small Businesses “Will Feature Prominently”: “Tax increases will feature prominently in the new budget,” says the Washington Times. AP says it “puts forward $1.5 trillion in new taxes” on families and small businesses.
  • “Four Straight Years of Trillion-Dollar-Plus Deficits”: Associated Press says the president’s budget blueprint “projects a deficit for this year of $1.33 trillion. That would mean four straight years of trillion-dollar-plus deficits” – piling on to our massive debt that is hurting private-sector job creation.
  • “Failed to Meet His Pledge to Cut the Deficit in Half”: “[T]he document’s numbers will show Mr. Obama has failed to meet his pledge to cut the deficit in half by the end of his term,” reports the New York Times.
  • “Repeats Many of His Previous Budget Prescriptions”: The Wall Street Journal says, “Mr. Obama repeats many of his previous budget prescriptions.” The Los Angeles Times says the blueprint “pulls heavily from proposals previously put forward by the president” – proposals that couldn’t even pass the Democratic-controlled Senate, which hasn’t passed a budget in more than 1,000 days.
  • “More a Platform for the President’s Re-Election Campaign”: The New York Times says “the latest budget document can be seen as more a platform for the president’s re-election campaign than a legislative proposal...” The president even plans “to promote the budget at a campaign-style appearance Monday,” says AP.
  • Raids Medicare, Maintains Unpopular ObamaCare Law: The president’s budget “seeks to cut $360 billion from Medicare and Medicaid,” says the Los Angeles Times. And Fox News quotes Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) noting while “Medicare is going bankrupt,” President Obama’s “health care law takes the $500 billion from Medicare to spend on ObamaCare.”
  • “Offers Little in the Way of Entitlement Reforms”: According to Fox News, the president’s budget “offers little in the way of entitlement reforms, the biggest driver of the national debt.” The Hill reports President Obama “has so far not outlined a plan that would deal with Medicare’s long-term demographic challenge” and “experts do not expect him to do so…”
Why worry. The Senate won't pass this budget or any other!

We may not be able to go back to the Bush days of relative fiscal sanity but we can make a choice to end this current nightmare this November. Any Republican in the White House would be a far better steward of our economy and fiscal well being than Obama!


Photos Compare Damage and Recovery from Japanese Tsunami

The recovery is well underway!

It's only been 11 months since the earthquake and tsunami devestated Japan. The Daily Mail has a series of large format photos documenting the progress being made. The following is one example:

A hill overlooking the city of Kesennuma and the same area on January 14 this year.

Sunday, February 12, 2012

Three Charts Debunk the Manmade Global Warming Myth

Sadly, there is too much money at stake for the alarmists to accept other scientific views!

Before we get to the charts, we had some other global warming related news this week. A bit of background first. In the last 20 years billions of dollars have been spent on a whole new array of scientific instruments which the scientists who push the global warming agenda felt would confirm their view that global warming was an emergency and that man was to blame. Much of this is satellite technology. The irony is that the data coming from these technologically advanced instruments have led to the opposite conclusion.

This week, data from another new satellite, Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment or GRACE satellite launched in 2002 as a joint project between NASA and Germany in 2002. GRACE was designed to study the problem of melting polar ice. Remember that Al Gore warned that the coastline of the United States might soon be underwater because it would get so hot the North Pole would melt. So-called "scientists" have repeated this charge over the years.

The problem is that the time they said the Pole would melt has long ago come and gone and the North Pole still has ice. Santa and the elves won't drown! Of course that hasn't stopped the alarmists from trying to scare children as they did last Christmas in this fundraising drive.

And the GRACE satellite discovered that the rate of ice melting was substantially less than previously hyped by the global warming crowd.  As Gomer Pyle used to say "surprise, surprise, surprise!" As far as predictions for the future, researcher John Wahr of the University of Colorado who compiled the data said:
It's important to realize that melting patterns are hard to predict.
"Even with an eight-year estimate, it's not clear how far into the future you can project," he says. "A lot of people want to predict into the end of the century, but I think it's too dangerous to do that … We don't have enough info to know what'll happen. There's some ebb and flow to these things."
Got that?

