A pair of brilliant men take on AGW, uh climate change, uh carbon tax bull.. Krauthammer and Freeman Dyson speak.

Global warming science is settled. Right?

The trouble with that statement is that the real life got in the way.  However, Charles Krauthammer points out PC speech is in full swing and anyone who disagrees is called a heretic.

Two months ago, a petition bearing more than 110,000 signatures was delivered to The Post, demanding a ban on any article questioning global warming. The petition arrived the day before publication of my column, which consisted of precisely that heresy.

The column ran as usual. But I was gratified by the show of intolerance because it perfectly illustrated my argument that the left is entering a new phase of ideological agitation — no longer trying to win the debate but stopping debate altogether, banishing from public discourse any and all opposition.

The proper word for that attitude is totalitarian. It declares certain controversies over and visits serious consequences — from social ostracism to vocational defenestration — upon those who refuse to be silenced.

Sometimes the word comes from on high, as when the president of the United States declares the science of global warming to be “settled.” Anyone who disagrees is then branded “anti-science.” And better still, a “denier” — a brilliantly chosen calumny meant to impute to the climate skeptic the opprobrium normally reserved for the hatemongers and crackpots who deny the Holocaust.

Then last week, another outbreak. The newest closing of the leftist mind is on gay marriage. Just as the science of global warming is settled, so, it seems, are the moral and philosophical merits of gay marriage.

To oppose it is nothing but bigotry, akin to racism. Opponents are to be similarly marginalized and shunned, destroyed personally and professionally.

Yep. But when it comes to global warming the science is anything but settled.  Some of us are old enough to remember Ted Danson saying back in 1988 that the oceans would be dead in ten years or Al Gore claiming the ice would be melted by now.

Nothing close to this has happened.  Yet the scientists who pushed the science that prompted Gore and Danson to make the stupid statements are still considered experts in the field.  If they were mechanics, we’d never let them touch our cars again! But controlling our total way of life. Sure, why not?

Freeman Dyson, eighty-five years old and frankly past giving a hoot what others think, explains how this happens and during the explanation exposes the corruption. Here is part of his argument. He isn’t arguing all the science is wrong or that he is an expert, what he says is the corruption has infiltrated the science.  It is garbage now that no one trusts.

Thirty years ago, there was a sort of a political split between the Oak Ridge community, which included biology, and people who were doing these fluid dynamics models, which don’t include biology. They got the lion’s share of money and attention. And since then, this group of pure modeling experts has become dominant.

I got out of the field then. I didn’t like the way it was going. It left me with a bad taste.

Syukuro Manabe, right here in Princeton, was the first person who did climate models with enhanced carbon dioxide and they were excellent models. And he used to say very firmly that these models are very good tools for understanding climate, but they are not good tools for predicting climate. I think that’s absolutely right. They are models, but they don’t pretend to be the real world. They are purely fluid dynamics. You can learn a lot from them, but you cannot learn what’s going to happen 10 years from now.

Yet policies, taxes, laws, regulations ARE enacted based on what might happen in ten years.  Ten years pass and the predictions are wrong and nobody takes a look around and  goes “hmm…. Maybe Holdren and crew aren’t  so special after all!” I mean Holdren was screaming warnings about a new ice age in the seventies and the world melting in the nineties.  To me, he’s just shilling for a paycheck now.  Nothing more than a top hat wearing man on a horse drawn wagon selling snake oil.

Here is the cover from the Time magazine circa 1970′s.  The link to the website has a nice short video from that same time period.

Why? Money. Money for private entities (think Soros and carbon credit markets), money for government in the form of carbon taxes.  Scientists get grants and trips to five star motels hosting climate conferences IF they are on the right side of the argument.  Not right about the argument, just on the “right side” as Krauthamer points out.

Sometimes it isn’t about the money, but it is simple stubborn pride.

Dyson: Well, both. I mean it’s a fact that they don’t know how to model it. And the question is, how does it happen that they end up believing their models? But I have seen that happen in many fields. You sit in front of a computer screen for 10 years and you start to think of your model as being real. It is also true that the whole livelihood of all these people depends on people being scared. Really, just psychologically, it would be very difficult for them to come out and say, “Don’t worry, there isn’t a problem.” It’s sort of natural, since their whole life depends on it being a problem. I don’t say that they’re dishonest. But I think it’s just a normal human reaction. It’s true of the military also. They always magnify the threat. Not because they are dishonest; they really believe that there is a threat and it is their job to take care of it. I think it’s the same as the climate community, that they do in a way have a tremendous vested interest in the problem being taken more seriously than it is.

Fear. The great motivator.  And it is used every day to separate you from your money, your freedom, your energy sources and your future.  And nobody is stopping them.

So when some eco-nut starts blabbing about how the science is settled, share these comments with the person.  Maybe, if they are intelligent and not part of the Spanish Inquisition, they may think about it for a second.

Posted in politics | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

What do Bundy, MLK and the civil rights era have in common?

“What?” you say?   I see the confusion, but stick with me here.

This post talks about several points.  1. Man’s law vs. natural laws.  2. Civil rights.  3. The Second amendment.  4. The corruptive nature of power and authority . All of these elements exist in both events in ways that many of you already understand.  All I’m trying to do here is put a finer point on the argument.

First, let’s take on the issue of law.  What is law? Is it what man deems as law or are there other laws man cannot and should not try to usurp those natural laws.  In fact, our country was founded on such a concept, and the civil rights movement and Cliven Bundy represent two opposite ends of the same argument- can man, through the power of government, deny another man’s free will, freedom and pursuit of happiness?

