There is so much to talk about right now, more prevalent being those of the new monstrosity of a health bill, and then the "Climategate" evidence that has recently surfaced. Since the health care bill still has some running to do, and the climate scandal has just surfaced, let's go with the latter.
If you haven't heard about this week old Climategate as of yet, there is a pretty good reason. Here's an article talking about how none of the major news agencies are talking about it, save for Fox. Not too surprising, they tried to ignore the ACORN sandal, Van Jones scandal, and anything else that that challenges their M.O. Yet, 11 AP journalists are working overtime to find any disparaging information in the new Sarah Palin book. Too bad we don't have the same thing going on Barak's books...
So, in case you've been gone for the past decade or so, Al Gore and company have been jetting across the globe, promoting world carbon reduction in an effort to save the planet. Originally, it was called global warming, but as just about everyone has noted, it is certainly not getting hotter around here. Thus, more recently, it is monikered, "climate change" which is utterly ridiculous because obviously, the climate does change. It changes a lot, actually. Right now it's friggin' cold and windy.
Climate change is supported by many respected individuals within the scientific community. Accordingly, the data collected over the last several decades has (had?) pointed to a growing trend of earth being heated. In this case, the data suggested that 1998 was the hottest year on record. Since then (and thus the change from "global warming" to "climate change") the global temperatures have declined a bit. Nevertheless, upon the horizon, or so we were informed, it was going to get much warmer, so much so, in fact, that glaciers would melt, deserts would expand, droughts increase, and seas would rise. (see link below)
This ideology of reducing our carbon footprint gained a lot of traction, mainly due to "science," press/propaganda and now, after this scandal emerged, fraud. Of course, there were legitimate scientists debating the actual cause of climate changes even before this scandal emerged, but accordingly, "the debate is over" was the battle cry 4 years ago. As a matter of fact, no vis-a-vis debate ever took place! Instead, the UN jumped on board and the IPCC was more than willing to push data for funding, which is exactly what has come to light with this recent scandal; Climategate.
Enter in a hacker. Typically, hackers can be 'thrown under the bus' as they say all too often these days. A hacker gets into your computer, steals your data, then uses it for ... everything. But in this case, this hacker, perhaps the only good one out there, hacked into CRU, Britain's Climate Research Unit facility. 61 megabytes of information were taken. CRU pushes what is called the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory, or in other words, man-made global warming. In this stolen data we have years of email correspondence, research data and manipulated evidence. What's interesting is that in the emails, there appears to be deliberate collusion between these leading scientists to use false information in their concurrent publications. In turn, these reports are used by the IPCC and then, the UN. Of course, Al Gore uses it in his presentations which trickle down into our media and schools.
This information couldn't have come at a better time, however. In December we have the global climate change conference in Copenhagen. Consider this the new version of the overly failed Kyoto Protocol, but on steroids. This conference is armed to the teeth with pro-climate change goons heavily fed on information cooked up by the CRU, IPCC and lobbied by the UN. Ergo, this scandal undermines their standing. Seeing how pleased our current administration is on getting cap-n-trade achieved here, I would not be too surprised if something with our name on it got signed during that conference. But with this new evidence coming to light, and the fact that this scandal is finally getting some traction, perhaps this one false science can be put to rest.
Perhaps calling this a false science is over-simplifying it. There may be climate change, but the relevance of human impact may be so insignificant, that there is very little we can actually do to change it. As I said before, the climate does change, everyday for those outside of the southwest. They recently stated that when Mt. Krakatoa erupted, it affected [cooled] global climates for several months. One volcano erpution.
Let me say, that, from my state, we are conscientious about the environment. And, my goal isn't to make anything less habitable. I'd rather see cities grow-up (high-rises) rather than grow out (expand). But, this climate science is flawed, deliberately. Cars emit 97% less pollution now than 35 years ago. Appliances met energy star requirements to be more efficient. We have better insulation for walls, better windows, furnaces, clean coal plants, and on and on. And we didn't need false science to push for all that. We did it. Made ourselves more efficient through innovation, even capitalism. Besides, when was the last time you heard about acid rain?
