Dec 16, 2009 Political
Al Gore ducked questions about his statement that the Climategate emails were from 10 years ago. His assertion is misleading at best and a lie at worst. In any event, Gore ignores any question that does not fall in line with the mind numbed drones who blindly follow his hoax. Notice in this video how one of his staff tries to grab the microphone and then how the Nazi guard pulls the cord out of it to cut it off.
While all this was going on the journalists who are at Copenhagen waited in line for hours to gain access to the building. The weather there has been freezing cold with lots of snow (no doubt the result of global warming) and the journalists were complaining that it was cold. Some of them are no doubt global warming believers who are pushing the agenda for Gore and his ilk.
I think it is only fitting that these people froze outside while waiting to get into meetings on global warming.
As the NewsBusters article aptly states, they could have used a little global warming…
Oct 9, 2009 Opinion
Barack Obama was the “surprise” winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. As my co-writer Blake points out, he has not done anything to earn it. I have to agree, what has Obama done to earn the award? He has been in office for only nine months and nothing he has done has resulted in any kind of peace.
Even those except his most ardent supporters would have to ask what he has done to get this award.
As far as I am concerned the award means little. It has been given to people who have had little to do with peace including Al Gore (who received his for something that was supposed to be science) and Yasser Arafat (who was anything but peaceful). The award is basically a political award and is used to push an agenda, to give some credibility to the people who espouse the same views of the committee regardless of accomplishment.
The nomination of Obama was made just before the 1 February deadline and only 2 weeks after he took office. What was he nominated for? His acts up to that point certainly did not warrant the prize. If the nomination is for past deeds then he certainly did not qualify.
If it was for the deeds of the past nine months then one has to ask what he has done to earn it. What did he do that made him more deserving than the other nominees who actually have accomplishments in the area of peace? Obama has not brought peace to the Middle East. His relationship with Israel is strained and he has coddled terrorists as well as others who wish to do us harm. He has talked a good game but that is not worthy of the award.
This was purely a political move designed to bolster a man who was hurt by the IOCC and by his continual missteps on the world stage.
I am not saying that Obama would not have a term in office (or work after he is out of office) that eventually led to him actually deserving the award, that is something we cannot know. However, it is clear that he has done nothing, up to this point, to deserve it.
The award has always meant little as far as I am concerned because of some of the folks who received it and more importantly, those who did not. Reagan never received one and he certainly had more to do with peace than Carter, Gore or Obama. But the award has been made political and that tarnishes it, in my view.
If Obama has done anything to earn this award it was his appeasement of our enemies and the rogues around the world who would do us harm.
Perhaps the committee thought they were voting on an Appease Prize*…
*Thanks to my friend Doug Ross for this term.
Aug 30, 2009 Political
Bill Clinton and Al Gore are out on the campaign trail (Obama is still campaigning) in order to drum up support for the health care plan that will completely overhaul the health care system in this country in order to provide health care to the very small percentage of the population that does not have and truly cannot afford such care.
The Democrats have taken a beating over this issue because they are being irresponsible with our system of health care. They are ramming legislation through without even reading it. They are doing a disservice to their constituents while working to give government further control over our lives. And make no mistake about it, this is all about control. If this was all about fixing the system then it would actually address the problems with the system and would not consist of a complete overhaul. It would not be a Trojan Horse bill designed to slip single payer health care in in the middle of the night. A Single payer system is the goal as expressed by Obama and many other Democrats who have stated that this is the way to eventually get single payer.
If this was all about health care and not about control then Obama would have voted for the health care reforms that were proposed when he was a Senator. His fellow Democrats would have voted for them as well. Instead they voted against reform that would not overhaul the entire system and would have made a difference.
The problem is, they never wanted the system to be fixed. If it were fixed then the Democrats would not have anything to run for office on and they would not have the chance to take control of people’s lives. The Democrats conveniently forget this part of history and they continually present only two options in this debate as if nothing else exists. It is either their plan or do nothing. They present it as if the only option is to do nothing and then they attack that position. It is a straw man argument and it is designed to make people think that if this does not pass we will do nothing.
As I wrote, we had the chance to do something when Obama was a Senator and he VOTED AGAINST the bills.
Still think this debate is about health care? Bill Clinton said that the health care bill needed to be passed for the sake of the party.
“We need to pass a bill this year. Doing nothing is not only the worst thing we can do for the economy, it’s the worst thing we can do for the country. It’s also the worst thing we can do for the Democrats,” Clinton said, because Americans expect Democrats to deliver when they elect them. Commercial Appeal
Clinton said that not passing this bill is the worst thing we can do for the Democrats. This is the entire issue. It is bad for Democrats if they get defeated on Obama’s signature legislation and right now they are getting beaten. Not long ago Clinton said they needed to pass something. I think his words were that they could get half a loaf instead of the whole thing and then work on adding to it later. They need to pass something to make Obama look good.
They need to pass something for the good of the Democrat Party, Clinton himself said so. Never mind if it will be good for us as individuals, they need it for the party. Though Clinton said it would be good for the economy there is no way that can be the case. It will cost too much and will cause an increase in taxes for nearly all taxpayers. The way this bunch has handled the economy there is no way they should be making predictions about how health care will impact it. Additionally, Medicare is broke and spends more than it takes in. That is a government run program. Our government does not have a good track record when it comes to running programs at a low cost and this is particularly true for the health care ventures it runs.
