Confederate Yankee
November 30, 2009
Obama Science Czar Being Investigated For His Role in Climategate
I'd be shocked—shocked—to discover that a member of the Obama Administration has ties to anything radical, immoral, or dishonest... wouldn't you? And yet, that is what Gateway Pundit brings us this morning, nothing that the anti-human (literally) John Holdren features prominently in the leaked CRU emails that have exposed the global warming movement as the biggest scientific fraud of the last century.
In related news, it seems that the CRU conveniently
threw out the raw data they used, and now it has been shredded, they will release the
remaining information that they've tried to hide from the public for so long.
I suspect that a lot of people in the global warming cult are guilty of considerable fraud, though considering their political backing by power-hungry politicians who see the cult as an excuse to gain power, I doubt many will end up in prison where they belong.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:25 AM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I hope that those who are unfamiliar with the scientific process realize that no one ever throws out the data. It is absolutely necessary to always have access to raw material. Particularly in a controversal subject such as the climate. So when these guys say they threw out the material, that means it did not exist in the form they desired.
Posted by: David at November 30, 2009 11:49 AM (PpoBw)
2
CY ... I don't think that David is completely right about science data. Rules are made to be broken. And data, crucial data, is sometimes inadvertently discarded. But I agree with his general premise that they probably didn't discard it, so much as they discarded the original raw data and kept the data they had massaged.
Anyway, it is probably lost to us in its original form. And the chicanery proceeds. And deepens.
Marianne Matthews
Posted by: Marianne Matthews at November 30, 2009 01:36 PM (VbbNx)
3
It gets worse.
This Times Of India piece on how China and India prepare for hardball in Copenhagen. The most troubling part of the article..
This joint front forged on Saturday is a major political initiative — the first major India-China accord on international affairs–that is likely to impact not just the dimension of the talks on climate change but international diplomacy as a whole. The move comes after recent discussions on climate change held with Indian and Chinese leaders by US president Barack Obama, who appears to have made little impact on them..
.. should send tingles of fear up and down the legs of Team Obama and all foreign policy analysts as China begins to not just look outward but act.
Posted by: Neo at November 30, 2009 02:49 PM (tE8FB)
4
The US Navy believes in global warming and so does the US Army and both think that the changes that are occurring have national security issueshttp://www.inquisitr.com/48466/us-navy-looks-to-climate-change-and-the-melting-arctic/
A knee jerk reaction and a hair trigger and result in losing toes
Posted by: John Ryan at November 30, 2009 06:32 PM (m0Q2u)
5
John Ryan
Of course the DoD believes in AGW--just like any PhD candidate who wants to actually earn their degree believes in AGW. The damage one does to their career to fight this fraud alone is enough to cow virtually everyone into silence.
As far as a knee jerk, the only jerk I see is the one who refuses to review the evidence of years of scientific misconduct.
But it doesn't matter what the AGW hysterics believe any longer anyway. The rest of the world (that world opinion that leftards are so concerned about) will ignore the AGW hype and go on their merry way building up economies to be proud of. There is no way the USA will approve a CO2 deal--no matter what the Self-absorbed One believes--when China, India, Russia, Brazil, and elsewhere have no intention of signing onto significant reductions.
Posted by: iconoclast at November 30, 2009 07:15 PM (FGCRY)
6
JohnRyan, did you mean to say that certain persons in the US Navy, or is it really the U.S. Navy as one mindset of all the thousands of people in the Navy. And did you mean to say global warming or man-caused global warming? In any case Iconoclast is right, that you can't trust people to be honest when their livelihood and power hang in the balance. Especially since honor, honesty, self sacrifice, truth seems not to be in vogue these days.
Posted by: Jayne at November 30, 2009 08:43 PM (dwIL0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 29, 2009
Huckabee Paroled Commuted Cop Killer
The Seattle Times has identified a suspect in today's shooting of four Lakewood, WA police officers in a local coffee shop:
A 37-year-old Tacoma man, Maurice Clemmons, is being sought for questioning in the execution-style shooting of four Lakewood police officers this morning, according to two law-enforcement sources.
Clemmons, who was recently released from jail, has an extensive criminal record in Pierce County and Arkansas, court records show. Clemmons is wanted in Arkansas and faces eight criminal charges in Washington state.
While governor of Arkansas, 2008 Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckebee paroled a violent repeat offender by that
same name as noted in this 2004 article:
Maurice Clemmons received a 35-year sentence in the early 1990s for armed robbery and theft. His sentence was commuted in May 2000, and he was let out three months later.
The following March, Clem-mons committed two armed robberies and other crimes and was sentenced to 10 years. You'd think they'd keep him locked up after that, but no: He was paroled last March and is now wanted for aggravated robbery.
If Huckabee decides to set these criminals free, Jegley says, at least "he ought to give an accounting. I can't imagine why in the world they'd want them released from jail. There's a good reason we're afraid of them. The sad truth is that a significant number of people re-offend."
The victims' families, Jegley says, "deserve an explanation. I look into people's eyes who've suffered the unspeakable. I believe they deserve justice.
If Huckabee—now a Fox News personality—did set this man free, his aspirations for a future White House run may be over.
Update: The
Times confirms that Huckabee set this suspect free.
Update: Huckabee
offers a deflection. My response? Yes, the legal systems in Arkansas and Washington did fail in protecting citizens from this violent thug,
but Huckabee made it all possible.
It's rather hard to rape children or massacre law enforcement officers in Washington when still locked up in an Arkansas jail.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:53 PM
| Comments (25)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Never did like the Huckster and from now on I won't even listen to the thug.
Posted by: Mark L Harvey (aka Snooper) at November 29, 2009 09:31 PM (uw5T+)
2
Way to go Mike..................
You're TOAST!
Posted by: BannedByHuffpo at November 29, 2009 10:06 PM (J4gI6)
3
Who paroled him last March?
Posted by: brandywine at November 29, 2009 10:11 PM (HOYRo)
4
Not a surprise to me. He enabled the release of a violent rapist who subsequently raped and murdered 2 women in MO. Wayne Dumond. Look it up.
Looks like The Huckster has a soft spot in his heart for violentr criminals and likes to play God with the pardon and commuting powers. Guess it makes him feel good.
Sounds like a RINO trait to me. Hope the rest of the Republican party wakes up to this clown.
Posted by: OldArky at November 29, 2009 10:15 PM (p5p8a)
5
I agree with you Snooper. He never did anything at all for me as well. I never could see why so many conservative types were "GAGA" over Huckabee.
He is done - media will make sure he is forever attached to this horrific act.
The big question is how many more of these psychopaths are running around because some politician wanted to look enlightened.
Posted by: slimedog at November 29, 2009 10:15 PM (5hQf0)
6
There were reports today that Huckabee was "leaning against" running again...
Uh...Start practicing that bass guitar Mike, you're toast...
Posted by: hotairpundit at November 29, 2009 10:19 PM (X2eW0)
Posted by: maxx at November 29, 2009 10:19 PM (bFNvP)
8
Can you say Michael Dukakis? I knew that you could!
Posted by: Fuzzlenutter at November 29, 2009 10:34 PM (QYHLS)
9
Looking like a Mike Dukakis/Willie Horton Moment..
Posted by: skatzbert at November 29, 2009 10:38 PM (KcPxx)
10
What about Queen Christine? Shouldn't she hold some responsibility with the willing disregard for the safety of the child this guy raped? This was his 8th felony and his third strike in Washington, yet the judge saw fit to set a 150 K bail??? I don't like what Hukabee said about obowmau and his photo-op with our fallen soldiers, defending the chicago chump and all, but this guy has been a resident of Washington state since 2003/04. Washingtonians love to blame others for their own incompetence, they are the loony left up here. Both govenors are responsible.
Posted by: c m romeo at November 29, 2009 10:42 PM (1Uxhs)
11
We conservatives did not like Ol Huckalib!!! Oh my God help us. I always knew he was a fake. I had the same feeling about him as I did about Obama. I thought who are these people that climbed out from under the bottom of the river rocks. Geez what else is going to happen to this country?! and to the great people that make it work that are being crapped on over and over again. I did ask the good Lord to expose the truth to us, I guess he is doing just that. I can't wait to hear what Tammy Bruce has to say about this, she saw through him too! Those poor officers and their families, please Lord comfort them in their time of grief. Amen
Posted by: jann at November 29, 2009 10:54 PM (ZwtIp)
12
Sarah would've used this punk as coyote bait.
You're history Huckabee.
Go away.
Stay there.
Posted by: BannedByHuffpo at November 29, 2009 10:55 PM (J4gI6)
13
oldarky, thanks for the reminder of the Wayne Dumond case. The Huckster lost me with the TV ad showing a cross in the window panes - just a coincidence says Huck. And then there was something I can't quite remember he said dissing Romney - I think it was about Romney's religion. I know many Mormons, they're more than allright by me.
Posted by: Jayne at November 29, 2009 10:58 PM (dwIL0)
14
Mr. Huckabee: Can you say Willie Horton?
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at November 29, 2009 11:06 PM (JyD4t)
15
Hey guys, this probably will hurt Huckabee...quite possibly A LOT...but keep in mind that he campaigned on the idea of ending the income tax completely and shutting down the IRS...that hardly sounds like a RINO to me...
Posted by: DR at November 29, 2009 11:14 PM (4WBlt)
16
Thanks for this teachable moment Huckster. Only wish it didn't have to come at the terrible expense of four innocent police officers' lives. That fact is a crying shame.
Now be gone with yourself Mike and don't come back. You were a joke yesterday; your an evil joke today.
Posted by: Eric at November 29, 2009 11:16 PM (5ixpM)
17
Sorry it's late. That should have read, "YOU'RE an evil joke today". I had to correct it. When I read simple grammar mistakes in comments my civilization-is-going-down-the toilet meter ticks up one notch. I didn't want to tick up YOUR meter unnecessarily.
Posted by: Eric at November 29, 2009 11:21 PM (5ixpM)
18
Mike Huckabee has released a press statement about the slayings: http://www.huckpac.com/?Fuseaction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=2907
If you read the press release, it makes you want to puke!
Posted by: J at November 29, 2009 11:29 PM (uKwT4)
19
Do you even read the stories you link to? Gov. Huckabee did NOT pardon this man, Maurice Clemmons (nor did he pardon Wayne Dumond). Huckabee commuted his sentence from 60 yrs for a non-violent crime Clemmons committed when he was a minor. Clemmons was still left in prison. The Arkansas Parole board, completely independent of the Governor, decided to grant parole. Shortly after he was released, Clemmons violated parole and was sent back to prison.
Secondly, the police in Washington make it clear that Maurice Clemmons is not a suspect, but rather, a person of interest wanted for questioning in the matter.
Posted by: c w at November 29, 2009 11:39 PM (WAhua)
20
>>"The Times confirms that Huckabee set this suspect free"
That's not what what your link says. I'm no fan of Huck but he seems to be getting a bit of a bad rap here.
Posted by: Steve at November 30, 2009 12:06 AM (9t1RN)
21
>>"Clemmons had been in jail in Pierce County for the past several months on a pending charge of second-degree rape of a child. He was released from custody just six days ago, even though was staring at seven additional felony charges in Washington state."
Maybe we can stop the Huck Hatefest long enough to look into this scandal. Washington is responsible for their own cops death.
Posted by: Steve at November 30, 2009 12:09 AM (9t1RN)
22
American Power tracked-back with, 'Mike Huckabee Statement on Maurice Clemmons: Suspect Wanted in Washington State Police Killings'.
Posted by: Americaneocon at November 30, 2009 12:11 AM (ZslWq)
23
c w, I did not say he pardoned Dumond, I said he enabled Dumond to be released. I know Dumond's AR victim very well and know the Dumond facts a hell of of lot better than you.
The Huckster made sure that Dumond was released over the vehement objections of the victim. She (the underage rape vistim) revealed her identity and went public with her objections to what The Huckster was doing re Dumond and predicted in his governor's office that Dumond would rape again and this time kill the victim. Too bad she was right.
The Huckster made himself feel good through the use of clemency and pardons at the expense of past crime victims and the families of the future victims of the animals he let out of their cages.
Posted by: OldArky at November 30, 2009 12:12 AM (p5p8a)
24
You huckabee defenders are the scum of the earth. Your the same people who defend george bush. You people really make me sick. I hate democrats but you claim to be on our side so no I hate you more.
Posted by: tyler at November 30, 2009 12:23 AM (8T51P)
25
>>"You huckabee defenders are the scum of the earth. Your the same people who defend george bush."
You're funny. What's your beef with Bush? The Iraq War no doubt.
That aside, I'm not "defending" Huckabee. I'm pointing out a factual error on CY's part. Huckabee did not "parole" this guy, as CY's link makes clear. The headline here is wrong.
Posted by: Steve at November 30, 2009 12:47 AM (9t1RN)
26
Steve your funny too. I'm not a liberal I'm a conservative but are you being serious about bush? He doubled the debt wouldn't bomb the hell out of afghanistan and let brave marines be court martialed for doing there job. Thats just a couple of things that come to mind. Bottom line is Mich Hucabee is a joke and has blood on his hands and fox news is a complete joke. I stopped watching that pathetic station years ago and I can guarantee you they won't mention the huckabee angle in there reporting. Just like they won't mention the name of Michael Savage.