While this is good news in terms of commerce and personal freedom, it makes you wonder what other data is being manipulated to push an agenda. Eh? Did you say health care? Yes, yes, I'll get to that topic again, trust me.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Be Vigilant
I have been wondering for the past few weeks about a scenario that would be plausible if, for example, the current administration was, in fact, totally against the current status quo of the United States of America.
As you know, I've opined often enough that I believe the democrats are well intentioned, but that their basis for getting to their utopia is flawed. Giving government handouts and taxing the citizens will never lead to a perfect world. You have to change people's hearts for the good of mankind in order to achieve the perfect world ideology. Giving handouts and taxing the honest workers will only make one class entirely dependent on the government, and another class totally bitter. In essence, class warfare (Gasp! A communist manifesto!).
So let's go to the other side of the coin: Obama and his colleagues are anti-American and eager to destroy this great country.
Looking at Obama's history thus far in the White House, we can certainly conclude that he has least "American" ideology to have occupied the Oval Office. Shall we enumerate a few examples? Of course! From a recent article:
Not to say other presidents were not of the same ideological family, but in this case, he's a compilation of all the center to hard left ideas we've ever seen, and then some. Thus, not in line with former Presidents.
Here is the first problem that I have with Obama waging war against the citizens of the US. The military does not like him, nor respect him for that matter. There is no way the soldiers of this country would gun down their own people. As a matter of fact, military personnel take an oath to protect the Constitution, protecting a President comes secondary. He's cut their funding, reneged on the missile defense for Poland and Czech Republic, and is waffling on the urgent request for 40,000 more troops in Afghanistan. So I wager he has very few friends in the military. Best option would be Marshall Law, and even then I'd bet the military would be hard pressed to shoot upon civilians.
Next is the huge network of Police Officers. Things would have been fine in this camp, except for that asinine comment a few months ago wherein he made a bad decision on labeling police office Crowley as "stupid" for having arrested Professor Gates. Now, if you know a police officer personally, you know it's one big extended family that protects their own. And I've heard plenty of dissension from them regarding Obama these days. Let's not forget the motto, "to serve and protect." After the "beer summit" at the White House, I don't expect many officers to accept any orders from the White house instructing them to do harm against society.
Lastly, the intelligence community of the CIA. The White house has sponsored a special committee to investigate the alleged abuses against terrorist with no rights under the Geneva convention, the Constitution, or even the UN (up to that point). Nevertheless, Attorney General Eric Holder has put together this investigation. Let's not forget Mr. Holder originates from the law firm that represents 18 Guantanamo detainees before being appointed Attorney General. But, again, it would appear that Obama has no friends in the CIA camp either.
So if Obama was going to subvert and "fundamentally change" this country, how is he going to do it with no military, no police, and no CIA/intelligence community willfully backing him up? Honestly, this is an open question, because from here on out, it is hypotheses and conjecture.
First on the list is the supposed personal military defense force that Obama reference to back in July of 2008 in Colorado. A link is provided above in case that doesn't ring a bell with you. Now, it would cost a lot (and we have no money for it) to have another force equivalent to our military, and I think we would have heard more about it since then. To date, nothing. But, this would be the first best option if you were going to undermine the entire social structure of the US, and rebuild it a la USSR in 1919 or China in 1949. Kill millions, re-educate the leftovers. There is a small plausibility of the GIVE Act passed in May as being a part of this force, but again, nothing from the watch dogs about it. Still, with most of our military deployed across seas in the middle east, Germany, South Korea, etc., these Obama para-militaries could get away with a lot, if they existed.
The second option is the more probable way of defeating the core fundamentals of the country. Remember that Obama ran as a centrist? Said he believed in the Second Amendment, etc., and people took him at his word. We're still a rather trusting nation, to a fault it would seem. Well, he isn't a centrist and he doesn't play bi-partisan politics either. He doesn't even like one news station, out of many, to be non-pro Obama. For the most part, Bush didn't have any news stations on his side. Still doesn't, actually!