It is all about party and control. The Democrats are selling us a bill of goods and they are working hard to screw us over so they can have more control over our lives. They need to pass something so that Obama does not look bad and so they can get their feet in the door.
From there we will be on the fast track to socialized medicine in a single payer system.
No matter what you hear from now on always remember that it is about helping the party. Bill Clinton made that clear. It is also about control which certainly helps Democrats because controlling people is what keeps them in power.
Obama has made that clear in the way he is taking more and more control of the private sector in this country.
Bill Clinton says to support health care for the good of the party.
Big Dog says defeat this legislation for the good of the country.
Which side do you fall on?
Jul 16, 2009 Political
Looks like the settled science gets less settled each day. CO2 is used to explain the theory but it is not the only possible explanation and it looks as if CO2 does not have the great affect that the global warming community states. The problem is that they have decided that CO2 is the answer and have stopped looking (that is what it means when the science is settled) so other possibilities are discounted and those espousing them are ridiculed as not the right kind of scientist or a hack. The field of science is only unimportant if the sceientist in question believes in and supports global warming. Then it does not matter because he supports the position. As an aside, the EPA worker who was quited was deemed to be an economist and not a scientist. He actually was a scientist AND and economist. He has degrees in both fields. Ace digs into this in greater detail at the linked article.
I have stated many times that this is something that needs more research before we invest trillions of dollars into fixing what might not be the problem. One day we might find out that there was nothing we could do, or there was not a problem, or that it was natural and cyclic. By that time though, we will have spent huge sums of money and a few folks will have gotten very rich off the entire deal. Al Gore has increased his wealth substanially on his warming crusade and he will increase it more if cap and trade is passed. So will Goldman Sachs and General Electric, companies who are heavily vested in this scam.
The more that research is done (by deniers or those looking for the truth) the less settled things are and that cannot make the warmers happy. The longer it drags out and the more that is discovered, the less opportunity they have to make lots of money. This is why things have to be done NOW. The planet does not have a fever, the warmers have an itch, an itch they want to scratch with lots of our money. But the problems keep arising. According to a Rice University media release (reporting on a study from Natural Geoscience):
“In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record,” said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. “There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models.”
Cap and trade is an albatross that will cost us a fortune and result in lost jobs. Obama and the supporters keep saying it will create jobs but the bill specifically provides money for people who lose their jobs as a result of the legislation which means they know it will cost jobs. This is the wrong way to do things and we will be forced to absorb the crushing blow this would have to the country all in the name of an unsettled science.
It is time to defeat the cap and TAX bill and allow research (unbiased research) to look at the issue without the static and background noise provided by Gore and his band of merry warmers.
Mar 8, 2009 Political
Al Gore has led the crusade against the catastrophic event known as Man Made Global Warming. He has a PowerPoint slide show and he goes around talking about all the calamities that will occur if we don’t spend untold (but no doubt huge) sums of money correcting the problem. Gore, who uses more energy in a month than most people use in a year, stands to profit greatly from his scheme. The problem is, selling it.
The way Gore sold it was to get a bunch of scientists who agree with him (many of whom receive government money to do the research) together, ignore the large numbers of those who disagree and then claim the science was settled. The “scientist” Al Gore claimed that the science was settled even though there has been no proof (only evidence) provided by the scientific community that he claims is on board.
Gore was at the WSJ’s Eco:nomics conference in California and he was confronted by a skeptical Danish environmentalist named Bjorn Lomborg who challenged Gore to debate the issue. Gore’s response was typical:
“I want to be polite to you,” Mr. Gore responded. But, no. “The scientific community has gone through this chapter and verse. We have long since passed the time when we should pretend this is a ‘on the one hand, on the other hand’ issue,” he said. “It’s not a matter of theory or conjecture, for goodness sake,” he added. WSJ
First of all I reject the claim that the science is settled. Gore however, feels that it is settled and should not be debated because the experts have said it is so.
Now, let’s go back to the 2000 election which should not be too difficult because my friends on the left live there. They cite Florida as an example of how Republicans steal elections (while ignoring places where they are really stolen by Democrats) and they have always referred to Bush as an illegitimate president. There were a number of recounts after the election and every one showed that George Bush won. The vote count and the election ARE settled but that has not stopped the left from continuing to debate it.
Al Gore refers to himself as a person who was once the next president of the United States.
Perhaps it is time for Al and his minions on the left to pay heed to their own advice. Or to put it in Al’s language:
“I want to be polite to you,” sayeth the Big Dog. But, no [we don't want to debate the 2000 election]. “The media have gone through this chapter and verse and counted and counted. We have long since passed the time when we should pretend this is a ‘on the one hanging chad, on the other hanging chad’ issue,” he sayeth. “It’s not a matter of theory or conjecture, for goodness sake, Al, you lost”
Unlike the 2000 election, global warming is far from settled. However, if liberals are concerned they can participate in my carbon offset plan.