Before any of you start saying “Well he violated the court orders!” remember that even the Supreme Court at one time agreed a black slave had no standing to sue for his freedom.  (As did a number of State courts) Why?  It was part of the times and the mindset of the men in authority, and I’ll argue it was reasoned in that way not to upset the political environment at the time.  It was wrong. It was always wrong.  Yet there it was.  It took years, and a violent civil war,  for the blacks and Republicans to change the mindset of a nation.  Hundreds of thousands died in the effort.  But they knew man’s law was wrong and was in violation of natural law.  It had to change. And it did.

When we are taught about the civil rights movement in America one element is often left out, and surprisingly left out by those who were there, but now on the liberal side of our politics. That element was the 2nd amendment and how many civil rights activists armed themselves, sometimes to extreme, to protect themselves and their families from attack.  Over at PJ Media, they review a new book written by a man, Professor Charles E. Cobb, Jr., who lived that experience.  Titled  “This Nonviolent Stuff’ll Get You Killed: How Guns Made the Civil Rights Movement Possible.”  

nonviolent_stuff_cover_4-11-14-1

Professor Cobb goes into great detail of how guns made survival possible for many blacks fighting against man’s law.  

Cobb’s book is both a history of the civil rights movement and a memoir of his involvement. Cobb was a field secretary for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), one of the front-line civil rights organizations in the 1960s South. As the name suggests, SNCC — like many of the civil rights organizations — eventually adopted Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s belief in peaceful non-resistance. But as Cobb’s book explains, even Dr. King was not initially prepared to turn the other cheek.

Sympathizers described Dr. King’s house in the 1950s as an arsenal. Dr. King was not unique: as Cobb’s book explains, idealistic young men and women like himself with college educations and often from Northern cities could adopt the idea of non-violence at least in part because the Southern blacks that they had come to help were under no illusions of how well this idea of non-violence would work.

Many of these realistic Southern blacks were not young. Cobb recounts the story of an 80-year-old woman who had finally, because of the voter registration drives, been allowed to vote. She walked up to Stokely Carmichael, one of the civil rights organizers, outside a polling place, “and produced this enormous, rusty Civil War-looking old pistol. ‘Best you hol’ this for me, son. I’ma go cast my vote now” (p. 3).

Many of the Southern blacks prepared to use guns in self-defense against the Klan were veterans of World War II and the Korean War, where they had learned self-confidence in combat and that being armed was part of what made you a citizen.

In other cases, the willingness to fight back involved less abstract concepts than voting. Cobb describes Lou Ella Townsend, a Mississippi cotton farmer who regularly carried a Luger pistol with him in the fields. One day, a white man on horseback saw Townsend’s teenaged niece in the field, and told her “that he intended the take the girl back home, and also that he was going to beat her niece so she would know her place.” Townsend made it clear that doing so would be his last action on Earth. “Of twenty-two brothers and sisters in [Townsend’s] family, she and two others were the only children who were not the product of rape by white men” (p. 94).

The point is that our 2nd amendment rights protect all our other rights.  It is really that simple and the reason the Left is working so hard to eliminate it.  They, many lovers of Mao, understand power comes from the barrel of a gun and if they are the only ones with a gun, they are in power.   Not rocket science guys….  So anyone who thinks limits should be put on your right to keep and bear arms is a bad guy.  Maybe sincere in their beliefs, but still not anyone you want in a position of power.

The key here isn’t if we have machine guns or tanks- a silly facetious argument from the Left- it is about meeting force with force, equal force.  When the federal agents showed up in their tailored 511 outfits and hundred dollar sunglasses, sporting their Glocks and tricked out ARs, with the Aimpoint scopes and lasers,  they expected to be able to run over the hicks and rubes from the fly over part of our nation.  Instead, they were met with men and women of steel carrying the same exact AR platforms.  Trust me, you want to see a poop chute pucker, watch when someone realizes they aren’t the big dog on the corner anymore.  Plus, I’m sure even as tight as that 511 bought boonie cap may have been on top of that shaved headed officer, it didn’t cut off the flow of blood to his brain so he could still count.  Once the numbers on the other side passed the numbers on his side he did a little recalculating on his “I’m the law, you do as I say!” attitude.

And as I said in one of my comments on another site, that is why there is an “R” on your gear shifter!

Glenn Beck thinks the message won the day- ala Gandhi. However, on THIS particular day numbers- and guns- won.

Lastly, whether Bundy is right in the eye’s of man’s law is not important.  The laziness of the media and the politicians is astounding on this subject.   Bundy is the last rancher targeted for extinction by a bureaucratic administrative government now run by very agenda driven people.   Years ago there were many ranchers like him.  They were driven out of business by the every increasing regulations put in place not by the State of Nevada, or the county he lived in, but by a federal government thousands of miles away.  The term”government” isn’t really correct, it is the will of the bureaucrats INSIDE the government. Those people, exemplified by the likes of Lois Lerner, have thirty year careers meddling with the rights of the people they feel superior to.  And then they get a sweet retirement on top of it!

Eco-terrorists used to be on the outside protesting the abuses of the environment, now they are on the inside, doing the harm they couldn’t accomplish with protests by using the power of the government.  And they work hard getting citizens and the media to simply accept that this is the way it is.  Here is an example of this acceptance. Note how the author of the piece uses another ranch as an example of “getting along” with the government and what price it extracts.

While holistic management has been shown to work in many places, advocates at both ends of the spectrum remain wary.