Sales for guns and ammo are up, way up! Typically, in a given year, between 7-10 billion rounds of ammo are sold in the US. We'll pass 12 billion this year, a record. What is going on here? People are gearing up for something. And I were Obama, the polarising president bent on rebuilding a nation I loath, I'd give them something to build up for. You don't need the military on your side, the CIA, nor the local enforcement, all you need to do is put enough policies in place that undermine the Constitution and then finally someone says "Enough!" and the dominoes start to fall, non-violently at first such as protest (tea parties), but progressively more sinister, maybe even staged, and magnified by an agenda driven media. But, the economy can't be in a good place, because then dissent will be slightly muted. Not only that, but you need people to be edgy, in need of basic human sustenance such as food, water, shelter, money, or whatever. And once you have that, they will go from "enough" to "need to survive" and then they weed each other out, regardless of party affiliation. And after enough have suffered, start the rebuilding process.
I only took one anthropology class in college, and in hindsight, I wish I had taken more. It was about China, and the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution they went through. The two books I read were excellent yet highly demoralizing as I read story after story about massive suffering and indignities. I still remember one story about a child finding a half eaten carrot on the ground, and crying because he felt like the luckiest kid in the world for finding it. They starved because the government decided where the food went, and that is entirely plausible if dissidents raised up in this country. I believe you can find that in a book, called "The Spiral Road."
Then the question becomes; how far are we from that last option of self-elimination? We just had a few elections here yesterday. In the areas where Obama went and stumped for the candidates, they lost, by comfortable margins, to Republicans. We are one year from elections in 2010, where all the seats in the House of Representatives will be up for grabs. If we can last that long (due to the economy) and subsequent change is made, then reasonable heads should prevail.
However, before then, one should understand that the federal dollars attached to the "stimulus bill" will be flowing quickly (to date, less than 30% of the $787 billion has been handed out) which is an excellent way to buy votes for politicians. Basically, the more people that are unemployed now, the better come next July when stimulus monies flood into counties creating jobs, and since Republicans didn't support that bill, just say thanks by voting for the local democrat.
Also, watch for "immigration reform" to become a huge topic after January, as Obama seeks amnesty for millions of potential voters to help the politicians as well. This will still lead to the second option, though. How pissed would you be about 15 million new citizens that have done a good job turning parts of the US into mini-Mexicos and enlarging gang populations, drug smuggling, and even murder? Pissed? Gunna march on Washington? Not all of these immigrants are inherently bad, FYI. But they are illegal. I'm for legal residency for them, but not citizenship. And a "three strikes your out" policy too.
Lastly, I want you to pay attention more to people. Can you feel the tension mounting? The division between us citizens is getting stronger; us v. them. It feels like 1938, trouble is brewing but there is time to avoid the huge potential it has to be the worst human catastrophe ever. People are gearing up for something. Food storage sales are up as well. If you have not already done so, better safe than sorry.
So there is my opinion on if the democrats are, in fact, deliberately trying to destroy this country. Because we all can easily surmise that we will not gleefully turn to communism as a potential savior for this country -- at least not with the current population with over 50% claiming to be conservative. And if the last good cop in this world gets into a fight with himself, you can bet the whole world will be hard-pressed to stay inline. And that could be a year away. Election year, 2010!
As you know, I've opined often enough that I believe the democrats are well intentioned, but that their basis for getting to their utopia is flawed. Giving government handouts and taxing the citizens will never lead to a perfect world. You have to change people's hearts for the good of mankind in order to achieve the perfect world ideology. Giving handouts and taxing the honest workers will only make one class entirely dependent on the government, and another class totally bitter. In essence, class warfare (Gasp! A communist manifesto!).
So let's go to the other side of the coin: Obama and his colleagues are anti-American and eager to destroy this great country.