Posted by: Tyler at November 30, 2009 01:07 AM (8T51P)
27
Huckabee can't worm his way out of this one, especially given that his campaign's senior adviser, one Jim Pinkerton, was one of the main architects behind the Willie Horton attack ad campaign against Michael Dukakis.
Posted by: googoo at November 30, 2009 01:56 AM (yf9T4)
28
As i understand his crime was when he was 17.
It is any judge that let him out after more crimes that has the weight of the cops deaths on his sholders. Not Huckabee.
Posted by: Mr Smart at November 30, 2009 02:03 AM (9qJPI)
29
Mr Smart,
Huckabee set in motion the guy's release from jail. As far as I know, he did not protest Mr. Clemmons' release.
Posted by: googoo at November 30, 2009 02:10 AM (yf9T4)
30
Snake oil salesman Huckebee is just as gullible as he thinks everyone else is apparently.
Posted by: astonerii at November 30, 2009 03:55 AM (9P4wC)
31
Why oh why does karma make good people pay for a fools deeds?
Huck, Bush, Clinton, and for sure Obama letting people out early. I think they should have to let them live with them for 6 months, each and every one of them.
In their private mansions with their kids and their family before letting them out on us.
Posted by: Wrong Name at November 30, 2009 05:27 AM (O10oO)
32
Steve wrote:
"You're funny. What's your beef with Bush? The Iraq War no doubt."
Tyler retorted:
"Steve your funny too. I'm not a liberal I'm a conservative but are you being serious about bush? He doubled the debt wouldn't bomb the hell out of afghanistan and let brave marines be court martialed for doing there job. Thats just a couple of things that come to mind."
Right on, Tyler! You GET it! Bush was so wrong in so many ways: Especially the absurd rules of engagement that to this day handcuff our troops (rules that obama has kept and tightened); the overly zealous court-martials (which you, of course, mention) not only of Marines, but of soldiers, too; the refusal -- again, as you tell it -- to truly take the fight to the enemy; and, most of all -- his abject failure consistently to call the enemy the enemy BY NAME ("religion of peace," indeed!).
Bush struck me as a conflicted weakling -- seemingly afraid of his own shadow (and his Daddy's too). In his second term -- as even one of his admirers (Caroline Glick) admits -- he turned his foreign policy over to the liberals Condi Rice and the crew at Foggy Bottom.
Bush, in effect, had greatness handed to him on a silver platter by history itself. His response? "No thanks; I think I'll pass."
Posted by: man_in_tx at November 30, 2009 06:02 AM (PNTzt)
33
My very liberal friends assume that if someone is religious, one is also automatically conservative. Passing over what being religious means, Episcopalians vs Mormons showing the range, I always maintained that the Huckster was really Religious Left over a wide range of issues. It came out in many of his positions during the campaign. Now we see more evidence.
I do enjoy his variety show on Fox, and he is doing a good job as a successor to Paul Harvey in his daily commentaries. Let's hope he stays there.
Posted by: Tregonsee at November 30, 2009 06:58 AM (ttuDo)
34
""...The following March, Clem-mons committed two armed robberies and other crimes and was sentenced to 10 years. You'd think they'd keep him locked up after that, but no: He was paroled last March and is now wanted for aggravated robbery....""
First off, I am not a supporter of the Governor nor do i play one while watching TV. That being said, Governor Huckabee gave this guy a second chance in 2000 and this guy blew it 7 months later which landed him back in jail. Some idiot in the Arkansas Parole Board gave this guy a third chance for some stupid reason. It is this idiot or group of idiots that need to be drug to court and be held liable for releasing this guy back into the wild.
I fail to see the point trying to be made here in that the Governor is somehow responsible for this guys latest operation of permanent dispatch?
The sentences in quotes is all the proof one needs to see the Governor's hands are clean in this matter. Governor Huckabee left office on Jan. 9, 2007. This guy was recently paroled, March 2008, after the Governor left office.
Again the burden of fault lays squarely on the feet of the inept Arkansas State Parole Board, not the Governors.
Posted by: 0321_GUY at November 30, 2009 07:49 AM (8WibZ)
35
One big reason why Huckabee is popular with rep's, is that he can actually formulate a sentence when he speaks and sound good when doing it.
Posted by: marty at November 30, 2009 08:12 AM (JGc2g)
36
As long as Huckabee is considered a leader of the Tea Parties, their movement will have no credibility. This is even a black eye for Fox. For Gary @ 8:12..... if you had an IQ above single digits, you would be dangerous.
Posted by: Don at November 30, 2009 09:53 AM (eXdIs)
37
Sorry 0321,
Your little charade isn't going to cut it for your guy, the phony preacher-flimflam man.
Hucka-clown set this guy free despite his numerous convictions, the last of which resulted in a 95 year sentence and Huck did it in face of strong protests by the local prosecutors AND without justifying his reasons in writing as required by the Ark. Constitution. (Of course we know it was done for black votes!)
What a rotten scoundrel, one without any excuses, even those as flimsy as yours!
Posted by: Earl T at November 30, 2009 10:17 AM (uokdN)
38
This is exactly why no RHINOS need apply!
Posted by: Art at November 30, 2009 10:27 AM (3DErI)
39
Lakewood, not Lakeland.
Posted by: Foxfier at November 30, 2009 10:45 AM (zFkAV)
40
This how the right wants to run this country
obama,sores,holden and so forth
so lets take notes on huck's past.
I like Huck
but had no clue how forgiving and naive he is...
Sarah Palin has a good chance, although she a strong believer in the right to life
but that right to life in prison she is strong on also....lock them up an throw the key away.
God Bless these officer and their families, i hope
this guy dies soon.
Posted by: sue at November 30, 2009 01:20 PM (Ry/zZ)
41
Thank you, CW for standing for the truth in the midst of those that are too quick to jump on the "I didn't like Huck, before it was cool to hate Huck" bandwagon.
The tragedy was not Huckabees. It was a failure of the system in Arkansas and Washington. Clemmons' criminal record scaled up from non-violent as a minor to violent as an adult. One person cannot be assigned the failure. There were many times when the system could have locked this guy up for good, but didn't. Huckabee is just a convenient target.
Posted by: Deborah Leigh at November 30, 2009 03:51 PM (gCUn9)
42
I only got one vote, and the huckster ain't gettin it.
Posted by: madge at November 30, 2009 08:02 PM (L3Cv6)
43
Not a Huckabee fan, but I don't think we can place all blame with him. There was the parole board and this guy was in and out a number of times - it would be good for someone to put together a timeline of all the crimes and people involved in letting this guy out. How about the judge who allowed him bail in Washington? But actually isn't it all the blame of the leftist mindset which sometimes gets to a sensitive Republican? You know, the mindset that says that too many blacks are in jail, that you should give younger criminals a break.
Posted by: Jayne at November 30, 2009 08:33 PM (dwIL0)
44
The county prosecutor in Arkansas strongly disagreed with Huckabee for releasing Clemmons. There was a no bail warrant for parole violations issued by Arkansas for Clemmons that they revoked sometime after he got to Washington. Washington law enforcement even called Arkansas to confirm before he was released on bail the first time. Arkansas said they no longer wanted him. Bottom line is that this guy had multiple armed robbery convictions in Arkansas and was sentenced accordingly. Huckabee messed up but I'm sure he wishes he could have it back. Hindsight is 20/20.
Posted by: Jeff at November 30, 2009 09:49 PM (AjSmM)
45
OMG
Instead of going after the real culprits you beat up on Huckabee. What scum bags you are!
Some of you do show good sense and don't circle around and kick him him the head while he is down.
The facts have been pointed out to you, like this one "This was his 8th felony and his third strike in Washington, yet the judge saw fit to set a 150 K bail???", yet you continue your tirade against Huckabee.
Gov. Mike Huckabee is a good man and did what he thought was the right thing to do. A 60 year sentence WAS TOO SEVERE.
I love his decent show on Sat. Nights, you should try it sometime.
Posted by: JosephineSouthern at December 01, 2009 12:53 PM (PBNTu)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
BREAKING: Four Police Officers Assassinated in Coffee Shop Ambush
The early reports indicated a targeted killing by a two gunman targeting police officers. There do not appear to be any other people injured. The shooters escaped the scene and are at large. Below is the Google street view image of the coffee shop on 116th and Steele where the killing occurred.
McChord Air Force base is directly across the street, and Interstate 5 and WA State 512 are only seconds away. The killers were possibly miles away as the first 911 calls were being made.
It is probably a total coincidence, but Parkland is 22 miles down I-5 from
Evergreen State College, the radical leftist school that helped create Rachel Corrie and Andrew Mickel, the later of which
ambushed a police officer in Nov 2002, and is now on death row. Another radical leftist shot and killed a police officer on Halloween after firebombing four police cars on Oct. 22, and was in turn shot
earlier this month.
Update: War on Cops in Washington. Now, let us see if they are really willing to look at the motivations of the killers.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:39 PM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
This is just terrible.May God keep their families in his care and guide the authorities to the perpetrators of this horrific crime.
Posted by: Bill at November 29, 2009 06:43 PM (FDfyG)
2
Thanks to the coffee shop owner's foresight, it's possible that 911 was called before the cops were dead-- the owner is a former cop, and he instructs all his baristas (in this case, it was two young ladies) that if someone comes in the front with a gun, they run out the back and call 911. No heroics.
My husband does his active duty stuff at McChord. Hope they catch the SOB(s).
Posted by: Foxfier at November 29, 2009 08:44 PM (zFkAV)
3
So far the motivations of this killer--assuming of course that Clemmons is the killer--is that he is violent and borderline crazy.
btw, when he was arrested for his latest crime by the deputy sheriff's Clemmons assaulted one of the officers. The judge still saw fit to release Clemmons on $150K ($15K bond) bail. So I think the judge deserves some credit for this atrocity.
Clemmons may be dead. He was wounded in the gunfight and has yet to respond to police (Seattle police will wait for months before actually breaking into the house and going after this man). If he was the culprit, I certainly hope he is dead.
Posted by: iconoclast at November 30, 2009 10:52 AM (O8ebz)
4
What, and no one is going to mention that the only reason Clemmons is out there killing cops is because Governor Mike Huckabee pardoned him and released him from prison?
Can't blame the liberals for this one....
Posted by: kindness at November 30, 2009 12:51 PM (EIzB0)
5
umm...aren't most of these guys killing cops nowadays people who are afraid obama's going to take our guns away? how can you make fun of leftists for being wimps and cowards afraid of war and fighting when at the same time you say they're suicidal, homocidal terrorists?
http://kdka.com/local/officers.shot.Stanton.2.975820.html
Posted by: andy at November 30, 2009 12:59 PM (pGfKd)
6
I'll bet that this is a terrorist attack too, not just some wacko that was allowed to carry a gun, right?
Get over yourselves. The Supreme Court said that the states couldn't keep people locked up in nuthouses without a due process hearing. The states responded by turning all the nut jobs loose instead of spending the little bit that it would have cost to use an already existing mechanism to meet the due process requirements. Then you gun nuts got your village idiot elected President and he appointed a passel of idiot activist judges that decided to give the Constitution a new meaning that it had never had before. Now you have crazies running loose and crazies on the Supreme Court who said that those crazies on the street could be armed. Nice job!
Posted by: The Scarlet Pimpernel at November 30, 2009 01:07 PM (XKKcX)
7
andy, the difference between paranoids such as Poplawski (and similar shooters) and cop-hating lefties is that the Mickels, Monforts and Clemmons of this world go on the offensive, and actually hunt down officers to kill.
There is no disconnect between progressives not willing to fight for their country, and lashing out against symbols of that nation's lawful authority. If anything it is extreme symmetry, where they take their hatred of our imperfect nation to the extreme and attack those who defend it. Ask President Obama about his friends Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, they based a significant part of their lives living out that experience.
As tens of millions of aborted babies, dead Russians, and Chinese can tell you, leftists aren't close to being peaceful. They just have a different idea of what is worth killing over.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 30, 2009 01:14 PM (gAi9Z)
8
Pimp, you're rambling like a crazed person, and you lost any relevance when you claimed that Clemmons was "some wacko that was allowed to carry a gun."
Someone with his extensive criminal history cannot legally possess firearms.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 30, 2009 01:19 PM (gAi9Z)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 28, 2009
Politics of Eco-Terrorist from NJ Sentenced to Chinese Prison Strangely Absent from Times Reporting
Isn't it funny that any crime with even a hint of center-right political nuance is triumphantly paraded about by the media as an example of right wing extremism (and thereby justifying Obama Administration demagoguery), but verified left wing terrorism—even from known progressive terrorist organizations—is never cited as such?
Take for example,
the story of Justin Franchi Solondz as reported in the New York
Times.
Justin Franchi Solondz, an environmental activist from New Jersey who spent years evading charges of ecoterrorism in the United States by hiding out in China, was sentenced to three years in prison by a local court on Friday on charges of manufacturing drugs in this backpacker haven.
After serving his time, Mr. Solondz, 30, who is on the F.B.I.'s wanted list, will be deported to the United States, where he faces charges stemming from what the authorities say was his role in an arson rampage that destroyed buildings in three western states as a member of a group related to the environmental extremist organization Earth Liberation Front. He was indicted in absentia in 2006.