The Sun to blame for global warming

Something so obvious like the statement above can get you in a lot of trouble if you are a scientist trying to get a grant to study the sun's influence on climate. Time and again we've seen how the global warming alarmists will seek to use their clout within the scientific community to punish those who do not support the theory that man is to blame.  We saw that happen in the research concluded recently in Europe where scientists from the Danish Space Research Institute had to work for years just for the chance to do their experiments on sun related climate change. Despite attempts by the alarmists to block their research they were finally allowed to do their proceed and found that the sun did play a key role. Again, cue Gomer Pyle.

The explanation of their findings is complicated which brings me to the first chart. From Der Spiegel:

Full size image here.

The chart above from Der Spiegel is a graphic companion to an interview the German magazine conducted with Fritz Vahrenholt the author of a new book called "The Cold Sun." Der Spiegel quotes Vahrenholt in the title of the article: "I feel duped on Climate Change:"
Vahrenholt: Many scientists assume that the temperature changes by more than 1 degree Celsius for the 1,000-year cycle and by up to 0.7 degrees Celsius for the smaller cycles. Climatologists should be putting a far greater effort into finding ways to more accurately determine the effects of the sun on climate. For the IPCC and the politicians it influences, CO2 is practically the only factor. The importance of the sun for the climate is systematically underestimated, and the importance of CO2 is systematically overestimated. As a result, all climate predictions are based on the wrong underlying facts.
Another graphic companion to the interview is a chart showing cycles of solar activity over the last 500 years.

Global warming heretics have been saying similar things for years only to be dismissed by those with a clear bias in favor of the climate change political agenda and a self interest in preserving the idea that we are in a global emergency which requires drastic measures (measures which end up profiting those who advocate them).

Besides, the blind faith that CO2 is somehow the dominant factor in climate change isn't borne out by the facts. After Al Gore won the Nobel Prize for his global warming hysterics, another Nobel winner, came out with the following chart which compares rising CO2 levels to steady or dropping global temperature models (and that is using the suspect global temperature data which we learned about in Climate Gate).
Climate Models Not Sound Science
The alarmists predictions for catastrophe are based on computer models for climate change which were developed decades ago. They have been refined over the years but are still deeply flawed. Dr. John Christy, an award winning NASA scientist testified before Congress in 2009 and shared the following chart which tracked temperature observations and compared them to the computer models upon which the alarmists doom and gloom scenarios are based:

Not only is the expected temperature increase not occurring despite an increase in CO2, another study of new NASA satellite data finds that the "greenhouse effect" which was supposed to be the telltale signature of global warming is absent.

UPDATE: Get Rich Quick with Climate Scares!

For those on the left who haven't caught the brass ring yet on global environmental scaremongering there is still a chance to get your piece of the action. A new bookCold Cash, Cool Climate:  Science-based Advice for Ecological Entrepreneurs written for entrepreneurs and investors, this book describes how to profit from tackling climate change."

Profit is a dirty word when you are talking about oil companies. But apparently investing in soon to be bankrupt solar firms and other green companies who take hundreds of millions in Obama grants and loans is the new way to get rich quick and do no work for it! And not one of these enterprises will impact climate change in any appreciable way whatsoever.

But act quick and get your "green" quick before the jig is up!

Friday, February 10, 2012

Union Thugs Paid to Protest Conservatives with "Occupy CPAC"

More proof that the astroturf Occupy crowd is phony from start to finish!

From the Daily Caller:

Protesters at Friday’s “Occupy CPAC” event, organized by AFL-CIO and the Occupy DC movement, told The Daily Caller that they were paid “sixty bucks a head” to protest outside the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C.

One protester told TheDC that all the “Occupy” activists were being paid to protest, and that his union, Sheet Metal Workers Local 100, approached him about the money-making opportunity.

“I have nothing nice to say about Local 100. … They just told me ‘you wanna make sixty bucks? So c’mon,’” the protester said.

Other “Occupy CPAC” protesters were unwilling to speak on camera because they were unaware what they were protesting and what the CPAC event was about.

Videography by Sarah Hofmann

And Dems said the Tea Party was astroturf! Where's my check?

Wednesday, February 08, 2012

Santorum 3 State Sweep!