Looking at Obama's history thus far in the White House, we can certainly conclude that he has least "American" ideology to have occupied the Oval Office. Shall we enumerate a few examples? Of course! From a recent article:
- He wants to deny individuals access to the marketplace --where they can make their own decisions about their own health care -- and instead put the government entirely in charge.
- He's willing to give government control over American businesses (e.g., the bank takeovers and Government Motors).
- His administration, while on record as opposing the Fairness Doctrine, is aggressively exploring a backdoor regulatory scheme that would have precisely the same practical effect as the Fairness Doctrine: it would impose government restrictions on content, rather than allowing the market (that means us, the consumers) to control content.
- His FCC wants to control the internet, a humming beehive of free speech (much of it critical of Obama).
- As his loud battles with Rush Limbaugh and Fox News illustrate, he desires a single-party press, not a free one.
- He believes that now that he is in power, the opposition should shut up and "get out of the way," a notion that runs directly counter to the First Amendment.
- Although he's mostly erased the record that once existed in cyberspace, his dream is to create a civilian national security force, subordinate to the administration, which would be larger than the American military. The military, please note, is controlled by the Constitution and has traditionally existed separate from, but subordinate to, the rest of the American government.
- He wants to take away the right to bear arms. He'll pay lip service to supporting the Second Amendment, but his fundamental goal is to use government to remove arms from individuals.
- In a stunning blow to the freedom of born alive infants, he is one of a handful of politicians nationwide who believes it is appropriate to leave such infants to die alone and untended. With few exceptions, even those whose politics are entirely colored by a pro-choice viewpoint couldn't swallow this approach.
- Without money, people have no choices. The more money the government siphons to itself, the fewer choices we as individuals have. Although he dresses it as fairness (it's "fair" for the "lucky" to pay substantially more), Obama believes that it's government's role to "spread the wealth." That may be "fair," but it's not consistent with liberty, hard work, and individual choices.
Not to say other presidents were not of the same ideological family, but in this case, he's a compilation of all the center to hard left ideas we've ever seen, and then some. Thus, not in line with former Presidents.
Here is the first problem that I have with Obama waging war against the citizens of the US. The military does not like him, nor respect him for that matter. There is no way the soldiers of this country would gun down their own people. As a matter of fact, military personnel take an oath to protect the Constitution, protecting a President comes secondary. He's cut their funding, reneged on the missile defense for Poland and Czech Republic, and is waffling on the urgent request for 40,000 more troops in Afghanistan. So I wager he has very few friends in the military. Best option would be Marshall Law, and even then I'd bet the military would be hard pressed to shoot upon civilians.
Next is the huge network of Police Officers. Things would have been fine in this camp, except for that asinine comment a few months ago wherein he made a bad decision on labeling police office Crowley as "stupid" for having arrested Professor Gates. Now, if you know a police officer personally, you know it's one big extended family that protects their own. And I've heard plenty of dissension from them regarding Obama these days. Let's not forget the motto, "to serve and protect." After the "beer summit" at the White House, I don't expect many officers to accept any orders from the White house instructing them to do harm against society.
Lastly, the intelligence community of the CIA. The White house has sponsored a special committee to investigate the alleged abuses against terrorist with no rights under the Geneva convention, the Constitution, or even the UN (up to that point). Nevertheless, Attorney General Eric Holder has put together this investigation. Let's not forget Mr. Holder originates from the law firm that represents 18 Guantanamo detainees before being appointed Attorney General. But, again, it would appear that Obama has no friends in the CIA camp either.
So if Obama was going to subvert and "fundamentally change" this country, how is he going to do it with no military, no police, and no CIA/intelligence community willfully backing him up? Honestly, this is an open question, because from here on out, it is hypotheses and conjecture.
First on the list is the supposed personal military defense force that Obama reference to back in July of 2008 in Colorado. A link is provided above in case that doesn't ring a bell with you. Now, it would cost a lot (and we have no money for it) to have another force equivalent to our military, and I think we would have heard more about it since then. To date, nothing. But, this would be the first best option if you were going to undermine the entire social structure of the US, and rebuild it a la USSR in 1919 or China in 1949. Kill millions, re-educate the leftovers. There is a small plausibility of the GIVE Act passed in May as being a part of this force, but again, nothing from the watch dogs about it. Still, with most of our military deployed across seas in the middle east, Germany, South Korea, etc., these Obama para-militaries could get away with a lot, if they existed.