You don't get a much more direct link to left wing terrorism in the United States than the ELF (without joining the
boards of directors of which our President has been a member), and yet, the
Times just can't quite bring itself to recognize the political slant of the convicted terrorist/drug dealer in their story.
No bias here, folks.
Move along.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:14 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Russian Train Destroyed by Terrorist Bomb
The express train carrying passengers from Moscow to St. Petersburg was derailed Friday, killing 30 and injuring at least one hundred. Russian authorities claim that have found a blast crater and chemical residue that indicates the train was targeted in an act of terrorism, using homemade explosives equivalent to 15 pounds of TNT.
If homemade explosives were used I would be surprised to find out if it was anything other than triacetone triperoxide (TATP), an old standby for terrorists that was perhaps most infamously used in the London subway bombings.
No one has publicly taken responsibility for the blast, and a motive remains unclear at this time.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:29 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
In the absence of any further evidence of who might have set the bomb, there is an interesting question of whether the bomb (if there was one) was necessarily set by terrorists at all.
There have been persistent rumors that the bombing of apartment buildings in the late 1990s which reignited the Chechen War was conducted, not by Chechens, but by the Russian intelligence services, at the orders of Putin.
Which is most certainly not to excuse the Chechens for their crimes (e.g., Beslan), but to suggest that things are not always what they seem in Russia.
It would be interesting to see whether any group takes responsibility, and/or whether the accused perpetrators are among the "usual suspects".
Posted by: Lurking Observer at November 29, 2009 09:52 AM (gqoLB)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 27, 2009
Holder Goes Around Congress, Enables ACORN to Receive Funds
Needless to say, those in Congress who voted to strip them of funding are not happy:
Since 1994, ACORN, which stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, has received about $53 million in federal aid, much of it in grants to help poor people obtain affordable housing. The Justice Department asked whether the funding ban applied to prior contracts. In a ruling first reported by the New York Times, a department lawyer said the payments under prior contracts should continue because the language of the law did not expressly wipe them out.
But Representative Darrell Issa, the top Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said "the bipartisan intent of Congress was clear -- no more federal dollars should flow to ACORN."
"It is telling that this administration continues to look for every excuse possible to circumvent the intent of Congress," Issa said in a statement. "Taxpayers should not have to continue subsidizing a criminal enterprise that helped Barack Obama get elected president. The politicization of the Justice Department to payback one of the president’s political allies is shameful and amounts to nothing more than old-fashioned cronyism."
In his short stint as Attorney General, Eric Holder has protected Black Panthers, and ACORN, while doing his damnedest to avoid appointing a special prosecutor to investigate the White House's involvement in covering up the alleged corruption of Obama ally Kevin Johnson. The Administration went as far as firing Inspector General Gerald Walpin in an attempt to cover up Johnson's wrong-doing.
It seems we have an AG more interested in providing political cover for corruption than almost anything else. Am I shocked?
Not at all.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:14 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Doing as instructed, of course. It must be Hell to have to answer your phone when you know the message is from the top dog and he's going to tell you to do something you KNOW is wrong, and is going to get your butt hauled back to a Congressional Committee hearing.
I don't feel sorry for the man; he seems to enjoy being the fraud's lap dog.
Posted by: Dell at November 27, 2009 10:00 PM (lDRZT)
Posted by: Steve White at November 28, 2009 12:52 AM (HTxzR)
3
Shades of Ed Meese ...
More like shades of John Mitchell. At the rate Holder is going, there's a cell waiting at Club Fed with his name on it.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 28, 2009 01:46 AM (r+Gdz)
4
Shouldn't Holder, and his heads of deoartments, have recused themselves?
Posted by: davod at November 28, 2009 09:48 AM (GUZAT)
5
Can't wait for the next administration to investigate both of these frauds; considering they are setting the precedent for this to happen!
Posted by: what makes us right at November 28, 2009 10:05 AM (aE4VA)
6
Now we will see if the Republicans in congress have the stones to aggressively engage the AG, the big O, and the rest of the corrupt democraps in congress. Don't hold your breath - but atleast I can "hope & dream."
By the way, it is my opinion that we are in such dire straights in the USA and the real threat of socialism BECAUSE for the past 8+ years we didn't aggressively engage the democraps as THE ENEMY - and in essence let them frame us as Those Evil Conservatives.
Posted by: slimedog at November 28, 2009 06:08 PM (APuCV)
7
muslims look out for one another. YOU ALL PUT THEM IN THE OFFICE WHAT A SHAME
Posted by: billy at November 29, 2009 05:42 PM (sVPEm)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
And the Walls Kept Tumbling Down
First, the fabled "hockey stick" warming trend was shown to have been doctored. Then there was "Climategate," where a hacker's raid on Britain's bastion of climate research uncovered manipulated data, a conspiracy to silence critics and control the flow of information, and programmer's notes in the computer code used to generate climate model's that shown them to be arbitrarily manipulated to generate a desired result. Now, global warming research from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NiWA) in New Zealand indicates that alarmists there are also guilty of fraud.
I'm not scientist, but had a smattering of geology and oceanography courses as an undergraduate while thinking about pursuing a coastal and marine studies minor. As a result of that admittedly brief scientific education I understand that the Earth has been warmer than it is now, and that it has been cooler than it is now, and that the idea of a "right" temperature, sea level, or climate is entirely a man-made idea.
The biggest scam being perpetrated right now is that climate is stable, or can be stabilized. It will always change, and there is nothing
significant we can do about that.
I believe in conservation, habitat preservation, minimizing pollution, and being energy efficient. That is entirely compatible with a lifestyle and a message we should pass along to future generations.
But we shouldn't have to lie to people and play on their fears to do what is in their best interests. By doing so, the global warming cult that is unraveling before us has severely damaged the credibility of a conservative, conservation mindset that far predated the current "green" trendiness.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:44 AM
| Comments (26)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
By doing so, the global warming cult that is unraveling before us has severely damaged the credibility of a conservative, conservation mindset that far predated the current "green" trendiness.
I couldn't agree more. I'm also a lifelong conservationist, birder, park-goer and park-supporter, energy-efficiency nut. Drive a fuel-efficient car. Use gas-saving tips. Minimize use of heat in winter, A/C in summer.
This fraud in the AGW issue makes my blood boil.
Posted by: wolfwalker at November 27, 2009 08:56 AM (br8fl)
2
"The biggest scam being perpetrated right now is that climate is stable, or can be stabilized. It will always change, and there is nothing significant we can do about that."
The first 60 years of my life were spent in New England, where we absolutely KNOW the weather and conditions are always changing. We pay close - but not scientifically close - attention. Personally, I have never, ever put a dime's worth of stock in the AGW junk science - the evidence simply was NOT there.
I'm a lot like wolfwalker; conserve to a fare-thee-well, but I've never been guilty of buying snake-oil.
Posted by: Dell at November 27, 2009 09:38 AM (lDRZT)
3
Amen. NOW can we storm the castle?
Posted by: Bill at November 27, 2009 09:40 AM (V/aq3)
4
Conservation for the most part makes sense financially. Going easy on the heat/AC makes for lower energy costs to the consumer.
However you notice that "green" technologies and "organic" food are often much more expensive than their traditional counterparts. They are the domain of the upper middle classes who can afford it, people who can shop at Whole Foods rather than Walmart. The truly rich don't bother with it for the most part as they probably don't go shopping for their own food.
To steal from Bill Clinton, "Its the economics stupid!" Make environmentally friendly technologies market competitive and you'll see wider adoption.
Posted by: Scott at November 27, 2009 10:37 AM (EBCRo)
5
You don’t have to go far to find out exactly how the NZ AGW brigade cooked the books. They explain exactly how, and they’re proud of their work!
Check out “NZ sceptics lie about temp records, try to smear top scientist”,
Hot Topic, Nov. 26, 2009,
http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie-about-temp-records-try-to-smear-top-scientist/
For instance, they absolutely had to make the old records colder to make the lines fit together!
And the newer records had to be adjusted upward, to make the lines fit together!
Apparently it never occurred to them to just calculate the averages. Maybe the problem is that calculating the average temperatures just makes everything look so... boring!
Posted by: Schiller Thurkettle at November 27, 2009 11:40 AM (6JlRh)
6
First and foremost I AM A CLIMATE SKEPTIC. Second I am knowledgeable, I look at what is printed daily.
So let me list the things that I think the vast majority of us can agree.
1. Yes, the planet is warming. But, that is/was to be expected after recovering from both a "Little" and "full blown" ice age.
2. Yes, there is a Green House effect caused by trace gases. The most prevalent and frankly most powerful of them is water vapor. This Green house effect does cause some warming. No, we do not know how much of that warming can be attributed to these trace gases.
3. Yes we do see some marginal rise in Sea level. As well as some subsidence of land masses. No, we do not know what is the overall effect of these two changes.
4. Yes, we have geological indications of climate variations. But, many of the peaks and valleys of those variations exceed what we are seeing today.
5. Finally, with all those caveats no one can say with any finality that the current climate is outside normal variability.
Unless you believe item 5 to be false, then you can be considered to be a climate ignorant. Yes, that even applies to scientists, especially those who have been predicting catastrophic results.
Posted by: CoRev at November 27, 2009 11:47 AM (0U8Ob)
7
I once asked a AGW True Believer, "What IS the Ideal temp of the planet and when has it ever been at that point?"
They ignored the second portion of the query and replied by quoting "'What is the ideal temp' How about the one that prevents the coastal cities from being flooded"
Pointing out the coast has been flooded before, and well before humans btw, and likely after as well, and also that the reason the Great Lakes are not rising in level is because the Ice shelf receded from the last Ice Age, the area had risen in Altitude due to the rebound of the crust after all that weight was removed (The CN Tower is many Feet above sea level higher than it was when built, and well the sea level hasn't dropped that many feet) so some of the ocean floor may likely be doing said same, and well New Orleans is below Sea Level not because the level is rising, but because the City is sinking into the mud. They built the levees and the river no longer floods, so the area is settling, and taking the city with it. All that was ignored, and I was called a fool for not worshiping at the Church Of Gorebull Worming.
They also refused to admit that Water Vapor is the single largest Greenhouse agent and in total we contribute 0.28% to all greenhouse agents, 0.117% of the amount is man made carbon.
Yes folks, That is the reason were gonna die, 0.117% of a total is gonna kill the planet.
They refused to believe my numbers, even though they came from such rightwing nutters orgs as the EPA, NOAA, UN, and NASA.
If Algore practiced what he preaches , I'd still not believe him, but he'd be wrong instead of lying. He is like a Pope, always in a brothel having an orgy, preaching abstinence.
Posted by: JP at November 27, 2009 12:11 PM (VxiFL)
8
CoRev:
It is not that far out if you realize A: the readings now are the more accurate (the exact temp today is easy to get, what is was many years back is a wider window) and B: many of today's numbers are "false" in that they are intentionally read at the high end.
Taken together, we are at the high end of the variance, not likely outside it, but if we are, it is more likely due to natural causes than anything we are doing.
What is really killing the AGW folks is the temp has dropped since 1998. We be Coolin' when they claim we are doing nothing to stop the Warmening!
They have been claiming we were going to all be miserable from the heat if we did not do what they wanted, yet we have not, and the temps are dropping.
We have had warming spikes in the past much like this, but how accurate the temps are for them is a wider range, so a real scientist cant say for sure and certain that it is exactly like this one.
Posted by: JP at November 27, 2009 12:25 PM (VxiFL)
9
I believed, even in the 60s-70s "cooling" scare, that the US warmed since the late Eighteenth century. I was less certain of the climate of the entire Earth. Now, it looks like world-wide average has been rising. A bit. Greenland isn't yet back to exporting grain...
But...
The IPCC was formed to investigate possible human influence on Global climate. Fair enough: but said organisation almost immediately started to state (at least in climate-for-dummies, er, politicians, summaries) that only humans influence climate. Since IPCC was constrained to human influence, there could be no other [admitted] influences. That is like someone who investigates the amount of dead skin cells in navel lint saying there is no other possible source of lint in any context, even textile manufacture, because all he sees is dead skin cells...
Posted by: John A at November 27, 2009 12:57 PM (LEb+F)
10
"'What is the ideal temp' How about the one that prevents the coastal cities from being flooded"
In order to do that we will need to lower the sea level by increasing the size of the glaciers (or forcing another ice age). One may think an ice age means a colder world...
To increase sea water locked up in the glaciers we need to get more snow pack, which means we need to increase precipitation, which means we need more humidity, which means we need warmer oceans, which means... we need global warming to save the coastal cities.
Posted by: Druid at November 27, 2009 01:02 PM (Gct7d)
11
We were discussing this issue last night and came up with some thoughts to run by others.
First, as to seas rising. Only the south pole has a land mass beneth it. Therefore, if the north pole melted, there would be little difference in sea level as the volume of water is note increased as the ice is only water in solid form and thus accounted for in present levels. It seems from some reports that the south pole may be increasing in size. But even if it melted, would that account for a significant increase in water volume?
Second, much has been made of CO2 in the upper atmosphere and its influence as a green house gas. But how does it get there? CO2 is heavier than air. It seeks the lowest level. Now thermodynamics could pull it up but that would mean an increase in CO2 at our level and I have not seen that reported. Other than being a toxic gas at high level, is there really a disadvantage to an increase in CO2 production? Plants use the substance, carbon particles are certainly of benefit. So were is the problem with CO2?