Some environmental activists oppose any practice that leaves cows on the land. Meanwhile, the cattle industry lobby resists anything which might restrict or regulate their business.

Meanwhile, some environmental organizations – concerned that the traffic and construction associated with second-home and recreational development could make things worse than cattle ranching – have worked closely with ranchers to control and limit potentially harmful grazing through such things as easements and conservation set-asides.

In the Trout Creek Mountains of south-east Oregon, the manager of the White Horse Ranch (which dates back to the 19th century and includes grazing rights on more than a quarter million acres of federal land) worked with the BLM, the Sierra Club, the Izzak Walton League and other conservation groups to restore fragile streams through “exclosures” built to control the cattle and by adjusting the seasonal rotation of the herd.

This reduced annual ranch profits by an estimated 15 percent. But it helped restore the habitat of a threatened trout species, thus removing the threat of even stricter regulation (and perhaps removal) of cattle there.

Okay, so what the author is saying is that the “science is settled” on the threat to the trout AND the only way to save a fish is to cause a rancher to loose 15% of his income- which may bankrupt him, as it did with Bundy’s friends and fellow ranchers in Nevada, or the government could take his cattle.  HIS cattle….over a fish.

The fact the author has accepted the outcome without complaint shows just how effective the big government advocates are in either dumbing down free thought or cowering citizens.

The size of the target doesn’t matter either, it is the surge of power the bureaucrats get when they throw their weight around that gets them going.  Why in the world is the federal government and even local governments  chasing raw milk providers?  (Which by the way enforces my theory of “fad” governance.  Once one level does something, like the little brother trying to keep up with the older one, local governments feel the need to follow suit.) I mean, who cares?  Have the purchaser sign a waiver if they get sick from it they are responsible and move on. But no, it is war and an abusive one at that.

But why? Why be like that?  Because humans can’t help getting a charge out of controlling other humans.  Cops take the brunt of that complaint, but trust me, they aren’t the only or worst abusers.  Everybody from the lady standing behind the counter at the DMV to the Supreme Court judge, who gives an opinion he knows will fundamentally warp one sixth of our economy forever, government officials and bureaucrats enjoy the power their authority gives them- and they love it!

Glenn Beck speaks of taking the peaceful way because the optics of civilians confronting authorities makes the civilians look bad.  I’m going to disagree with that.  I think the abuses have reached the point where most citizens have felt the heavy weight of the government at one point or another, so their patience for the abuse is gone.  They will instinctively side with the victim, as long as the victim is struck first by the government.

Besides, the bottom line is the lesson we can learn from the civil rights era.  Sometimes being right isn’t enough.  Sometimes being a force makes the real difference.  Just ask the Christian children being beheaded by Islamics in Africa if having a gun would have been a good idea.

Remember, if you are dead, your voice is silent. Mr. Howard, a civil rights activist from Mississippi, recognized this early on.

 Some of the incidents that Cobb describes are pretty funny, at least to those of us who are gun rights activists. Dr. Theodore Howard, a surgeon in Mississippi, was a local civil rights leader. He had no illusions about the effectiveness of non-violence. A reporter from Ebony magazine who came to interview Dr. Howard had trouble opening the front door; “a stack of weapons was blocking the door.” Another visitor reported “a magnum pistol and a .45-caliber pistol at the head of Howard’s bed; a submachine gun rested at its foot. He also saw ‘a long gun, a shotgun or a rifle in every corner of every room’” (p. 132).

Smart.

Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Lois Lerner and the technique of “bleeding the pig.” Congress keeps pressing- good.

She’s retired now.  She’s rich in a moderate way and I’m assuming the cost of the lawyers involved are coming out of her pocket.  Sooner or later, that cost is going to be excessive.  Sooner or later, the paperwork, the lies, the pressure will become excessive. Now she may possess the character of Tony Soprano and can do “a nickel standing on my head.” But I doubt it.  She is a pampered bureaucrat always used to HAVING the power, not someone else having it over her.

This is the next logical step.

The House Committee on Ways and Means will vote Wednesday on whether to refer ex-IRS official Lois Lerner to the Department of Justice (DOJ) on criminal charges, The Daily Caller has learned.

Ways and Means’ vote will occur the day before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s Thursday meeting to discuss holding Lerner in contempt for stonewalling Oversight chairman Rep. Darrell Issa’s investigation.

Lerner previously sat for a “Q+A” with DOJ lawyers on the IRS targeting matter that was not under oath. Information about that interview has been requested by the Oversight committee, but has yet to be made publicly available. DOJ’s investigation into the IRS scandal, headed by Obama political donor Barbara Bosserman, previously leaked the news that the department was not planning to file charges in connection with the case.

Here’s a point. I may be wrong, but I doubt it.  You can’t have an informal Q&A with the feds and then run around claiming your right to avoid self incrimination.  If she lied to the feds about any criminal wrongdoing, thus pushing the investigation in the wrong direction or covering something up, that is a federal felony and she goes to jail (just ask Scooter Libby).

If she didn’t lie but told them the truth, and then claimed she had the right to not tell the truth to the Congress- that is obstruction of Congress (ask the baseball players).

It’s a trick bag, she’s in it, and a good prosecutor would take a stick and beat the outside of it until she cried uncle.

Enough! I’ll talk!

Posted in politics | Leave a comment

Understanding the lie of 7.1 million

This is really simple and a great opportunity once again to witness humans in a place and time where the government lies to them and they accept it en mass- like Japan, China, Russia and Germany.