The second option is the more probable way of defeating the core fundamentals of the country. Remember that Obama ran as a centrist? Said he believed in the Second Amendment, etc., and people took him at his word. We're still a rather trusting nation, to a fault it would seem. Well, he isn't a centrist and he doesn't play bi-partisan politics either. He doesn't even like one news station, out of many, to be non-pro Obama. For the most part, Bush didn't have any news stations on his side. Still doesn't, actually!
Sales for guns and ammo are up, way up! Typically, in a given year, between 7-10 billion rounds of ammo are sold in the US. We'll pass 12 billion this year, a record. What is going on here? People are gearing up for something. And I were Obama, the polarising president bent on rebuilding a nation I loath, I'd give them something to build up for. You don't need the military on your side, the CIA, nor the local enforcement, all you need to do is put enough policies in place that undermine the Constitution and then finally someone says "Enough!" and the dominoes start to fall, non-violently at first such as protest (tea parties), but progressively more sinister, maybe even staged, and magnified by an agenda driven media. But, the economy can't be in a good place, because then dissent will be slightly muted. Not only that, but you need people to be edgy, in need of basic human sustenance such as food, water, shelter, money, or whatever. And once you have that, they will go from "enough" to "need to survive" and then they weed each other out, regardless of party affiliation. And after enough have suffered, start the rebuilding process.
I only took one anthropology class in college, and in hindsight, I wish I had taken more. It was about China, and the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution they went through. The two books I read were excellent yet highly demoralizing as I read story after story about massive suffering and indignities. I still remember one story about a child finding a half eaten carrot on the ground, and crying because he felt like the luckiest kid in the world for finding it. They starved because the government decided where the food went, and that is entirely plausible if dissidents raised up in this country. I believe you can find that in a book, called "The Spiral Road."
Then the question becomes; how far are we from that last option of self-elimination? We just had a few elections here yesterday. In the areas where Obama went and stumped for the candidates, they lost, by comfortable margins, to Republicans. We are one year from elections in 2010, where all the seats in the House of Representatives will be up for grabs. If we can last that long (due to the economy) and subsequent change is made, then reasonable heads should prevail.
However, before then, one should understand that the federal dollars attached to the "stimulus bill" will be flowing quickly (to date, less than 30% of the $787 billion has been handed out) which is an excellent way to buy votes for politicians. Basically, the more people that are unemployed now, the better come next July when stimulus monies flood into counties creating jobs, and since Republicans didn't support that bill, just say thanks by voting for the local democrat.
Also, watch for "immigration reform" to become a huge topic after January, as Obama seeks amnesty for millions of potential voters to help the politicians as well. This will still lead to the second option, though. How pissed would you be about 15 million new citizens that have done a good job turning parts of the US into mini-Mexicos and enlarging gang populations, drug smuggling, and even murder? Pissed? Gunna march on Washington? Not all of these immigrants are inherently bad, FYI. But they are illegal. I'm for legal residency for them, but not citizenship. And a "three strikes your out" policy too.
Lastly, I want you to pay attention more to people. Can you feel the tension mounting? The division between us citizens is getting stronger; us v. them. It feels like 1938, trouble is brewing but there is time to avoid the huge potential it has to be the worst human catastrophe ever. People are gearing up for something. Food storage sales are up as well. If you have not already done so, better safe than sorry.
So there is my opinion on if the democrats are, in fact, deliberately trying to destroy this country. Because we all can easily surmise that we will not gleefully turn to communism as a potential savior for this country -- at least not with the current population with over 50% claiming to be conservative. And if the last good cop in this world gets into a fight with himself, you can bet the whole world will be hard-pressed to stay inline. And that could be a year away. Election year, 2010!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)