The whole thought process on this problem is flawed. No one has really demonstrated what is wrong with a warmer earth. On the other hand, if the earth cooled, that is a problem.
Posted by: David at November 27, 2009 01:26 PM (PpoBw)
12
Here is the latest wonder of "peer review" .. the latest Mann paper has some of the data inverted. Seems they used the X-ray density data instead of temperature. The proxy relation is that it should have been inverted, but Mann and his co-authors and the "peer review"-ers let it go by without inverting the data before using it as a temperature proxy.
The entire "peer review" process in climate science is corrupt, lazy or stupid.
Posted by: Neo at November 27, 2009 04:50 PM (tE8FB)
13
David,
I wish I could come up with the link right now (I will look), but I once read that the atmospheric greenhouse theory itself was at odds with those pesky LAWS of thermodynamics, perhaps along the lines you mention.
Further, regarding the atmospheric greenhouse theory, it seems that while a greenhouse might be useful for a layman's analogy, that the greenhouse concept is far too grossly oversimplified to be a useful model from a technical perspective.
A real greenhouse is a controlled, closed system, reacting to just a few inputs. Our atmosphere/climate is not a closed system, and it reacts to an exponentially larger set of inputs.
Sea level is a similarly complex issue. The claims of sea level rise assume a closed system only involving ice and the oceans. Again, it's not a closed simple two-mode system.
Let's say it's hot enough that the Greenland ice sheet melts and all of the water goes into the ocean at first. The higher temperatures then cause evaporation, which subsequently leads to rain over land masses. Some of that rain is then impounded in geological aquifers, some in man-made reservoirs, some in plant/animal life, and some in bottles on the store shelf. While the bottled water may make it back to the ocean fairly quick, the water trapped in the aquifer may take thousands of years before it returns to the ocean.
The alarmists' either/or ideology displays a lack of intellectual maturity. When we were all in pre-school, things were simple, and object was round or square, black or white. But for most of us, about the time we reached middle-school and algebra class, we learned that multiple variables could independently and/or collectively affect a result. In spite of their apparently worthless degrees, it seems that the alarmists never quite grasped the concept.
Posted by: Junk Science Skeptic at November 27, 2009 05:07 PM (Fnr44)
14
CY,
Without commenting on U East Anglia (which is at best a godawful mess and at worst outright fraud), as I understand it the Kiwi's corrected (at least in part) to account for the VERTICAL movement of a met station.
Disclaimer: I don't buy AGW, and I am an engineer, not a "climate scientist."
In any event, the EnZees assert that the station was relocated to a higher altitude, and they further assert that a standardized correction for temperature at altitude was applied to every datum recorded after the move, in a flat manner.
IF that is true, we skeptics need to be very cautious not to overgeneralize. Just because UEA hacked their data does not invalidate every data correction applied by everyone. Some are not unreasonable.
Note that I am not saying the New Zealand correction was accurate, merely that it appears to have been objectively and reasonably applied.
Food for thought. If anyone can demonstrate the correction was unreasonable, I'd love to hear it. The more genuine inaccuracies we skeptics can pile up, the better.
Posted by: outnow at November 28, 2009 08:39 AM (ZZy/3)
15
There is no need to engage in any real examination of any natural phenomenom to know with perfect certainty that, from a scientific standpoint, AGW has always been a fraud. Quite simply, the secreting of the data on which the "theory" was based takes AGW definitionally out of the realm of science.
Posted by: megapotamus at November 28, 2009 10:40 AM (/sfK8)
16
"Quite simply, the secreting of the data on which the "theory" was based takes AGW definitionally out of the realm of science. "
Thanks you Megapotamus.
The world need to know this.
Science is about theory and finding the truth. Once you've lied on a scientific study you have lost all credibility. Forever.
Posted by: tibby at November 29, 2009 02:47 PM (v/QW/)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 25, 2009
No Matter Where You Are, Student Drivers Are Dangerous
At least the folks gunning for learner's permits in your town aren't driving tanks.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:47 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Did you notice that the author of the article does not know the difference between a tank and an armored troop carrier? Heh.
Posted by: pst314 at November 25, 2009 08:12 PM (XP0Bd)
2
Mountain's out of molehills. From what I heard, that fence was totally asking for it.
Posted by: Kevin at November 26, 2009 02:31 AM (b2KB4)
3
Poor lad, he's going to have to spend extra hours at the controls before he can earn his green L plate.
Posted by: MikeM at November 26, 2009 10:46 AM (30CMs)
4
CF should have known the difference between the two.
Posted by: Federale at November 30, 2009 01:36 PM (UQeEa)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
"I Cannot in Good Conscience, Encourage My Nephew to Reenlist"
I've tried to keep an open mind about Glenn Beck. I don't care for theatrics of his delivery or the melodrama so common on his show, and wonder if his on-air persona is really sincere. I try to keep in mind that just because I'm not a huge fan of the guy, that others certainly enjoy him and that's just fine. We are, after all, still free to disagree.
But like
Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air, I think Beck went to far in the clip below. Beck lets his disgust with the military-hating liberals in our national government boil over, and suggests that our servicemen should not reenlist.
Frankly, I'm torn about his message.
I can understand that—as an uncle—he has a hard time advising his nephew to stay with the military when he feels that the present Commander in Chief won't support the troops. Some might compare it to advising a loved one to leave a business plagued with a corrupt board of directors and incompetent CEO.
But the simple fact of the matter is that while our soldiers are stuck with Obama as our President, they didn't sign on to serve and protect a President, they signed on to defend the United States. It shouldn't matter who is President.
And yet, I know from servicemen that were in the military under Carter and Clinton that to be a servicemen under a cowering Democratic President is demoralizing. I'm just as disgusted as the rest of you that three Navy SEALs are
facing a military court for allegedly punching the terrorist responsible for killing burning, mutilating,and hanging the bodies of four contract security personal from a bridge in Fallujah, while our President and Attorney General provide the spectacle of public trial for terrorists that were part of a plot that killed thousands of innocent civilians.
But I hope our servicemen rise to the call, even under bad Presidents.
Especially under bad Presidents, because when we look weak to allies and enemies alike with a "leader" on a Permanent Apology World Tour, we need their strength the most.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:59 AM
| Comments (42)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I've been saying that anyone in the armed forces should leave since Obama was elected. Obama and the democrats are happier sending our forces to be killed, but failing that, they nearly as happy charging them with a crime when they come back.
Posted by: Jack at November 25, 2009 12:12 PM (bvDV5)
2
Yes, he went too far unless...unless he is trying to get Obama to come clean. I guess we won;t know until later but, if not, he has gone too far here.
Posted by: Mark L Harvey (aka Snooper) at November 25, 2009 12:35 PM (cOB/N)
3
Beck went too far this time. When our warriors raise their right hand, they are swearing an oath to protect the nation, not a President. Yes it can be demoralizing to be led by a commander in chief who is a simpering dolt, to have rules of engagement that hamstring our efforts in the War on Terror (oopps, I mean Overseas Contingecy Operations),and to know that you are just a ball in a giant game of political ping-pong between two parties that really just pay lip service to their support for you.
But our warriors believe in something far greater than that. They believe in the fundamental truths upon which this nation was founded. I for one don't see them leaving in droves just because we have an asshat for a President. He'll be gone in three years anyway.
So Beck can continue to do what he does best, and our amazing men and women in the military will continue to do what they do best; fight for Beck's right to say stupid things.
Tarheel Repub Out!
Posted by: Tarheel Repub at November 25, 2009 12:37 PM (+LRPE)
4
It's not about WHO the president is, it's about WHAT the president is DOING. Or rather, isn't doing. It seems like he doesn't want to fight this war to accomplish any goal. I for one do not want my friends and family members who are in the military to be sent overseas to fight and possibly die for no damn good reason. Win, or leave. No more Vietnams.
Posted by: Tristan at November 25, 2009 12:37 PM (eCGqE)
5
Mark L Harvey (aka Snooper) wrote:
Yes, he went too far unless...unless he is trying to get Obama to come clean. I guess we won;t know until later but, if not, he has gone too far here.
Mark (and Confederate Yankee), I watched that segment earlier, and that was my exact impression: Beck is trying to get Obama to come clean. In fact, he brought himself to the edge of telling his nephew to not re-enlist, but couldn't actually do it. What i heard was a man who loves America and freedom too much to give up on it, in spite of his disgust with the PC sensibilities in this administration and top brass.
I was moved by a passionate and sincere man struggling to keep hope in a rapidly degrading situation. I read it differently than CY does, I don't think Beck actually said to not re-enlist. Watch it yourself, see what you hear.
Best regards, Peter Warner.
Posted by: Peter Warner at November 25, 2009 01:19 PM (JRnGT)
6
I left because I knew that a good swath of Americans rejoiced when we were killed.
I'm not going to lift a finger anymore, and I'm not the only one.
At FOB St. Mike we had access to the internet. After we got back from missions, I'd sometimes log on, and go straight to the NYT or DU.
They laid it out pretty clearly what they thought of us.
Posted by: brando at November 25, 2009 01:29 PM (IPGju)
7
The fact that our soldiers raised their right hands and swore to protect and defend (somewhat the same as congress) has nothing to do with their re-enlistment. When their current enlistment is up, they can in good conscience either re-enlist or exit the military. When Bush was Pres. I often wished I were young enough to enlist, but with The One, not so much.
Posted by: TimothyJ at November 25, 2009 01:30 PM (IKKIf)
8
It is not that the CINC won't support the troops (a slippery evaluation between use and waste), but rather will he keep the oath he swore. If that is not a certainty, not reenlisting is the more honorable response. Do you really want to be going door to door disarming private citizens after a "National Emergency" has been declared? After serving since 1969, I chose not to reenlist in 1978.
I think the current dustup about the SEALS is probably a good example of politics trickling down from career chairwarmers into operations and will affect reenlistment rates.
Posted by: Richard Roark at November 25, 2009 02:17 PM (Y/4ua)
9
Once they have served, their duty fulfilled there is no reason for them to stay and they can leave with a clear conscience. I heartily recommend NOT re-enlisting. I also recommend no enlisting in the first place. Why risk your life to protect and defend ass-hats that don't appreciate it?
Posted by: Tim in Philly at November 25, 2009 02:36 PM (PnG/3)
10
Bob, you have an error in the title of your post. Beck said "in good conscience", not "in good conscious".
Posted by: Pat at November 25, 2009 03:08 PM (GhD9A)
11
"I cannot in Good Conscious, Encourage My Nephew to Reenlist"
I agree with Beck
Posted by: Rick at November 25, 2009 03:22 PM (FWmwx)
12
I agree with Beck! I served in Korea when Carter was in and it verged on a nightmare. When out politicians show so little respect for our armed services that they are expendable for politics or are only good for a photo op. Then it is time to bring them home where they may be needed shortly to help rebuild this country...
Posted by: s4r at November 25, 2009 03:57 PM (u0FmQ)
13
That is a good line:
Obama: "Our troops are good for a photo op, and good for political expense."
"If I need a show trial, all I need to do is court marshal the average grunt."
Posted by: Jack at November 25, 2009 04:48 PM (bvDV5)
14
I'm kinda tossed up about this and have been for a while now. On one hand I believe in enlisting to defend, protect and preserve my country and its constitution and the American way of life for my family,freinds,neighbors and all those who would come after me,against any and ALL enemies who would try to destroy them. It certainly is not about serving a man or president,that is true. But, it does make it much harder to volunteer and put my life on the line when the CIC is as anti-military as this schmuck. I'm thankful to God that my forever CIC was such a great man of principle,moral character and patriotism. I have great concern for our military right now because of this buffoon. I'd think its safe to say that our current men and women in uniform are doing it for a higher cause than our current thug-in-chief;they'll be the first to tell you its about more than him. I would tell Glenn Beck that too but I don't totally fault him for his position either. He's still okay in my book.
Posted by: reaganmarine84 at November 25, 2009 09:10 PM (yU3vc)
15
Having served both Carter and Clinton, having a wishy-washy, indecisive man at the top of the Chain of Command does have its effect. With Carter it was the Iranians and the hostages from the US Embassy. I did a lot of time at sea with that one. And the result is now evident in the current Iranian government. Clinton, I am thankful to say, I only served under for 8 months and 10 days. I then retired. But my communications with my friends still on active service at that time was enlightening to say the least.
And when that CinC is very visible in his disgust with the Armed Forces of The United States, it hits inside one hard. And jimmy carter was a graduate of the Naval Academy! Figure that one out! He was even one of Admiral Rickover's handpicked nuclear power guys.
Having been retired for sixteen plus years now, I look back and without reservation can say the best CinC I had was Ronald Reagan. Period, not open for discussion.
Posted by: Glenn Cassel AMH1(AW) USN Retired at November 25, 2009 09:14 PM (Tprch)
16
Ties in to some thoughts I had about McChrystal being told "No, you can't have the troops you say are needed. I will give you this many, now go take the heat off me."
Part of his has to think "Goddammit, these are my troops! And if I don't believe I can do the job with these numbers, that they'll get killed and crippled for nothing, I should resign.
But if I do, my troops will be handed over to someone else, and what happens then?"
Hard decision. Of course, he's also the one who came up with the idiot ROE that's getting troops killed, so I don't know if he'll see it that way.