We laugh at “those people” for falling prey to what HISTORY showed was a pack of lies.  Sure the Japanese were not superior people, or the Chinese great leaps forward were anything but, or the Russians were winning a cold war  or the “What camps?” deal with the Germans.

How did it happen, over and over, throughout history?  Simple, people became complacent, worried about their own personal safety and future, and the media/government became one voice.  So it was easier than you’d think just to shut down, keep your eyes looking at the road right in front of you, and ignore the voices screaming in your head that you are being lied to.

And one day you realize it really isn’t that hard to do after all and you let others tell your kids the lies, without complaining or acting, rationalizing that it is for the best.  And let’s admit it, mankind can rationalize about anything.

Obamacare’s lies are just one more example of this acceptance of a lie in exchange for temporary peace in our lives.  The 7.1 million enrollees is the latest.

The real problem with Obama’s announcement wasn’t the tone; it was the false premise. Most of the people who he touted today had insurance before Obamacare came along. In fact, we’ve had two surveys in recent weeks. The McKinsey survey found that just 27 percent of sign ups were previously uninsured. Yesterday the LA Times revealed details from an unpublished RAND corp. survey which found that “about one-third” of all sign-ups were previously uninsured.

If we assume, best case, that 33 percent of the 7.1 million were previously uninsured, that works out to to about 2.3 million people. But as we all know by now, not everyone who signs up actually pays. The McKinsey survey found that previously uninsured people were far less likely to pay. In fact, just 53 percent followed through. To be generous, let’s assume they bring this up to 80 percent. That means the total number of enrolled but previously uninsured people will be about 1.85 million.

That’s a lot of newly insured people but it’s only a tiny fraction of the 7.1 million announced today or the 45 million uninsured the administration said Obamacare was supposed to address. We’ve spent four years and hundreds of millions of dollars on websites and media outreach to pick up fewer than 2 million enrollees. And that’s not to mention that the vast majority are receiving a government subsidy to offset the cost.

It actually is worse.  The number isn’t real in the first place.  Remember, up until less than a month ago, the administration claimed UNDER OATH, they had no way to get real numbers to Congress of how many actually signed up.  No tracking was available, they lamented.  Now suddenly they have presented a number that magically hits the mark.

Either they are lying then, or they are lying now.  There is no in between.

Obama was recently quoted, and I’ll paraphrase here because I can’t find the article, saying this very insightful comment.  “It is not about winning the argument, but about winning the moment.”   What he meant by that is why we see the 7.1 million number put out there by the administration on the day it was critical to the argument that it be said.  The number is false- to a level of a man being caught in bed with a hooker by his wife and saying “What woman?” false!  But the MSM won’t question it, and will actually promote it- even knowing in their hearts (or what acts as their hearts anyway) the number is bogus.

But the damage is done. The “moment” is seized and now the people who know better are fighting to simply be heard, forget being listened to.  This is like Climate change and gay marriage.  The arguments are “won” and any contrary voice is dissent that must be destroyed.

By the way, I know a lot of lawyers trained in that very method.  Being correct isn’t as important as winning the argument with bull.  Just win, being right doesn’t matter.

However, reality has a tendency to bite people like Obama in the butt.  The number is false, the supporting data shows the whole idea of shifting insurance into a government controlled market was bad, really bad. And the unraveling will continue.  The next step is the insurance companies raising their rates and the continued cancelling of policies no longer legal or profitable.

After that will be the issue of the care. You can have insurance, but insurance does not equate to care.  Wait to those stories start coming in DAILY!!  That is what the dems fear in November 2014. Everyone will know someone who was hurt by this.  Now they will try to keep the Republicans from crowing about this by saying the case is settled and only a fool would continue to beat on it, but the real truth is the dems are the ones who know they are going to take it in the shorts here.  They know, I know, I hope the establishment Republicans are the gonads to keep up the full court press here and crush the weak candidates.

If we don’t, the government will be pressured to fund the failing Obamacare, which in turn will force it to find more ways to tax (or seize) your assets.  You watch.  One day somebody is going to suggest the government take control of the pensions and IRAs in exchange for a promise of payment to you later.  That way it steals the trillions in cash in those funds in order to stay afloat over entitlement pressures, and replaces it with a IOU written on the same paper used for Medicare, Social Security and Obamacare.

You watch.

 

 

Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Uh…what? Army recruit swears a jihad against the military, and the FBI lost him.

No way.  “Lost” is  a temporary, unless the guy went underground and has help.  But then again.

The FBI is searching for a recent Army recruit believed to be planning a “Fort Hood-inspired jihad against U.S. soldiers,” FoxNews.com has learned.

The alert, whose legitimacy was confirmed by military and law enforcement officials, stated that a man identified as Booker had told friends of his “intention to commit jihad.” Booker, who is also known as Muhammad Abdullah Hassan, was recruited by the U.S. Army in Kansas City, Mo., in February 2014 and was scheduled to report for basic training on April 7. But he was discharged last week, apparently after law enforcement authorities learned of his alleged plan.

Both the FBI and the 902d Military Intelligence Group at Fort Leavenworth are involved in the hunt.

The alert, a copy of which was obtained by FoxNews.com, was sent out by the FBI’s Kansas City Division on Friday and distributed through the U.S. Marine Corps. The portion obtained by FoxNews.com did not include Hassan’s photo or age. It was also sent to the Kansas City Police Department, which could indicate authorities believe he may have remained in the area where he was recruited.

The alert is titled, “Planned Fort Hood-inspired Jihad against US Soldiers by Army Recruit” and was issued “to inform and protect officers who may encounter this individual or others exhibiting the same aspirations.” The source of the information contained in the alert was listed as “An FBI agent.”