Great night for Rick. Bad night for Mitt. Horrible night for Newt!

Colorado Minnesota Missouri
Santorum 40% 45% 55%
Romney 35% 17% 25%
Gingrich 13% 11% N/A
Paul 12% 27% 12%

VOTE TOTALS thus far:
ROMNEY 1,182,886
GINGRICH 838,102
SANTORUM 568,723
PAUL 335,951

Who would have thought that the guy who came in at the bottom of the polls just two months ago would have a three state sweep February 6th?

The message from tonight? First, all the folks who said the race was over after Florida will have to eat their words. Romney has always been a weak candidate despite his money and organizational advantages. The bottom line is that most GOP voters STILL do not want him as the nominee.

Second, what does this mean going forward? The crystal ball is a bit fuzzy on that one. Newt Gingrich still has some game left in contests like Ohio on March 6 along with  Georgia and other Super Tuesday states [primary calendar].

Third, one thing you can count on for sure: the Romney attack machine that was so effective in neutering Newt will now try and ratchet Rick.

The bottom line: Romney is still favored due to money and organization but with so few of the 1144 delegates [delegate tracker] needed to win nomination awarded thus far anything could happen!

Tuesday, February 07, 2012

Striking Contrast Between Major News Coverage of Pro-Abortion Planned Parenthood and Catholic Rebellion on ObamaCare

Is this fair and balanced?

Last Sunday I posted the story about the Catholic rebellion over ObamaCare. But if you didn't attend Catholic Mass on Sunday, and got the majority of your news from the Big Three networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) you might never know that Catholics are up in arms about being forced to pay for contraception, sterilizations and abortion related drugs through ObamaCare insurance mandates.

Likewise, if all you watched was the Big Three, you might have heard the story about the breast cancer organization, Susan G. Komen Foundation, and their decision to cancel funding for the abortion giant Planned Parenthood. If so you would have been bombarded with opinions favorable to  the abortion provider.

That's how the liberal media shapes the news that influences so much of America. It's what they omit and what they choose to cover as much as how it's covered. And it's almost always done in a way that supports the liberal point of view.

But back to our two examples. Matthew Balan writing at Newsbusters breaks it down:
When the Susan G. Komen Foundation announced on February 1 that it would no longer be donating to Planned Parenthood, the Big Three networks -- ABC, CBS, NBC -- rushed to the defense of the left-wing organization, which is the largest abortion conglomerate in the United States. Over the course of about 60 hours, ABC, CBS, and NBC emphasized the controversy with a whopping 13 morning and evening news stories. A Media Research Center study found that the soundbite count was loaded: 76 percent of the quotes came from supporters of Planned Parenthood (35 in total). Only 11 clips or statements came from Komen representatives or new allies.

By contrast to those 13 reports on the feminist "firestorm," when the Obama administration announced on January 20 that it was giving religious institutions one year to comply with a mandate for coverage of sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception in their health plans without a co-pay, these same networks all but ignored the face-off with angry Catholic bishops and their flocks. It took CBS 10 days to air one news brief about the controversy on CBS This Morning on January 30. Neither ABC nor NBC have aired anything on their morning and evening newscasts over the past two weeks, and CBS hasn't done anything since giving that one brief.

On February 3, ABC's Claire Shipman trumpeted the negative responses to the breast cancer charity's decision: "This morning, outrage and disappointment engulfing the Internet. 'All lies.' 'You have lost my support.' 'Playing politics with the lives of women.' 'I'll never buy pink again.'" ABC showed the strongest tilt towards Planned Parenthood, with 10 sound bites or statements in favor of the organization, versus only two supporting Komen, a five-to-one margin.

The day before, both CBS and NBC highlighted a talking point from Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards, who hyped that a "right-wing political campaign [was] bullying" the breast cancer foundation. NBC trailed not far behind ABC in terms of slant towards the abortion giant, with 15 clips in favor of the liberal darling, and four supporting Komen, a nearly four-to-one imbalance.
You'll hear about both stories on Fox News and that's yet another reason why the left does everything they can to marginalize that news source. The last thing liberals want is for the people to be informed about both sides of an issue!
fsg053d4.txt Free xml sitemap generator