Posted by: Firehand at November 25, 2009 10:07 PM (14f1e)
17
"...they didn't sign on to serve and protect a President, they signed on to defend the United States. It shouldn't matter who is President."
You're reacting as if Beck is encouraging soldiers to desert. Beck's talking about reenlisting -- that implies that the soldier in question has _already_ enlisted, and has served the term he signed up for. He's already done his duty. He's not obligated to re-up.
Posted by: Lee Willis at November 26, 2009 02:11 AM (EL2EP)
18
When commanded by a feckless socialist who not only has no idea how to properly employ the military, and may very well deny it the means it needs, not only to protect life and limb, but to properly defend the nation, it is rational to seriously contemplate not only not serving, but not re-enlisting. It is also rational to believe that at times like these, service in the military by patriots is even more important in that inept or malicious leadership might well make a determined defense of America even more vital, but not until such destructive "leadership" is removed.
Our military knows the difference between a CIC who actually cares for them, and one who calls the photo ops. They know the difference between a CIC who comes to their hospital beds and gravesides without the media to record crocodile tears and feigned concerned looks, and one who brings along the media, at night, to be photographed saluting coffins. They know that when their own country denies that a muslim murderer of soldiers is a muslim murderer, when the AG wants to prosecute muslim mass murderers in civilian court, and when Navy SEALS are prosecuted for possibly giving a terrorist murderer a bloody lip (a bloody lip?!), that they have no protection from those who would kill us all.
Beck makes a reasoned, worthy argument here. Obama is seemingly bent on America's diminishment, perhaps even its destruction. How can individual soldiers fight that, no matter how determined and patriotic?
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at November 26, 2009 02:13 AM (JyD4t)
19
I'm retired with 22 years of service. I would definitely not go back should they decide to reactive us ready retired reserve. If my son or a nephew or niece was serving, I'd recommend they not reenlist.
Since I had some broken service, I served during Carter's administration which was a horrible time to be in the military. Likewise, I served during Clinton's time. That wasn't as bad as the Carter years, but I found it hard to actually respect my CinC. If I was in today, I'd be filing for separation.
Posted by: 209 at November 26, 2009 06:26 AM (XTnWx)
20
But the simple fact of the matter is that while our soldiers are stuck with Obama as our President, they didn't sign on to serve and protect a President, they signed on to defend the United States. It shouldn't matter who is President.
How can it not matter if the CinC isn't interested in defending the United States? I've been thinking since Pelosi called them out that one would have to be a damned fool to remain a CIA agent.
I would run, not walk for the exit. And when America came to its senses and returned to an interest in self-preservation, I'd be more than happy to jump right back in. But I would not put my butt on the line for this crew, knowing full well that they may hold intentions just as dangerous to my well being as any of our adversaries.
America needs some tough love.
Posted by: Pablo at November 26, 2009 10:55 AM (yTndK)
21
Glenn Beck never served himself and knows nothing about why soldiers enlist
Posted by: John Ryan at November 26, 2009 01:21 PM (Q4VgZ)
22
As a Vet, I have to agree with Beck. It is apparent that Obama does not care for or support the military and they DEPEND on him for his support.
I love my country and would lay down my life to protect the USA, but I would also require the government to have a little respect for me and my sacrafice BEFORE I did go into combat.
Posted by: Big John at November 26, 2009 02:45 PM (IfNmD)
23
I agree completely with Glenn Beck. Obama is not acting as a true CIC who cares about the young men and women in uniform. They are props, "photo-ops" and pawns. He does not treat them as the patriotic, precious jewels they are.
I have three children all enlistment age. I told all them NOT to enlist until a true patriot is in office.
It shouldn't be about "who" is President, but it is, when that individual is enacting policies to place our youngster in harm's way for nothing more than political expediency.
Posted by: Laurel at November 26, 2009 06:44 PM (Fm/4+)
24
Asked privately I might counsel a family member similarly. If for no other reason than to help that person determine their own commitment to service. Because people who do not have a clear sense of purpose and a strong desire to be in the military really should re-consider continuing in the service.
Beyond that what GB said is not something I would have said on national TV.
Posted by: ThomasD at November 26, 2009 09:16 PM (21H5U)
25
A couple of things I would like to say. First, I like Beck and do find his style a little offputing but he is sincere about his love for the country. Second, I served in VN under Johnson and I can vouch for what its like to serve under a cowardly loser. We lost many good pilots because of the worm and his advisors. Any man serving in the middle East will never get the support or backing he deserves or needs. Just like the three SEALs who should be doing there jobs instead of defending themselves against rediculous charges.
Posted by: inspectorudy at November 27, 2009 12:39 AM (Vo1wX)
26
Beck is right to question re-enlisting. The American people made this man CINC, the voters are putting the crappiest people in office - let them/us reap the consequences. You can't expect honorable men and women join up to defend a corrupt culture.
Posted by: Jayne at November 28, 2009 12:00 AM (dwIL0)
27
As I see it, it's not just the CinC - it's the whole politically-corrected military establishment as well that is a problem.
It's not just the ROE, it's the whole "di-VER-sity is a major goal" mindset.
I do not fault Beck for saying, on national TV or otherwise, what many military members are thinking to themselves or discussing with each other.
Posted by: Pandora at November 28, 2009 08:57 AM (/8Bs3)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Obama's Cracker Support Crumbles
But at least he's still popular among those who still think O.J. was innocent.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:07 AM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
This is a funny headline and post. Brevity is the soul of wit as someone else said.
Posted by: Jayne at November 27, 2009 11:48 PM (dwIL0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Opportunism of Ghouls
That was my preferred headline for this article at Pajamas Media, but hey, somebody else gets paid to write the heads and subheads. I just provide the content.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that liberal anti-gun groups are hoping to use the bodies of our soldiers killed in a terrorist attack as a weapon against our Constitutional rights.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:37 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
November 24, 2009
So Much for Brotherly Love
A second set of potential terrorists was charged with attempting to buy arms in Philadelphia in as many days.
Three Lebanese nationals and one American resident were charged today with attempting to obtain 1,200 M-4 military assault weapons for Hezbollah, the second set of such charges in as many days generated in Philadelphia.
U.S. Attorney Michael L. Levy declined to say if the government informer who penetrated the alleged smuggling ring was the same person cited in yesterday's allegations that a man connected to Hezbollah tried to obtain Stinger anti-aircraft missiles for Hezbollah, as well as M4s.
But the individuals charged are not the same.
"We are dealing with two different groups trying to buy M4s," he said.
Idiots. They should have simply asked for a stimulus grant.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:45 PM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
So they caught two, but I am sure nobody knows how many more are out there. I'm with Bolton--I think I will pass on NYC for the next year or so, or as long as the trials go on.
Posted by: TimothyJ at November 24, 2009 08:04 PM (IKKIf)
2
That's good stuff that they we're caught. Terrorists are bad. One of 'em tried to get stingers.
Of course the article said "M-4 military assault weapons". Thanks to you, CY, I can no longer read that without cringing.
And a commenter revealed: "Frankly, I am more scared of the gun nuts down south in Dixie."
He admitted it.
Liberals are actually more scared of someone south of the Mason Dixon line owning a pistol, then they are of a terrorist having a Stinger missile.
Posted by: brando at November 25, 2009 09:22 AM (IPGju)
3
i'm wondering why they are trying to buy M-4's..... you'd think AK's of some ilk would be more to their taste, and have more commonality with their existing logistics, unless someone is planning on using them to fake Israeli "atrocities"
not that i'm cynical, or anything.
Posted by: redc1c4 at November 25, 2009 10:29 AM (d1FhN)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Authorities to Release Findings in Census Worker's Death
UPDATE: Confirmed Suicide
Answers coming this afternoon at 2:00 PM:
Kentucky State Police Lt. David Jude says a news conference is set for 2 p.m. EST at the agency's crime lab.
Federal and state investigators who have been working the case since September haven't yet announced whether Bill Sparkman's death was a homicide, suicide or accident.
Sparkman's naked body was found Sept. 12 near a cemetery in a heavily wooded area of southeastern Kentucky. One of the witnesses who found the body said the 51-year-old was bound with duct tape, gagged and had an identification badge taped to his neck.
Earlier this month, law enforcement officials were investigating whether Sparkman may have staged an elaborate suicide to appear like murder so his son could make a life insurance claim.
Shortly after news of Sparkman's death was reported
left wing propagandists in the
blogosphere and
news media were quick to try to capitalize on his death, implying that it was the fault of
conservative politicians, or anti-government paranoia from backwoods rubes.
Even early on most credible sources found it more likely that Sparkman might have stumbled across a
drug operation or moonshiners than any anti-government group.
Unsupported lies, however, are for more useful for the left's agenda.
Update: Sparkman's death was confirmed to a be a suicide
staged to look like murder. May God have mercy on his family and his troubled soul.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:46 PM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Hmm. If you believe the opposite of whatever the left-wing blogs tell you, you'd be right far more often than not. But they need to try to make political hay out of everything.
My condolences to his family.
Posted by: Steve at November 24, 2009 03:37 PM (yl5MA)
2
The liberals who read this site seem to have lost the ability to type. It's a miracle!
Posted by: Steve at November 24, 2009 07:28 PM (TH4rr)
3
If this is suicide - what a waste.. that was a wrong decision.. If this is homicide - oh please, can we not settle dispute amicably? Condolence to his loved ones.
Posted by: Translator Chicago at November 24, 2009 07:30 PM (cGfIr)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Shut Down Copenhagen
For more than a decade, we've been told that there is a scientific "consensus" that humans are causing global warming, that "the debate is over" and all "legitimate" scientists acknowledge the truth of global warming. Now we know what this "consensus" really means. What it means is: the fix is in.
This is an enormous case of organized scientific fraud, but it is not just scientific fraud. It is also a criminal act. Suborned by billions of taxpayer dollars devoted to climate research, dozens of prominent scientists have established a criminal racket in which they seek government money-Phil Jones has raked in a total of £13.7 million in grants from the British government-which they then use to falsify data and defraud the taxpayers. It's the most insidious kind of fraud: a fraud in which the culprits are lauded as public heroes. Judging from this cache of e-mails, they even manage to tell themselves that their manipulation of the data is intended to protect a bigger truth and prevent it from being "confused" by inconvenient facts and uncontrolled criticism.
The damage here goes far beyond the loss of a few billions of taxpayer dollars on bogus scientific research. The real cost of this fraud is the trillions of dollars of wealth that will be destroyed if a fraudulent theory is used to justify legislation that starves the global economy of its cheapest and most abundant sources of energy.
Climate change "science"
has been confirmed as a massive fraud by the scientific community. For a decade, leading climate change scientists apparently manipulated data to get pre-determined results, subverted the peer review process, and then conspired to deny access to their falsified research by subverting the British Freedom of Information Act.
Iain Murray describes "Climategate" as the climate change cabal's Vietnam. He's selling it short. "Only" millions died in Vietnam. More than 6.7 billion lives would be impacted by the catastrophic measures climate change cultists intend to force upon the world, and the downplayed possibility—perhaps probability—exists that the dramatic changes favored by the climate change cultists would have unforeseen adverse economic and political effects that would ripple across the globe killing millions.
The dozens, if not hundreds of scientists and activists that colluded to perpetrate this fraud should be investigated and sentenced to lengthy prison terms if found guilty. Among those put under the spotlight is former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, who has been found guilty of gross exaggerations and misinformation in the past. Other world leaders, including heads of state, should also be deposed to determine if they knew of the crimes committed by their scientists... and if not, why not.
Above all, the
Copenhagen Climate Change Conference must now be postponed indefinitely if not outright canceled since the science it was predicated upon has now been exposed as a massive fraud. The political machinations must also be stopped.
If they do not, there is every chance that once again December 7 will have another reason be remembered as "a day of infamy."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:26 AM
| Comments (28)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
An explanation (regrettably not mine) of the impacts of Climatgate:
After years of following the climate debate it all boils down to one simple test. And this is well reflected in the CRU Climategate emails.
If the medieval warming period (MWP) was warmer than today even though CO2 level were much, much lower than today, then the AGW hypothesis explains nothing.
Turns out that Vikings had dairy farms and were exporting cheese to Europe along well-documented trade routes FROM GREENLAND. Get it, Greenland? Today the very valleys where the Vikings raised DAIRY CATTLE are solid permafrost backed by glaciers. Greenland has no export dairy industry and hasn’t since the Earth’s climate began to cool about 900 years ago and forced the Vikings to abandon their farm settlements.
At the same time elephants seal were forced to abandon their southern breeding sites on the main body of Antarctica as the fossil record shows. So the MWP and subsequent cooling was global. Most importantly, the MWP was warmer than today with our much higher level of atmospheric CO2 concentration.
According to standard scientific method, a hypothesis is only as good as its implications and predictions. The AGW hypothesis states that CO2 is the dominant forcing factor in climate evolution. The more CO2, the warmer the climate regime. Therefore, the climate 1,000 years ago before high modern levels of atmospheric CO2 must be cooler than today for the AGW hypothesis to usefully predict observed data. Yet it was demonstrably warmer in the past.
Logically the AGW hypothesis has been slamdunk falsified, because it can be shown that the past 2,000 years of the Earth’s temperature record in no way correlates to the rise (or fall) in CO2 concentration. Note that this is not to say that a “greenhouse gas effect” doesn’t exist, it obviously does, just that it is in no way among the dominant phenomena forcing climate evolution.