According to the alert:

“On 20 March 2014, the Kansas City Division FBI became aware of an individual named BOOKER aka Muhammad Abdullah Hassan who had publicly stated his intention to commit jihad, bidding farewell to his friends and making comments indicating his jihad was imminent. BOOKER had been recruited by the US Army in Kansas City, Mo., in February 2014 and was scheduled to report for Basic Training on 7 April 2014. Kansas City Division Agents interviewed BOOKER on 20 March 2014.”

Like many have said before, we are under a constant low level series of attacks by Muslims committed to killing the “Great Satan.”  They aren’t kidding.  We are kidding ourselves when we apply PC to the threat. The Boston bombers got away with it because of PC.  This guy might get away with something if they don’t find him.

I feel for the street level agents in the FBI, the good cops, who must be just pulling their hair out.

Update: Jawa Report has more information.

Here’s our guy.  Great…

Muhammad-Abdullah-Hassan-Booker-Facebook.jpg

 

The good news here is that the man, known only as “Booker”, never showed up for basic training. So, this isn’t an “imminent” attack of any sort. The news so far suggests that he planned to join the military, infiltrate the ranks, and only then follow in the footsteps of Nidal Hasan in committing mass murder against his fellow soldiers.

 

The bad news? Apparently, “Booker” is on the run:

On 20 March 2014, the Kansas City Division FBI became aware of an individual named BOOKER aka Muhammad Abdullah Hassan who had publicly stated his intention to commit jihad, bidding farewell to his friends and making comments indicating his jihad was imminent. BOOKER had been recruited by the US Army in Kansas City, Mo., in February 2014 and was scheduled to report for Basic Training on 7 April 2014. Kansas City Division Agents interviewed BOOKER on 20 March 2014.There’s a BOLO out on “Booker”, but it’s not clear to me if the FBI and military want to catch this guy why they don’t publicly release his real name along with a picture? If he decided not to show up for basic training, then here are the reasons as I see them: a) he suspected that his plot had been detected so he ran (Update: I don’t know how I overlooked this, but the FBI interviewed him in March so of course he realized they were on to him); b) he got cold feet, in which case was there really any crime committed since he may have decided not to carry out the original plot; c) he decided to commit some other act of terror.

One last thing that may be cause for worry:

Law enforcement sources familiar with the alert said it appeared to suggest that there may be others in addition to Booker who also might have expressed similar intentions to commit jihad against U.S. military installations. [emphasis mine]A bigger plot with multiple suspects on the loose? So, it sounds like the military is treating this as a potential threat against bases within the US … so we go with option “C”, even if it is only a precautionary alert as to what “Booker” might do.

Nice.  They talked to him and he ran.  Well, at least he hasn’t blown up a marathon like the last terrorist the FBI “talked to” and let go.

Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Obamacare, lies and more lies. How can we trust anything they say is true?

I was not surprised, but I was disappointed when the administration- which has said repeatedly for months in Congressional testimony it cannot get statistics on how the system is working and how many signed up (which is a lie)- now says six million signed up! That lie wasn’t a surprise, the disappointment was the MSM just copied and pasted the announcement without one question.

Again.

Listen, I get the state run media in other countries.  They are actually FUNDED by the government through taxes collected by the government on its citizens.  So that media can lie or not, cover up or not, be competent or not, as long as their masters are happy.

But this is America.  We are supposed to enjoy a free press, one that questions the authority.  Not anymore I’m afraid.  And if there is one example of this it is the entire nation crushing nightmare that is Obamacare.  Instead of beating it to death like they did Vietnam by talking about the “failure” of it every night on TV (and let’s be honest here, Vietnam looks like a cakewalk compared to Obamacare!), the MSM pushes any bull they can to keep the lie going.  Their theory can only be that the sheer weight of the effort will push the program over the finish line.

But it won’t.  The program was badly designed and will simply fall apart, taking our healthcare system with it.  Yet, that does not stop the lies, the newest one is that six million people have signed up.

The law clearly states that today is the final day to sign up for Obamacare. Only it isn’t. The extension announced last week covers anyone who merely claims they intend to apply. Allowing such a frivolous and unverifiable gesture to circumvent the law neatly captures the paternalistic arrogance of the White House and its signature legislation — only the intent matters. Pay no attention to the cavalcade of undesirable consequences; if we mean well, we can do whatever we want.

The old proverb tells us that the road to hell is paved with such good intentions. But in the short term, the Obama team’s obfuscations have paid political dividends. For example, media attention has centered lately on the gross number of enrollments — the assumption being that if that number reaches 6 million, the latest White House target, then everyone can declare victory and move on.

But the overarching objective of the Affordable Care Act was never a specific enrollment target or, say, smoothly running software. The goal was to dramatically reduce the number of Americans without health insurance while reducing costs. On that score an honest look at the numbers reveals true failure. The vast majority of those signing up to date were previously covered, a travesty given the bill’s 10-year cost of over $2 trillion.

Begin with the administration’s claim of 5 million enrollments at mid-March, and generously assume they reach 6 million by the deadline. Unfortunately, not all will pay. Analysts at Goldman Sachs estimate that about 20 percent of those who sign up won’t follow through, leaving 4.8 million bona fide Obamacare exchange participants.

How many were uninsured last year? The White House doesn’t seem to know or care. A nationwide survey of those eligible by McKinsey Consulting determined that between 11 and 27 percent were previously without coverage. Accepting the higher figure, the exchanges have taken 1.2 million off the rolls of the uninsured.