An objective searcher for an empirically-based hypothesis of what really drives climate must now return to direct observation to construct a new hypothesis which makes predictions that anticipate known observations, such as features like the MWP, the LIA and why modern warming stalled mid-20th century and early 21 st century. (In retrospect, it now seems obvious that this task is probably far too great for any one “just-so” hypothesis and will require a syncretic, holistically unified theory that is probably well beyond both the state of our info and observational technologies and our grasp of complex system analysis.)
What is so damning about Climategate is that it shows Mann, Jones, Briffa, et al deeply understood the MWP was utterly devastating to the credibility of the AGW hypothesis and so conspired to create and cherry pick a data/code based “narrative” where the MWP was nothing more than a “minor blip” as Al Gore called it. They also attempted to smooth the latter Little Ice Age, so that modern warming would appear to be coming off a thousand plus years of climate stasis. Once placed in that fantasy context the AGW hypothesis appeared to function as a useful explanation.
One can well be forgiven for being fooled by the CRU conspiracy and the media’s one-sided reporting. I certain was. Yet now that the facts are exposed, to continue to believe the Earth is going to suffer an apocalypse due to carbon induced warming is more than just irrational, it’s the denialism of our post-AGW world.
Form commenter Wes George at Jennifer Marohasy's blog.
Posted by: CoRev at November 24, 2009 12:22 PM (0U8Ob)
2
Call me a pessimist. I don't think anything will change, anyone who tries to actually do something with the information about this fraud will be attacked mercilessly. It is not now, nor has it ever been, about scientific truth, it is an issue of control. And those who seek to control others will not go quiet into that good night, they will rage against the dying of their might.
Too often when the truth leaks out about some leftist propaganda or other it is the truth tellers who are put on trial. When some eco fallacy is debunked you hear "It's for the good of the planet" or "It's for the children." Anyone who dares to stand by the truth is attacked as uncaring and evil.
Postponing Copenhagen would be the right thing to do. Any bets on if it will happen?
Posted by: NevadaDailySteve at November 24, 2009 12:23 PM (+xi30)
3
The climate fraud thieves are expposed for liars, cheats and frauds. I am shocked, shocked I tell you. It's over, there will be no global climate bills and no national climate bills. The jig is up, the fraud is exposed. These so-called "climate scientist" are just liars and thieves with a political agenda that could not be supported by fact so they made up the data they wanted the rest of us to believe in. This is the largest case of fraud in my life time. How many BILLIONS or Trillions of dollars spent based on nothing but lies. How many law suits will now be filed based on the idea that the climate "scientist" were nothing but liars with a poltical agenda. Repayment of the trillions spent will be up the courts. The greatest con job the world has ever seen is exposed and somebody needs to go to jail. The hackers should be given all due respect for risking their careers to expose this, they are heroes.
Posted by: laura at November 24, 2009 12:42 PM (gOD06)
4
Nevada, what has happened is the pillars of sand have collapsed. More and more of the masses will ignore any alarmist predictions. The real scientists studying this issue how have high cover so that they can get printed in the journals, and even if not, the lower tiered journals have now moved up to be nearly equal.
Anyone seen to be ridiculing another's work will be ignored or seriously questioned.
More importantly, the CO2 theory has been falsified!!!!! Study of alternatives will be the primary mover in the next few years.
Regrettably, the death of the theory will be slow, unless the MSM actually turns against these scientists. If the MSM does not followup, then the MSM will lose even more readers and continue its own slow death.
A lot of unintended consequences, but the consequences train has left the station.
Posted by: CoRev at November 24, 2009 12:56 PM (0U8Ob)
5
I don't notice any of the left commenting. In an earlier blog I had indicated in the comments that NASA was liberal. A left troll slamed this with no backup. Now PJM is indicating a suit against NASA for Freedom data they requested 3 years ago and has not been delivered. My original comments had been a reflection of those people I know down here that work for NASA. They will lie like a dog and are liberals.
I might note that this is not the only area in which data is mined. I had to defend several doctors in Federal court on a malpractice claim. The claim was that they did not give cholesterol advice to a patient that subsequently had an MI. I did extensive research on the subject and was able to convience the judge that there was not a connect between cholesterol and coronary artery disease. Try getting that concept into a journal, they are all controled by docs hired by the sellers of statins.
Posted by: David at November 24, 2009 04:22 PM (ZgM5r)
6
I don't think this will blow over. Not only have some of the most prominent proponents of AGW been shown as prone to academic misconduct and outright intimidation, the data and code itself residing at CRU has been indicted.
I read through some of the code comments and, as a professional software engineer with 30 years experience developing software for aerospace, desktop, and internet application, found the comments and code within to be absolutely horrifying. CRU researchers don't know what is in the different sensor data sets they use for modeling. The modeling software is not documented, nor is it understood by anyone what algorithms have been used. In many places, it is clear that the data has been manipulated without clear documentation of how and why in order to get a desirable result.
At this point, every paper written based on this data--even indirectly--has to be viewed with suspicion. Certainly every paper from CRU should be pulled, but even papers that build upon CRU results can no longer be relied upon. Furthermore, the datasets and code must all be viewed as junk until they are reviewed, validated, annotated, and released for general review.
For something as important as the claim of global disaster insisting on at least an ISO IEC 9003 Software Standard combined with industry-reviewed acceptance tests against test-case data is a minimum.
I am sure Imhofe and others are receiving many emails along these lines (I sent one) and hope that a professional investigation is done. Until that investigation has been completed, any and all cap and trade/Kyoto discussion/Copenhagen discussion must be completely off the table.
Posted by: iconoclast at November 24, 2009 05:16 PM (FGCRY)
7
That didn't take long. I was watching Your World on Fox during a break from work. Ed Begley Jr. was on and when the host (the British guy substituting for Cavuto) asked a question Begley went berserk. You could actually see spittle flying out of his mouth. He accused the host of lying and was totally irrational. He said only peer-reviewed journals could be trusted. He must not have seen the evidence of tampering with those journals.
Posted by: NevadaDailySteve at November 24, 2009 05:44 PM (+xi30)
8
So... when can we expect an appology from Al Gore and a return of all the money he stole promoting this fraud?
Posted by: Murphy(AZ) at November 25, 2009 08:23 AM (UdLWB)
9
CoRev:
It is precisely b/c the masses are ignoring the self-evident dangers of global warming that the elected officials, informed by the RIGHT scientists, must be made to act.
Since the masses are too dumb to do what's obviously in their own interest (the same problem as voting Republican), therefore, they must be saved from themselves. Thus, ACORN does the service of not only registering but voting for the masses, and the enlightened elite will help manage the economy and energy sources.
Which means no nukes (b/c they're dangerous), in favor of wind, solar, tides, etc.
It will also mean getting people to live in cities, rather than suburbs. And giving up cars in favor of mass transit. (How else does one explain forcing car companies that are in hock to give up manufacturing SUVs, which make money and sell?)
Posted by: Lurking Observer at November 25, 2009 11:11 AM (lt/wV)
10
Lurking Observer, a better day is coming. Is it 2010, yet?
If you were not being sarcastic, let me add, is it 2012, yet?
Posted by: CoRev at November 25, 2009 12:37 PM (0U8Ob)
11
CoRev:
I was being sarcastic, at least when referring to the idea that the masses are "dumb."
I was being predictive in what they will say/do, i.e., opposing nuclear power, pushing wind/solar, etc.
Meanwhile, the One has now announced he is going to go to Copenhagen.
So, to clarify:
Celebrate end of Cold War? No time. (No opportunity to apologize, I guess.)
Push Chicago for Olympics? Plenty of time.
Push for global governance on the climate? Of course.
Make time to figure out what to do about Afghanistan (specifically, whether to give your generals what they say they need to do the job you said you're going to finish?)? Oh, hey, gotta go!
Posted by: Lurking Observer at November 25, 2009 12:55 PM (lt/wV)
12
My local paper (Seattle Times) still has yet to report on ClimateGate. They have seen fit to publish two AP pieces of propaganda on Global Warming and Copenhagen..but no Climategate.
However, the comment threads are full of discussions regarding Climategate and the revelation that what was thought of as science was merely dishonest advocacy.
Posted by: iconoclast at November 25, 2009 02:19 PM (O8ebz)
13
iconoclast:
That's why they say it's not the crime, it's the cover-up.
If these idjits had come out and admitted that the current data doesn't QUITE support their claims, but the Arctic ice and shrinking glaciers do (and, c'mon, do it for the polar bears!), most folks would have paid never no mind.
But by trying to cover it up, and then trying to eliminate the evidence, they've gotten more people to pay attention to their data than would ever have occurred otherwise.
And so long as folks are looking and digging, it'll unravel ever faster.
Of course, you've got the zealots for whom nothing would disprove the self-evident nature of global warming (and the presumed right answers), but one hopes that they'll be more in the minority.
At a minimum, it's going to make cap-and-trade a lot tougher to sell.
Posted by: Lurking Observer at November 25, 2009 02:28 PM (lt/wV)
14
The Media will make sure this blows over like they did with Pelosi & the CIA incident.
Posted by: Rick at November 25, 2009 03:27 PM (FWmwx)
15
Rick
I don't think so. There already was a lot of debate on AGW before this scandal. Everyone watching the scientific debate knew that it was coming after the Mann Hockey Stick and the Yamal Hockey Stick were debunked.
Now we have lawsuits being filed against Nasa/GISS as well as possible criminal suits being filed in CRU. I think that there is a good chance that this has more legs than just a lying Congresscritter (that's news??).
Posted by: iconoclast at November 25, 2009 04:24 PM (O8ebz)
16
Fortunately, any treaty the President signs would still have to be ratified by a Senate already torn by Healthcare Reform and mindful of the prospects of an upcoming election with a populace of extremely angry voters. The bloom is indeed off the rose.
Posted by: Doc99 at November 25, 2009 05:31 PM (d196y)
17
Both the US Navy and the US Army believe in global warming. They both believe that it has national security components. The navy has to plan on the Arctic Ocean being ice free in the summer
Posted by: John Ryan at November 26, 2009 01:25 PM (Q4VgZ)
18
"Both the US Navy and the US Army believe in global warming."
Not exactly, they have a few people that believe in it. Read about those few. Yes they have been influencing the planning, No there has been no real changes made, just planning as the Military is very apt to do for anything and everything.
Papa Ray
Posted by: Papa Ray at November 26, 2009 10:17 PM (JpVJn)
19
Both the US Navy and the US Army believe in global warming. They both believe that it has national security components. The navy has to plan on the Arctic Ocean being ice free in the summer
I wonder how much belief would exist in the Pentagon were they to know how much of what has been called climate sciences has been a fraud.
An ice-free arctic in summer is just hysterical shrieking. Nothing indicates that will occur anytime soon. Furthermore, nothing indicates humans have anything to do with the melting ice.
The past-due date on your frantic alarmism has arrived, ryan. Too few believe in the fraud any longer to actually do anything.
Posted by: iconoclast at November 27, 2009 06:23 PM (ACKCW)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 23, 2009
Former Head for Red Cross, NIH: Damn Right Death Panels Are a Part of Obamacare
Via Hot Air, Dr. Bernardine Healy rips into Obamacare, noting that under the Democratic plan the government will be making choices about how you will be treated, not you, and not your doctor:
The bill takes all sorts of choices out of patients' and doctors' hands. Even mammograms and prostate-specific antigen tests would be similarly restricted by the government for millions of people, and they actually serve as better examples of what happens more broadly to personal medical decision making in the new system.
The ground is being laid already, with the announcement by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a government-appointed body, of new guidelines for mammograms just days ago. Such a board of experts, composed mainly of primary care, prevention, public health, and epidemiology experts, would recommend the list of preventive services covered in the post-health-reform insurance plan that all would have no choice but to buy. Until now, the government's task force has been one voice among several medical groups issuing sometimes conflicting prevention guidelines, leaving room for patient-doctor choice. But in an elevated role under health reform, the federal preventive task force's declarations would carry greater force and have an economic impact on everyone.
Note that Dr. Healy isn't coming at this from any sort of right-wing or even centrist ideology. Even so, she knows the system inside and out and knows that liberals can try to obfuscate as much as they will, and that death panels by any name, are going to cost American lives and decrease both the quality of care and increase the probability that more Americans will die from certain diseases.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:14 PM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Oh, it's already happening - people are just beginning to notice, as it hits the 'popular' screenings and diagnostic procedures.
Example - anecdotal, you may say, but this was my experience.
Background - retired military, covered by Tricare Standard (aka Gub'mint managed healthcare).
Hadn't been to see a doctor in a couple of years - hey, if I'm not sick, why waste their time, my time, and somebodies money, right?
Went to a 'doc in the box' outpatient GP non-emergency type establishment in the Hampton Roads, Va, area, along with my new wife, going for an initial visit to get scripts for her diabetes supplies. Since I'm there, figured I'd get a 'wellness check'.
The attending, knowing I was Tricare, actually asked my wife 'why is he here?'
She did a very abbreviated look see and history, and was about to send me on my way without even pulling any labs. Being a 20+ year smoker, I popped up and said - um, hey, mind if I get a chest X-ray?
The doc looked taken aback, and asked "why?" (this is, of course, after the history, with the disclosure of long term tobacco use). She kinda shrugged, and went 'ok', and ordered the xray (which took about 5 minutes using a digitized, no consumables process, btw). No discussion of the efficacy of the test. No presentation of potential diagnostic alternatives.
Not sure how long she spent looking at it, but she said it looked 'fine'. She also brushed off the computerized 'irregular' reading that the 45 second EKG gave, chalking it up to my heart having adapted to deal with slightly elevated BP.
Although the entire episode seemed somewhat bizarre, hey, what do I, a layman, know of the dark shamanic arts of medicine, eh?
The light bulb moment came when I got the co-pay bill - Tricare declined to pay for anything over a fraction of the X-ray procedure - I think they allowed something like $10 - for which the doc-in-a-box place valuated at around $95-$100.
In a way, I almost feel on the sideline for most of the Obamacare discussion - because, as I mentioned, I'm already on 'Gub'mint Healthcare' - with my only concern being the overall likely economic impact and damage to the economy.
But as for how life will be? I think I'm already 'living the dream' in this case.
Lucky me, eh? To be so ahead of the curve?
It ain't exactly a place I think everybody will be comfortable, or can live (literally) with.
Posted by: Wind Rider at November 23, 2009 04:14 PM (mdmYf)
2
I am hopeful of two things. First, that Americans will work through our political system, sooner rather than later, to stop this insanity, or to reverse it by throwing the lunatics and would-be despots responsible out of office at the earliest opportunity.
And I hope, yet I worry, that this might not be possible, and that Obama and the Dems, acting out of desperation as they see their 60's-drug addled utopian fantasies potentially slipping away will revert to Chicago/union style thuggish tactics and attempt to seize ultimate control. Then, God help us all, we'd discover if American is truly still populated by Americans or by pseudo Europeans.
I hope that none of this ever comes to pass, but I suspect and hope that if it does, our would be masters will discover that they have badly "misunderestimated" the common folk, and that we are indeed Americans, not Europeans content to take whatever the government will hand out. When parents are jailed for being unable or unwilling to pay for mandated insurance policies, when the young die from diseases that could have been easily detected and treated, and when grandpa and grandma are condemned to death in the name of hopenchangy socialist utopia, Americans will not abide it, and God help those who oppose them. Americans are a peaceful people who want only to be left alone, but there are lines that no politician dare cross, and I do not refer to reelection. Revolution is not only in American blood, it is American blood, as Jefferson himself knew and wrote. Politicians would do well to remember that.
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at November 24, 2009 02:22 AM (JyD4t)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Obama Administration, al Qaeda to Try Bush Presidency in Court
Let's cut through the crap, shall we?
Barack Obama's Justice Department, led by Attorney General Eric Holder, are bringing five 9/11 terrorists to New York for a
pro forma show trial not to determine their alleged guilt in plotting the deaths of thousands of Americans, but to give them a months-long public forum where al Qaeda and the Obama administration can tag-team to excoriate the previous administration, attacking the Bush-era polices of intelligence-gathering and interrogation.
Barack Obama and his liberal allies do not even pretend to care that these are anything other than show trials that will end in the deaths of the defendants. It needs to be said—very clearly and plainly—that the reason the Administration decided to avoid the proper forum of a military tribunal for these terrorists is a warped, bitter desire carry out yet another partisan attack against the successful work of their predecessors. And in a sad way, it makes sense.
If the radical leftists in the White House cannot use this circus to publicly invalidate the eight years of successful tactics and strategies developed during the post-9/11 Bush years, then they cannot easily return to the 9/10, head-in-the-sand, terrorism-is-a-law-enforcement-problem mentality that is their comfort zone.
If they cannot publicly skewer the successes of the Bush doctrine, they will be forced to continue it. If they are forced to continue it, they cannot easily
flee Afghanistan and Iraq as they would prefer. If they cannot flee Iraq and and Afghanistan, they cannot make significant cuts in the military and
divert that taxpayer money (h/t
Ed) to programs they would much rather support... perhaps GOTV efforts by SEIU and ACORN to establish the fabled "permanent Democratic majority."
Every day that goes by it becomes more readily apparent that the primary interest of the Obama Administration is the Obama Administration; what is best for the nation doesn't seem approach the importance of a footnote in their machinations.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:37 AM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
By putting the Bush Administration on trial, the Chump in Chief hopes to put America on trial. These leftists do not love America as it is, they love the totalitarian America the likes of Ayers, Davis, Wright, Michelle, etc., wish to create.
So expect lots of "we deserved it" (aka Chickens coming home to roost and "little Eichmann's) repetition from the left and their friends defending KSM. We drove them to attack us by our imperial ways and support of genocidal regimes like Israel, Karzaim, and Maliki. All evil comes from capitalism and imperialism, only goodness from lefty.
Remember, while conservative muslims are not philosophically aligned with the left muslims are tactically aligned with the left in their desire to destroy the USA and replace it with a regime that will not stand in the way of their "advances" (eg . Sharia). The left views it exactly the same way--enemies like KSM are the allies of the left because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
Posted by: iconoclast at November 23, 2009 01:43 PM (1bU2Z)
2
"Barack Obama and his liberal allies do not even pretend to care that these are anything other than show trials that will end in the deaths of the defendants. It needs to be said—very clearly and plainly—that the reason theAdministration decided to avoid the proper forum of a military tribunal for these terrorists is a warped, bitter desire carry out yet another partisan attack against the successful work of their predecessors. And in a sad way, it makes sense."
If it was so successful, why is the man not dead? Commence telling me how thats Obamas fault.
Posted by: GoneGalt at November 23, 2009 02:17 PM (FBwYR)
3
If it was so successful, why is the man not dead? Commence telling me how thats Obamas fault.
so halting further attacks on the USA, removing Taliban and AQ from power in Afghanistan, removing Hussein from power, and smashing AQ in Iraq meant nothing because KSM is still alive?
Nice goalpost moving.
Posted by: iconoclast at November 23, 2009 02:36 PM (1bU2Z)
4
This IG Walpin thing is about to explode .. Amer-iG-ate
It's got sex, a cover-up and a "IG" in the middle.
I think it's time for a ... "Special Prosecutor .. err .. Counsel"
Is Fritz still available ? ... and he's got Chicago credentials.
Posted by: Neo at November 23, 2009 07:13 PM (tE8FB)
5
Gone, as you perhaps don't know, KSM, his current cohorts and dozens of others in Guantanamo received pro bono representation by Eric Holder's lawfirm. If you wonder why KSM has not been executed, I would think there is intelligence value in him though that may have now gone stale, but it is largely through the lawfare practiced by Holder, currently Attorney General as you may have noticed. KSM and the others ultimately confessed and expressed a desire for execution. The delays in that execution are largely a product of the man Obama made his Attorney General and the suspension of the military tribunals' actions were an executive order so that is why it is Obama's fault that KSM breathes air and practices jihad today in New York.
Posted by: megapotamus at November 24, 2009 04:14 PM (SeAGU)
6
Shall we start by calling the guy in the White house by his full name please?
After all he CHOSE the name Barack Hussein Obama back when he was Barry Soertero...
On to Herr Holder.
Sorry, words fail me. He is contemptible.
Posted by: Mark at November 24, 2009 04:14 PM (AuJXd)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Almost TKO'd on the Verge of "Hopehangen," Climate Cultists Fight Back
You know what is really bad for the environment? The amount of bovine methane produced in this laughably false bit of fear mongering from Associated Press "science writer" Seth Borenstein:
Since the 1997 international accord to fight global warming, climate change has worsened and accelerated _ beyond some of the grimmest of warnings made back then.
As the world has talked for a dozen years about what to do next, new ship passages opened through the once frozen summer sea ice of the Arctic. In Greenland and Antarctica, ice sheets have lost trillions of tons of ice. Mountain glaciers in Europe, South America, Asia and Africa are shrinking faster than before.
And it's not just the frozen parts of the world that have felt the heat in the dozen years leading up to next month's climate summit in Copenhagen:
_The world's oceans have risen by about an inch and a half.
_Droughts and wildfires have turned more severe worldwide, from the U.S. West to Australia to the Sahel desert of North Africa.
_Species now in trouble because of changing climate include, not just the lumbering polar bear which has become a symbol of global warming, but also fragile butterflies, colorful frogs and entire stands of North American pine forests.
_Temperatures over the past 12 years are 0.4 of a degree warmer than the dozen years leading up to 1997.
Even the gloomiest climate models back in the 1990s didn't forecast results quite this bad so fast
Nice try, zealot, but the simple fact of the matter is that the junk science driving this hysteria has been revealed as the most massive hoax against the citizens of the world in human history.
Polar bears aren't in decline; they are growing in number and
may need to be hunted. Far from sea level rising to overwash the Maldives, the islands are either rising, or
sea level is falling.
And then there is the "inconvenient truth" that global temperatures are not rising in any way that can be attributed to the actions of man as Borenstein tries to claim.
The fetishists have invested billions in this bid to establish greater control over the citizens of the world, promoting junk science as a mask for an ideological totalitarianism.
It must be frustrating to watch their plot come so close to fruition, only to be dashed by the
revelation of their own scheming.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:34 AM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
It's not all nonsense. For example, warmer temperatures and milder winters really are wreaking havoc in the forests of British Columbia. Severe winters tend to kill off bark-beetles, which burrow into and ultimately kill pine trees. Mild winters mean more bark-beetles are surviving, which in turn means a lot more dead and dying trees.
Posted by: wolfwalker at November 23, 2009 11:24 AM (br8fl)
2
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ You haven't been following this lately, have you?
Posted by: MANstreammedia at November 23, 2009 11:27 AM (5q/vg)
3
Meanwhile, wolfwalker, here my part of the Southeast US, we're looking at one of the coolest years on record.
Or is the BC warmness "climate" while here it's "weather"?
Posted by: Dr. Horrible at November 23, 2009 12:46 PM (Dj4BX)
4
The big scientific journals, Nature and Science, have bought into CO2 caused warming to such an extent that they have virtually staked their reputations on it. Any contradictory data will never be published by them. The cost would be too high for the editors and the publishers since its very publication would be an admission of controversy. Global warming by CO2 has become as real as Einstein's theories to them. Glitchs, like the last 10 years of no temp change at all, are only problems with the math of modeling as far as they are concerned. The amount of grant money pouring into this field and the reputations on the line for so many in the scientific community will make this theory a "reality" for decades. It is already being taught in schools as casual fact.
Posted by: mytralman at November 23, 2009 01:24 PM (26p91)
5
Mytralams right, when i was in middle school we had to watch An Incovenient Truth as an example of what we are doing to the Environment.
They're also calling it "climate change" now because its not warming up. Up in Massachusetts it snowed in October but was 60 in November
Posted by: MAModerate at November 23, 2009 04:31 PM (SVD0U)
6
btw, that business about a new ship passage through the Arctic ice? Complete bs. Apparently it was just the first trip of western ships through a passage controlled by Russia. It has been open since 1934 in the summer.
Just like the polar bears. 5,000 of them in 1950, ~25,000 of them now. Now that is an extinction trend.
These folks just cannot stop lying, can they?
Posted by: iconoclast at November 23, 2009 08:20 PM (1bU2Z)
7
bs
sorry, wrote http instead of href.
Posted by: iconoclast at November 23, 2009 08:23 PM (1bU2Z)
8
Iconoclast please cite for us the first commercial vessels using the Northgwest Passage, and NO that does not include any passages that were forced by icebreakers. The Us Navy knows that things are changing FAST in the Arctic, you sir are an idiot if you do not know this
Posted by: John Ryan at November 26, 2009 01:28 PM (Q4VgZ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 21, 2009
The Unrequited Dream of Smart Guns
My latest article is up at Pajamas Media.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:27 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Just so. Col. Jeff Cooper used to call the double action mechanism for semi-automatic pistols "an ingenious solution to a nonexistent problem." So it is with "smart guns."
The entire idea is a tail-chasing exercise in making human beings perfect by means of making perfect--or at least temporarily neutering--a tool. It's an idea in search of a necessity.
Any firearm that is not as reliable as human engineering can make it is essentially useless. But that, of course, is the point for the anti-gunners whose pathetically weak intellectual horsepower is the engine for the smart gun concept. As long as the free market prevails, such weapons will never be economically viable, particularly the bizarre idea that government could transmit a "fail safe" radio signal that would render inert all firearms within range of the transmitter, thus stopping mass shootings. Of course, this would also have the effect of protecting mass murderers when the good guy's weapons suddenly become paperweight, to say nothing of the old folks holding off a troops of aggressive burglars, or the tiny woman about to stop a crazed rapist with a suddenly limp handgun.
Let's see. Here's a reliable handgun that will go bang when I need it to go bang. Here's a handgun that costs a great deal more, and that will, without notice, fail to go bang when its battery dies, if there's radio frequency interference in the area, if someone opens their garage door or car door, or if the government suddenly decides I can't go bang when I want? Gee. Tough choice.
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at November 21, 2009 08:05 PM (JyD4t)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Day the Left Stood Still
As you know by now the Great Climate Change Hoax—which has been steadily losing ground in the past few years—suffered what should be a fatal blow when hackers raided the servers of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit and posted ten years worth of emails. The CRU is among the greatest contributors to the theory of anthropogenic climate change.