Additionally, the law expands Medicaid eligibility. While President Obama recently trumpeted about 6 million new enrollments, nearly half the total comes from states that chose not to expand the program. Most of those remaining were already eligible under the old rules. In short, the law provided new Medicaid coverage for roughly 500,000 people not previously eligible.

Soooo… what does that mean?  Well, the democrats upended a functioning system, the best in the world, to “cover” some fictitious 30 million people and in the end didn’t cover any more or less than before- at a cost of trillions of dollars and a system now so screwed up people can’t get coverage or care.

So what was their real goal? Control and taxes.  In the end, the government wants your money to flow through their hands, along with your health care needs they will manage, and restrict…for a fee. (Broken record moment here- it is all about the money, always about the money.)

Medicaid is an example of this push. Tens of thousands of “eligible” participants, qualified for private insurance, were shoved into Medicaid and then claimed as a victory.  Unfortunately, many of those people had insurance before the law, better than Medicaid’s, and were forced off their plans by Obamacare.  Not a victory.

Additionally, the law expands Medicaid eligibility. While President Obama recently trumpeted about 6 million new enrollments, nearly half the total comes from states that chose not to expand the program. Most of those remaining were already eligible under the old rules. In short, the law provided new Medicaid coverage for roughly 500,000 people not previously eligible.

Ironically, a large number of new Medicaid participants probably come from companies that have scaled back insurance coverage because of Obamacare’s costs. Target, Walmart, and Trader Joe’s are the most notable among them, but there are scores of others accounting for tens of thousands of workers — perhaps hundreds of thousands. A bill that takes credit for helping to insure workers who lost insurance because of that bill is less a public policy than a shell game.

Finally, the tally of Obamacare beneficiaries should include approximately 3.1 million adults under age 26 who are now required to be covered under their parents’ policy. That leaves a grand total around 5 million, or $400,000 each under the bill’s cost.

From there, the math only gets worse. Each year, millions of uninsured Americans find coverage through a new employer, Medicaid, or other means. In fact, the number of uninsured has fallen every year since peaking after the 2008 recession. Many of the 1.2 million newly insured through the exchanges likely would have found coverage regardless. Moreover, we know that at least 5 million families have received cancellation notices. Some polices have been temporarily extended, and some have not, but all will lose their insurance once the law goes into full effect.

The author points out the real goal to is drive insurance companies out of business. Maybe the companies knew this going in back in 2009 and were playing for time, hoping elections brought new leaders with better ideas.  It was a bad play.  Now they, and us, are stuck with something that will destroy our ability to live a healthy life.

And the MSM keeps telling the lies.

 

Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

What do I think about Noah? Well, the director’s outfit says it all.

Here’s a clue in life.  If the person you are talking to is wearing “I’m special” clothes…he’s probably not.  Brilliant in a small corner of something maybe- like an artist or sculptor, but not the guy you want to get sage advice from.  He’s to into himself.

 

Darren Aronofsky

See what I mean?  He went a little edgy in that second one!

In the real world he’d last about five seconds before someone took his scarf from him for fun.  Just is.   So how does he get so much attention?  He makes interesting movies and Noah should be categorized as such. In fact, it is so off the biblical mark I’m surprised we didn’t just throw in a Darth Vader cameo appearance and make it a sci-fi flick.

Noah director and self-professed atheist Darren Aronofsky has managed to make a secular film about a Bible figure, painting Noah as an “environmentalist” in a film that doesn’t mention God once.

Given that he is best known for Requiem For A Dream, Black Swan and The Wrestler, Aronofsky’s decision to make an adventure epic about the Bible’s most CGI-friendly of events, Noah’s flood, was met with a collective “Really?” last year.

To the delight of the atheist and the concern of the pious however, Aronofsky’s film is pushing an environmentalist rather than religious agenda.

The danger with this is what people perceive.  If the movie’s line of bull is bought by millions of people, as Oliver Stone’s JFK movie is thought to have influenced, then the meaning of the Biblical story of the Flood is missed.  Which I fear is Aronofsky’s mission.

Even my son made some comment about how God was upset about man’s destruction of the earth.  This is silly.   Think about the fact that if you believe in the Bible’s interpretation of the beginning then “man” was limited to a small area around the now nation of Iraq.  Even then the humans were small tribes of people, not able to do much damage to any large area of land.  Outside their influence, the planet was pristine.  So how did God get mad at a small tribe of primitive men and women doing damage to land less than a hundred miles square on a planet untouched that was billions of times bigger?

See?

Worse, God, if he is all knowing about the past, present and future, would know the real damage would come seven millenniums later.  So why wipe out a barely surviving race of people now? There had to be another reason.  People like Aronofsky don’t want to touch that third rail because it interferes with their lifestyles.  God punished man because they had become wicked, self absorbed and fallen away from him.  Hey Daniel, make that movie! That there is a God, he cares about what happens and he does punish the wicked.

No? Not surprised, but that is one wicked scarf!

Listen, I hear it is a great CGI movie, but let’s not get excited about the biblical element here.  No more than we can get excited about the JFK movie Stone did.  Both are works of ego driven fiction.

 

Posted in politics | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Agreeing with Putin. What would we have done? Or did in the past?

One of the biggest faults in our worldview is comparing what we would do to what another nation or leader would do in a similar situation.  We think like Americans with our ingrained love for the “rule of law” (on a side note- something even our leadership is now dangerously ignoring) and for our sense of free will.  In the Ukraine we have a situation where a corrupt- but legally recognized- government was overthrown by rightfully pissed off citizens.  The “crime” that broke the back of the government was its choice to join Russia rather than the EU.  Frankly, frying pan/fire deal here, but that’s my opinion.