And now
their own emails expose the world top manmade climate change advocates apparently guilty of doctoring—apparently out right
fabricating—much of the key research that has driven the climate change zealots to the edge of wrecking the world's economies (while making quite a few of them very wealthy).
Quite frankly, the evidence is starting to indicate that the global warming/cooling fetishists were duped by what appears to be the greatest scam ever perpetrated upon mankind, racketeering that may indict many of the world's top scientists and politicians, up to and including our own Nobel-winning former Vice President Al Gore.
The theory of anthropogenic climate change has been revealed as nothing more or less than a criminal enterprise. What does the media have to say about it?
As James Delingpole notes
very little at all.
...in the case of "Climate Change", the MSM has been caught with its trousers down. The reason it has been so ill-equipped to report on this scandal is because almost all of its Environmental Correspondents and Environmental Editors are parti pris members of the Climate-Fear Promotion lobby. Most of their contacts (and information sources) work for biased lobby groups like Greenpeace and the WWF, or conspicuously pro-AGW government departments and Quangos such as the Carbon Trust. How can they bring themselves to report on skullduggery at Hadley Centre when the scientists involved are the very ones whose work they have done most to champion and whose pro-AGW views they share?
A
quick scan of who's talking on Memeorandum indicates that the blogospheric chatter over the hoax is coming almost uniformly from the center-right.
The left wing blogs that have largely bought into the fraud of manmade climate change have been deathly silent as their pseudo-religion has been exposed.
But then, what is there to say? They were duped. Lied to. Hoodwinked. Bamboozled. In their shame, perhaps the best option is silence.
* * *
The downside of the exposure of the AGW hoax is the possible backlash again the green movement. While the worst of them are indeed perpetrators and accomplices in this fraud, the vast majority of those in the green movement are engaged in very good work that encourages recycling and optimizing resource usage, something that all of us should get behind, regardless of our politics. We only have one world, and we should be it's stewards.
While fear-driven politics like those soon to be on display in Copenhagen and the the abortive cap-and-tax scheme here in the United States are destructive, we should, after the fears of AGW have been exposed, be able to take a far more rational look at how to best preserve the world that we call home.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:20 PM
| Comments (32)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The only unanswered question for me ..
Did any of these folks (in the e-mails) ever give testimony before Congress or any court under oath ?
If so, they should go to jail.
Posted by: Neo at November 21, 2009 03:54 PM (tE8FB)
2
The downside of the exposure of the AGW hoax is the possible backlash again the green movement.
Uh, no: the vast vast vast majority of the 'green' movement has been pushing this hoax for over a decade and now that it's time to pay the piper, they all need to be loaded into the plastic recycler (another fraudulent waste of time, money and resources anyone can learn about by doing even the most basic research) and processed into something more useful like a patio set. (For the few saints in the green movement--like, say, the now apostate founder of Greenpeace--we can find those ten or twelve people some productive work elsewhere.)
Posted by: ECM at November 21, 2009 05:53 PM (q3V+C)
3
The memeorandum links you've got there include RealClimate.
That's a climate blog, not a leftist blog. But since leftists aren't really who you'd look to for interpretation on scientific topics any more than you should right-wingers, who really cares how many or few there are.
You are after all talking about how many different people copy/pasted the same original story and conclusions as though this is any meaningful contribution.
I noticed HuffPo is now quoting a science blog pointing out how ridiculous this right-wing meme is. Does this make anyone happier or sadder, or is this again really nothing of merit from a partisan political blog beyond demonstrating that remarkable ability of being able to ctrl-c, ctrl-v?
Posted by: Mars at November 21, 2009 08:21 PM (Nz3Oj)
4
"A quick scan of who's talking on Memeorandum indicates that the blogospheric chatter over the hoax is coming almost uniformly from the center-right."
Memeorandum hasn't been listing a number of left blogs for almost a year. I use a Firefox addon that colors left blog links blue and right blog links red and have noticed a steady decline in left blogs over the past year. Three years ago, you could clearly see that it was almost an even level of right and left links, depending upon the story of course. Now, it's very heavily almost always all red links. And, a number of left blogs don't appear at all any longer.
I wrote Gabe Rivera a few months ago and asked him what was going on and he said that he doesn't really monitor the site very much anymore, as he is much too busy with Techmeme. He said if he has the time, he'd try to recalibrate the left seed blogs.
But, as of today, the main page of Memeorandum has a total of 5 blue links and around 50 red links.
So, it's not the sample you think it is anymore.
Posted by: DJ at November 21, 2009 08:59 PM (cDH8H)
5
"The memeorandum links you've got there include RealClimate.
That's a climate blog, not a leftist blog."
No, it's a leftist blog that masquerades as a climate blog. Very much like the AGW issue is a leftist campaign masquerading as science. Read the emails -- it's obvious that RC was considered part of the crowd, folks they could trust to toe the line and not make any politically embarrassing admissions.
AGW should go down as the 21st century's parallel to eugenics -- a scientific mask pulled over a political/aesthetic/religious campaign by totalitarians too ashamed to admit their real goals.
Posted by: Rob Crawford at November 21, 2009 10:27 PM (n2wxa)
6
Real Climate? Ha Ha Ha Ha! That is the blog run by many of those implicated by the released emails.
Left? Yup! More importantly one of the vehicles of misinformation used by these ?scientists? It is also used to downplay and ridicule any paper that does not conform with their views, while emphasizing their own papers. It has for years filtered comments. As do many of the pro-AGW blogs.
Posted by: CoRev at November 21, 2009 11:10 PM (0U8Ob)
7
"No, it's a leftist blog that masquerades as a climate blog."
Well if that's the case, it would appear to be doing a rather stellar job of it.
After all, if they're not scientists and neither are you, and we're commenting on a story about people who should be able to muster up a defense but aren't, I'm a little confused as to why I'm not seeing a takedown of RealClimate on the topics, papers, research methodology and concepts they mention in their explanation of why this story is of no merit.
Will we do that now, or did you not think this through fully?
Posted by: Mars at November 21, 2009 11:37 PM (Nz3Oj)
8
You do realize that recycling costs more and pollutes much more than making the products new don't you? The only product that even comes close to breaking even in both cost and pollution is aluminum. Recycling is a much bigger hoax than "global warming" because they've been lying about that for so much longer.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at November 21, 2009 11:39 PM (MxQFN)
9
"I'm a little confused"
Like that's a shock to all of us
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at November 21, 2009 11:43 PM (MxQFN)
10
@ Capitalist Infidel
Your points about recycling, if not true, are certainly close. I personally wonder what the money/energy/pollution cost of a paper plate is relative to the water/energy/pollution cost of washing a ceramic plate.
The biggest reason to recycle things is to reduce what ends up in landfills. It is not unreasonable that there be some cost for keeping a disposable item out of a landfill.
My biggest irritation about recycling is that we pay for it TWICE .. once in the extra costs for our trash service, and a second time in the deposits (aka CRV in California) for various containers.
Posted by: Tom J. at November 22, 2009 12:43 AM (Er1C9)
11
Mars, I refer you to my comment just prior to yours. I also add this little tidbit. RC has been providing only half the story, while ridiculing any papers and authors not supportive of their views. So has the MSM, some of which are clearly captive of these same nefarious few, and the authors on RC.
With only half the story you are making assumptions of truthiness and validity. Sheesh!
Posted by: CoRev at November 22, 2009 08:57 AM (0U8Ob)
12
There's much more to recycling than tossing your plastic bottles into a bin marked "Recycle" rather than one marked "Landfill."
A lot of steel comes from recycling junked cars. A lot of metals are extracted from old electronics and recycled -- which is important when you consider that current mine production of some metals is not enough to meet the demand.
A lot of paper comes from recycling newsprint and other scrap paper. Yes, it costs a little bit more, but frankly, I think $3.65 for a ream of partly-recycled paper, instead of $3.50 for a ream of all-new-straight-from-the-tree paper is a price difference worth paying.
Oh, and do you have any idea how much of both money and plastic I've saved over the years by rinsing 20-oz Gatorade bottles and filling them with tapwater, instead of buying cases of bottled water?
Posted by: wolfwalker at November 22, 2009 09:37 AM (br8fl)
13
It's curious to see how secular society has several intolerant religions attacking it. From the assault of Islam to the conspiracy of the Gaiaists (the Church of the AGW), reason is on the defensive.
Religion is a powerful motivator as it creates a remarkable capacity to rationalize delusion, deception, discrimination and outright destruction of others. We need to both ridicule the media who fails to report on the fraud and deceit as well as enforce the "separation of church and state" framework upon these science haters. RICO and other instruments of legal disruption would be beneficial as well, though we probably can't count on an objective, unbiased Federal investigative and prosecutorial system any longer.
Posted by: HatlessHessian at November 22, 2009 09:57 AM (7r7wy)
14
I cannot share your affection for the "green" movement. The problem is that almost all greens believe in compulsion with the enthusiasm that characterized the rise of fascism and communism. Greenism is a religious movement that treats non believers with all the compassion that jihadis treat dhimmis or the inquisition treated skeptics. Greens, whether engaged in AGW alarmism or not, have attempted to create a society where tossing a can in the trash is equivalent to assault and battery.
I believe in preservationism, in the Theodore Roosevelt sense, not in recycling materials that cost more to recycle than to produce and pollute more in bargain. I do not believe you should be compelled to have 11 different colored trash cans so some yuppie can feel good about saving the earth. I do not believe that every life form deserves protection ( I'd willingly condemn the anopheles mosquito to extinction ). I do not believe that conservation is always the best answer, I want to drill everywhere oil production could be profitable.
The green movement is dishonest from top to bottom and the AGW alarmists are only the most vocal of an authoritarian crusade.
Posted by: Ken Hahn at November 22, 2009 02:01 PM (XWf6F)
15
What's the old saying? Green on the outside, Red (communist) on the inside.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at November 22, 2009 06:14 PM (MxQFN)
16
"We only have one world, and we should be it's stewards."
what are you talking about? there's a whole universe of planets out there, and the only thing keeping us from exploring is cowardice and fear.
"Earth First! We can strip mine the other planets later..."
Posted by: redc1c4 at November 22, 2009 06:20 PM (d1FhN)
17
redc1c4 said:
"Earth First! We can strip mine the other planets later..."
ROFLMAO
I also disagree about the greens. Kill them now or they will come back to haunt you with another fake cause that will lead to totalitarianism. Remember your Machiavelli.
Posted by: Dan Maloney at November 22, 2009 08:53 PM (o1zZG)
18
"The biggest reason to recycle things is to reduce what ends up in landfills."
Why do we want to do that?
Toxic materials, sure. It's worth extra effort to keep batteries out of landfills, because they can poison groundwater.
But inert materials in a landfill are harmless. That includes all plastics, glass, and aluminum. Biodegradable materials (like paper, cardboard, and steel) also do no environmental harm.
"It is not unreasonable that there be some cost for keeping a disposable item out of a landfill."
I fail to see the logic in that. Why pay the cost of doing something that's totally unnecessary? And don't bother repeating the bogus argument about running out of landfill space. That won't happen for thousands of years, if ever.
No, Capitalist Infidel is correct. With the exception of aluminum, the entire recycling industry is a sham. It wastes money and pollutes more than landfilling the trash would.
Posted by: Sundog at November 23, 2009 02:15 AM (GhD9A)
19
Greens are Reds. It is as simple as that.
Posted by: megapotamus at November 25, 2009 04:37 PM (QCagK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 20, 2009
Administration's Firing of Walpin May Have Been Part Of Cover-Up to Protect Ally
Doing things the Chicago Way:
A congressional investigation of the volunteer organization AmeriCorps contains charges that D.C. schools chief Michelle Rhee handled "damage control" after allegations of sexual misconduct against her now fiance, Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, a former NBA star and a prominent ally of President Obama, The Washington Examiner has learned.
The charges are contained in a report prepared by Sen. Charles Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, and Rep. Darrell Issa, ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
The investigation began after the AmeriCorps inspector general, Gerald Walpin, received reports that Johnson had misused some of the $800,000 in federal AmeriCorps money provided to St. Hope, a non-profit school that Johnson headed for several years.
It's really quite simple.
IG Walpin got too close to discovering Johnson and Rhee had misappropriated AmeriCorps funds, including using some of it as "hush money" to keep one or more women from filing charges of sexual misconduct against Johnson. As a favor to Johnson, someone in the Administration—perhaps even Obama himself, considering their relationship—ordered Walpin fired before he could ferret out the truth. But Walpin refused to go quietly.
The White House's orchestrated smear campaign kicked into gear to label Walpin as senile.
The tactic failed. Instead, it simply made people wonder just what they was trying to cover up, and why the White House was trying so hard to discredit Walpin.
The media will certainly try to downplay this unfolding drama as much as possible. Solid evidence of the Administration's involvement will certainly be difficult to obtain, and that which found will be shaped and spun to deflect criticism away from the President.
That allowed, it is very difficult to believe that Johnson would have confided his need in this to have Walpin removed to an underling when he has direct access to the President's ear. After all, President Obama has had his own
suspected dalliances and cover-ups, so who would Johnson trust more to clean his dirty laundry than his old friend Barack?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:43 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
<< Page 75 >>
Processing 0.04, elapsed 0.1233 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.0941 seconds, 203 records returned.
Page size 172 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.