However, the new government was recognized by the West and not recognized by the Russians. Further, there is a large section of that nation occupied by Russian citizens.  How they got there was wrong, but they are there.  Crimea is a VITAL asset the Russians cannot lose because it has the only warm water Russian naval base.  The Ukraine holds 60% of the oil and gas pipelines Russia uses to send their only real cash export- petro fuels- to Europe (which would crumble if they didn’t have that resource).

So, Ukraine is taken over by a group of people who do not want to be aligned with Russia, thus “seizing” all of Russia’s assets.  Russia reacts by surrounding and occupying sections of the nation in order to protect people and assets.   Wrong for sure- but how wrong?

Imagine the state of California- an economy 13th in the world- being seized by a group of people loyal to Mexico.  They claim they have the right to take California back, as it was “taken” from Mexico illegally.  These Mexicans literally seize power, occupy the statehouse and claim California a separate nation.  They do it because they don’t feel like they want to be part of the USA.  Immediately, North Korea, China and Pakistan recognize the new nation legitimacy.

What would you expect the USA to do?  Sit tight? File a lawsuit?  Nope, you’d see the airborne dropping in, tanks rolling across the border and soldiers seizing key locations to protect the assets.  And if we could, we would arrest and prosecute the rebels and return the state to the USA.  Why?  Well, Americans would be trapped inside the borders.  There are a ton of assets- including key military assets- within the borders.  The economic impact of removing California from our economy would be devastating.  We could not risk this getting any further out of hand.

And neither could the Russians. Obama knows this and Putin owns him over it.

Plus, we’ve done this a number of times ourselves.  Euphemistically called the “banana wars”, the U.S. sent in occupying troops (usually Marines) into a number of legitimate nations in order to protect our influence and private corporations’ assets. Here is a list from Wiki.

Interventions

  • Cuba and Puerto Rico, U.S. intervention in Cuba and invasion of Puerto Rico in 1898.
  • Panama, U.S. interventions in the isthmus go back to the 1846 Mallarino–Bidlack Treaty and intensified after the so-called Watermelon War of 1856. In 1903, Panamaseceded from the Republic of Colombia, backed by the U.S. government,[2] amidst the Thousand Days’ War. The Panama Canal was under construction by then, and the Panama Canal Zone, under United States sovereignty, was then created (it was handed down to Panama as of 2000).
  • Nicaragua, which, after intermittent landings and naval bombardments in the previous decades, was occupied by the U.S. almost continuously from 1912-1933.
  • Cuba, occupied by the U.S. from 1898-1902 under military governor Leonard Wood, and again from 1906 to 1909, 1912 and 1917 to 1922; governed by the terms of the Platt Amendment through 1934.
  • Haiti, occupied by the U.S. from 1915-1934, which led to the creation of a new Haitian constitution in 1917 that instituted changes that included an end to the prior ban on land ownership by non-Haitians. Including the First and Second Caco Wars.[3]
  • Dominican Republic, action in 1903, 1904 (the Santo Domingo Affair), and 1914; occupied by the U.S. from 1916 to 1924.
  • Honduras, where the United Fruit Company and Standard Fruit Company dominated the country’s key banana export sector and associated land holdings and railways, saw insertion of American troops in 1903, 1907, 1911, 1912, 1919, 1924 and 1925.[4] Writer O. Henry coined the term “Banana republic” in 1904 to describe Honduras.
  • Mexico, The U.S. military involvements with Mexico in this period are related to the same general commercial and political causes, but stand as a special case. The Americans conducted the Border War with Mexico from 1910-1919 for additional reasons: to control the flow of immigrants and refugees from revolutionary Mexico (pacificos), and to counter rebel raids into U.S. territory. The 1914 U.S. occupation of Veracruz, however, was an exercise of armed influence, not an issue of border integrity; it was aimed at cutting off the supplies of German munitions to the government of Mexican leader Victoriano Huerta,[5] whom US President Woodrow Wilson refused to recognize.[5] In the years prior to World War I, the U.S. was also alert to the regional balance of power against Germany. The Germans were actively arming and advising the Mexicans, as shown by the 1914 SS Ypiranga arms-shipping incident, German saboteur Lothar Witzke‘s base in Mexico City, the 1917 Zimmermann Telegram and German advisors present during the 1918 Battle of Ambos Nogales. Only twice during the Mexican Revolution did the US military occupy Mexico;[6] during the temporary occupation of Veracruz in 1914 and between the years 1916 and 1917, when US General John Pershing and his army came to Mexico to lead a nationwide search for Pancho Villa.

Other Latin American nations were influenced or dominated by American economic policies and/or commercial interests to the point of coercion. Theodore Roosevelt declared the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine in 1904, asserting the right of the United States to intervene to stabilize the economic affairs of states in the Caribbean and Central America if they were unable to pay their international debts. From 1909-1913, President William Howard Taft and his Secretary of StatePhilander C. Knox asserted a more “peaceful and economic” Dollar Diplomacy foreign policy, although that too was backed by force, as in Nicaragua.

So here’s the question. If we did it to protect our sphere of influence why are we upset if Putin does the same?  It doesn’t make it right, but I do understand the situation. And to be honest, he could have done it the old fashioned USSR way and just run over that nation, killing hundreds or thousands of under-armed Ukrainian soldiers and civilians (thanks Bill and the EU back in the nineties).  But he didn’t.  He was pretty cautious measuring our reaction, the Ukrainian reaction and the citizens’ reaction. He really is better than Obama at leadership- by light-years frankly.

If he continues to be the aggressor, he may over step, but right now the message he sent has been clearly received. Russia “owns” that part of the world.  Us trying to take it by making his former satellite nations join the EU isn’t going to work. And the little nations know we are paper tigers and won’t protect their decision.

Good work on Putin’s part.

Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

What….the….Fu….???? Brits burn dead babies for heat. No kidding…

And our elitists want that world for our nation.  Can I say F U!

The bodies of thousands of aborted and miscarried babies were incinerated as clinical waste, with some even used to heat hospitals, an investigation has found.

Ten NHS trusts have admitted burning foetal remains alongside other rubbish while two others used the bodies in ‘waste-to-energy’ plants which generate power for heat.

Last night the Department of Health issued an instant ban on the practice which health minister Dr Dan Poulter branded ‘totally unacceptable.’

At least 15,500 foetal remains were incinerated by 27 NHS trusts over the last two years alone, Channel 4’s Dispatches discovered.

The programme, which will air tonight, found that parents who lose children in early pregnancy were often treated without compassion and were not consulted about what they wanted to happen to the remains.

One of the country’s leading hospitals, Addenbrooke’s in Cambridge, incinerated 797 babies below 13 weeks gestation at their own ‘waste to energy’ plant. The mothers were told the remains had been ‘cremated.’

Another ‘waste to energy’ facility at Ipswich Hospital, operated by a private contractor, incinerated 1,101 foetal remains between 2011 and 2013.

They were brought in from another hospital before being burned, generating energy for the hospital site. Ipswich Hospital itself disposes of remains by cremation.

“This practice is totally unacceptable,” said Dr Poulter.

“While the vast majority of hospitals are acting in the appropriate way, that must be the case for all hospitals and the Human Tissue Authority has now been asked to ensure that it acts on this issue without delay.”

Sir Bruce Keogh, NHS Medical Director, has written to all NHS trusts to tell them the practice must stop.

The Chief Medical Officer, Dame Sally Davies, has also written to the Human Tissue Authority to ask them make sure that guidance is clear.

And the Care Quality Commission said it would investigate the programme’s findings.

Prof Sir Mike Richards, Chief Inspector of Hospitals, said: “I am disappointed trusts may not be informing or consulting women and their families.

“This breaches our standard on respecting and involving people who use services and I’m keen for Dispatches to share their evidence with us.

“We scrutinise information of concern and can inspect unannounced, if required.”

A total of one in seven pregnancies ends in a miscarriage, while NHS figures show there are around 4,000 stillbirths each year in the UK, or 11 each day.

Ipswich Hospital Trust said it was concerned to discover that foetal remains from another hospital had been incinerated on its site.

After suffering a slight stroke from the headlines I figured it out. The reason is simple. We treat unborn babies like property.  Just “stuff” to get rid of if it inconveniences our lives.  Why should we expect the hospitals or the society- which are made up of us- to act with any greater care or respect?

This is the end of what humanity could have been.  Wait till you see an overacting male lead in a movie go running by screaming “Soylent Green is people!”

 

Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why the police act like you are the enemy sometimes. The Orlando police officer shooting.

By kids with no record for no reason.

A British teenager and her American boyfriend gunned down a US police officer in Florida before turning the weapon on themselves minutes later, police say.

Alexandria Hollinghurst, 17, and Brandon Goode, 18, were stopped by a police officer as they walked down a street in a wealthy residential suburb of Orlando, Florida in the early hours of Saturday morning.

Police Officer Robert German encountered the pair while on a routine foot patrol and immediately called for back-up after deeming them suspicious.

But when back-up police arrived on the scene, they found the officer had been shot and was lying fatally injured in the road with the teenagers nowhere to be seen.

According to US police chiefs, the officers then had to run for cover as at least two gunshots went off about one block away.

A search was carried out and they found the teenagers dead from apparently self-inflicted gunshot wounds in the grounds of multi-million dollar home.

US authorities said it appeared both Goode and Hollinghurst – known as Alex – had committed suicide, but her family believes she may have been murdered by her boyfriend.

Orange County Sheriff Jerry Demings said last night: ‘It appears they likely committed suicide.’

Last night a major investigation was under way into the deaths, but it is believed Hollinghurst originally came from Oldham, Greater Manchester, and her family had emigrated to the US.

The dead officer was wearing a body camera.

Why? Who knows. Hopefully the camera will show us what the last contact looked like.   Yes, the bad guys can look innocent.  It explains why the police justify training as though everybody is a bad guy until proven different, a policy I did not agree with. Life is a risk. Crazy things happen in an instant. You can’t shoot the old guy getting out of a truck with a cane or some 13yr old with an airsoft gun because some other asswipe teenager somewhere shot a cop for no reason.  The two are different and should be treated as different.  (Chances are the gun was stolen. A pic shows an older long barrel revolver like a S&W or Colt .357. No way that kids owned it legally. They probably broke into a home to get it.)

I told my fellow officers this;  “A bad guy always has the first shot at us.  They know who they are and what they are intending to do, we don’t.  We always have to react to them, not act upon them thinking we can because we are afraid.  All we can do is hope the bad guy is a bad shot, then it is our turn and we make them pay.”

I’m sure the officer didn’t think he was dealing with a potential murderer when he stepped out with them.  The number of street contacts an average patrolman makes in his career are in the tens of thousands.  The chances of them being lethal are very small. Sadly, it just takes only one.

Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment