Picking our battles or silenced by mockers?

Joe Angione, a local commentator, had a thought provoking piece about why birthers need to back off.  Becoming a birther more and more every day, I took exception to his truth-ducking view by emailing him my thoughts.

Here is what I sent, (plus some additional comment):

Here is why the birthers do not need to back off...

1. We believe in truth. The truth should be made known. We believe it is true that Obama's origins and past should be known and that the official line is a lie.

2. The media mocks most everything conservatives seriously promote, especially when we are being effective. They declare anyone they don’t agree with as “nuts.”  They mock any attempt to balance the budget. Should we stop doing that? They called Paul Ryan “nuts” for making the first serious effort while no one else did anything. Should we dismiss Paul Ryan? They mocked Col. West during his campaign (and still do) for speaking the truth about Islam. Should West stop speaking the truth about Islam?

3. The truth of Obama's deception still has traction – and is still true with growing evidence:

Here are the latest stats on Jerome Corsi’s book, “Where's the Birth Certificate?: The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President” from Amazon:

• #9 in Books > Nonfiction > Law > Constitutional Law
• #41 in Books > Nonfiction > Government
• #64 in Books > Nonfiction > Law > One-L

4. The truth should not be repressed because of mockers. That is why they mock, because they believe their perverted special interests are more important than the truth. This is the way we lose our liberties and become slaves.

5. Mockers are juvenile idiots. They spew without truth or substance. Those who "back off" because of mockers respond to juvenile idiots. Check out Diane West's "The Death of the Grown-up."

6.  “Backing off” is a display of political correctness.  And I abhor and am becoming increasingly offended by and impatient with political correctness!

7. The worst thing we can do is back off the truth anytime we are mocked.  That is giving up the high ground.  They mock.  We cower.  We speak the truth on another topic.  They mock, we cower yet again.  They see strength in mocking.  Angione and those who agree with him see strength in ducking.

8. “Backing off” the truth does not equate with picking our battles.  The truth is always the truth and needs to remain at the forefront no matter what battles we pick.

9.  If the left sees fit to tell lies until people finally believe it, can’t we, at the very least, tell the truth until people believe it?

I have no intention of backing off this topic, Joe.

Here is the complete Angione article on the topic:

“Birthers” need to back off

There is probably no one more convinced than I that no documentation exists to prove the “natural born” citizen status of the man who currently occupies the White House. There are also few, if any, who are more certain than I am that Mr. Obama’s birth certificate, which was displayed recently to answer Donald Trump’s challenge, is a blatant forgery. But I have to tuck my beliefs away as simply truth that is known, but that will never be acted upon by anyone of standing in government or by any legislature or any court in the land.

Obama’s ineligibility to serve as president is a dead issue, a cause that has no followers who are capable and willing to do anything about it. It’s been said that Congress will do nothing to oust Obama, since they all refused to vet his eligibility. Congress, as well as the media gave Mr. Obama a free pass in 2008. He is very aware of this, and might be likely to expose them all if push comes to shove.

Many conservatives become excited when they read that another “document expert” has come forward to declare that the Obama “long form” certificate of birth is an absolute fraud.

According to the most recent report in WorldNewsDaily, “Unless the typewriter used to type Barack Obama’s purported Hawaiian ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ in 1961 was magically capable of producing different size and shaped [letter] images with the exact same key, the document released by the White House on April 27 is a forgery, says a professional typographer with 50 years experience. Steel-stamped letters do not expand to larger sizes and morph into different styles of type," retired New York City typographer Paul Irey told WND.

Regardless of Mr. Irey’s testimony, no one seems ready to use this opinion as the basis of a court case to have Obama declared ineligible, and no judge would hear such a case because, inevitably, other experts would be found to swear the birth certificate is the real thing. Think about the Casey Anthony case: an expert can always be found to contradict the testimony of another expert.

Stories abound alleging that the hospital in which Obama is reported to have been born had a different name back in 1961, and that Kenya, the country of origin listed on the certificate for Obama’s father, was named East Africa at that time. Example after example can be found to reasonably doubt the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate, but no government official, no court at any level will pursue the truth in this matter. Some say the reason is the fear that minority groups will riot if the man they put in office is forced to leave. The offense to their racial sensitivities would be intolerable.

Whether civil disturbances are likely or not, it would be better if “birthers” backed off on insisting that Mr. Obama be ousted—even though his ineligibility made his taking the oath of office a criminal act. Birther cries for justice are falling on deaf ears, and only damage the credibility of other conservatives who know they need the support of millions of independent voters if Obama is to be defeated in 2012.

The media have seen to it that “birthers” are branded as “nuts,” and nuts have no power to do anything except generate laughter and ridicule.

The relentless growth of government

Government most always grows; it seldom shrinks.  Paradoxically, it grows by trying to act “more like a business.”

Unfortunately, the only part of the business model that governments tend to use is “marketing” aka “promoting the need for its products and services.”

Several examples come to mind.

Municipal Parks and Recreation Departments.  Cities often construct underutilized facilities and create underutilized programs. The National Parks and Recreation Association devotes a significant part of their resources in coaching local governments how to promote facilities and program usage -  how to grow a program, which happens to be a government, tax supported program.  The priority of park and recreation bureaucrats, just like most government program leaders, is to enhance their area of responsibility.  And the best way to do that is to market their services and increase user participation, at taxpayer expense.  Government grows.

Libraries:  Reading is next to Godliness.  Libraries are at God’s right hand.  But libraries today are not merely places to provide access to books to advance enlightenment.  They are now amusement centers that provide meeting rooms, and all manner of multi-media products and equipment including music CDs, movie DVDs, multi-media playback equipment and computers, especially internet access.  Undeniably, libraries have grown well beyond what they were 50 years ago.  Library professionals, who have grown adept at advancing their special interest, have perfected the art of community organizing to promote the use of taxpayer funds to provide entertainment services that were previously at the expense of individuals and families.  Government grows.

Housing. Everyone wants “affordable housing.”  What better way to accomplish this than through “public-private partnerships.”  The “public” part of those partnerships is typically in the form of federal grants, federal assistance programs, mortgage buy-downs, or relaxed financing qualifications – the very same that resulted in the housing bubble and bust.  Promoters of government assistance are active in every segment of the housing industry, both inside and outside of government.  While many have pure motives, many motives are also enhanced by an assured increase in the importance of their program, department, and salaries at taxpayer expense.  Government grows. 

Welfare.  Leaders of government welfare programs are the consummate “bleeding hearts.”  While their intentions are noble, their methods demand government funds and bigger and bigger budgets.  And once established, these programs are almost impossible to eliminate or reduce.  In fact, it is well known that if there is inadequate demand for a particular welfare service, agencies have been known to promote (aka “market”) their service to assure that all funds are used up – whether there was initial demand or need for that welfare service or not, so that funding levels are at least maintained if not increased in the next budget cycle.  These welfare services are much like feeding crack to newly created addicts.  Once they are relieved of the “burden” of personal responsibility for their own welfare, their increasing pool of clients come to expect and demand higher levels of government paid welfare services.  Government grows.

And so on it goes.  These and other government services are marketed by professional government bureaucrats to continually grow their clientele, departments, influence, and salaries – at taxpayer expense. 

The most insidious part of it all of this is the marketing effort that slowly, relentlessly entices more and more people to rely on each of these programs.  It happened in public education; it is true of environmentalism.  It is endemic in every government program.  Each department and program becomes entrenched, complete with their own special interest support group comprised of professional associations and client advocacy groups.  The more our population relies on these government agencies and programs, the more of their tax money is required, and the less autonomy and freedom each individual has to do what is best for themselves – just like a growing dependence on drugs.  We become more addicted to government and less and less capable of doing things for ourselves.

Inciting Mass Murder in Norway?

What you are now reading is yet another blog from the United States that very well may lead to the mass murder of innocents in Norway.

Or so the misguided, simple minded media would have you believe.

Such dangerous, truth-stifling innuendo is demonstrated by THIS New York Times article.

One example from the article is this quote from Marc Sageman, a former C.I.A. officer, and apparent proponent of dhimmitude:

“…it would be unfair to attribute Mr. Breivik’s violence to the writers who helped shape his world view. But at the same time, he said the counterjihad writers do argue that the fundamentalist Salafi branch of Islam ‘is the infrastructure from which Al Qaeda emerged. Well, they and their writings are the infrastructure from which Breivik emerged.’

“This rhetoric,” he added, “is not cost-free.”

Let’s analyze this truth-chilling innuendo and false analogy.

Islam, at its original core, as taught by its founder, Muhammad, who is considered by Muslims as “the most perfect human”, who is to be emulated in all aspects of life, created the infrastructure from which today’s predominant version of Islam has emerged.  Forget Salafi.  Forget Al Qaeda.  Most Islamic leaders today promote Mohammadism, aka Sharia- and Jihadi, terror-promoting Islam.  This is Orthodox Islam.

And then the idiotic statement:  “Well, they (counterjihad writers) …are the infrastructure from which Breivik emerged.”  Huh?  No!  Violent, terroristic Islamic jihad is the infrastructure from which Breivk emerged.  The methods of counter-jihadists and bloggers is writing, not shooting.  The methods of Islamic jihadis is terror and shooting and violence and intimidation and fear.  Terror and violence and shooting is what Breivk used in his “counter-jihad.”  He didn’t seem concerned with Islam’s methods as much as he was concerned with Islam’s takeover of European culture.  Nonetheless, he did use Islam’s methods to attack Islam, which is the vile and evil part of what he did.  He did not use the blogger’s and US counter-jihadi methods.

The New York Times article revealed a gross lack of reasoning and logic. 

Suppose I am passionate about saving the endangered Florida Panther.  So I express in writing my concern about those who are hunting and killing the Panther.  On the other side of town, a man is so moved by my writing to save the Panther and the thoughtlessness of the hunters that he meticulously plans and carries out the mass murder of those who associate with and defend the hunters.  Does that mean we should remain silent about our concern about over-hunting?

Or suppose I express in writing my concern about liberals who continue to spend money we don’t have on big government programs.  On the other side of town is a man so moved by my writing that he meticulously plans the mass killing of members of the democratic party in Broward County.  Does this mean we should remain silent about the problems of spending money we don’t have?  Of coarse not.

Even the inference that “This rhetoric is not cost-free” is chilling to free speech.  The mere innuendo that such speech even remotely led to mass slaughter is stupid reasoning.

I’ll say it again:  The method of dissent used by the Norwegian mass murderer was acquired from the example of Islamic jihad in the same manner that today’s Islamic jihad was acquired from 6th century Muhammadan teaching and practice.

US counter-jihadis promote truth and reason, not stifled truth-telling, terror and killing as is promoted by Islamic texts and Islam's’ predominant leadership.

Does free trade contribute to our fiscal problems?

Most of our leaders, democrat and republican, are promoters of free trade.  However, I was wondering if delayed outcomes of free trade are responsible for diminishing our prosperity – for our current fiscal failures.

Do you believe that free trade contributes to outsourcing and loss of jobs in the United States?

Free trade agreements between nations provide that there will be NO tariffs or other impediments to the import/export of goods between nations.  Is “free trade” part of the global plan for redistribution of wealth around the world?  This appears to be the result, intended or not.

Here is an example of the way I see it:

Picture 10 barrels filled with water.  The water level of each barrel equates to the jobs and wage levels in each of 10 countries.  If each barrel remains separate from the others, with no interconnections, no pipes, the levels stay the same.  Relate this to jobs and wage levels in each country - jobs and wage levels will depend on individual nation’s economy and each individual nation’s efforts.

Now, suppose these 10 barrels are all interconnected with large diameter hoses.  There is no resistance to the flow of water between each of the 10 barrels.  What happens to the level of water in each of the 10 barrels?  The water level in the barrels with the highest levels will go down, and the water level in the barrels with the lower levels will increase.  It won’t take long for the water level in all 10 barrels to equalize – all reach the same level.  Now apply this to free trade among nations.  Given the free flow of trade and the cost of goods, won’t that tend to cause jobs and wage levels to equalize among nations?

Granted, there are other important variables:  Level of education, human, physical and natural resources in each country.  But all of these things can be moved around the planet to equalize even each of these factors.

What is the result?  Low wage, high unemployment nations will benefit.  High wage, low unemployment nations like the United States will suffer.    There will be downward pressure on wages in the US because it is cheaper to outsource what we used to do.  There will be a substantially reduced number of available jobs due to outsourcing which company after company are still doing. 

Free trade results in higher unemployment, lower wages and lower standard of living in countries formerly with lower unemployment higher wages and higher standard of living

Some economists argue that countries that focus on what they do best will still prosper, inspite of a large chunk of their jobs being sent overseas.  The US just has to focus on what we do best.  They argue that sufficient retraining of workers into more competitive jobs – jobs we do best - will solve the jobs problem.

But we have to ask.  Really, what jobs does the US do best?  What do we make better than anyone else?  What do we do best that is not done as well and for less money in Mexico, India, or China?  What will retraining our workers really accomplish if the new jobs result in lower salaries or still non-competitive jobs?  McDonald’s, anyone?

When we look at this picture we no longer have to wonder why unemployment is high and our nation is near fiscal bankruptcy.  Isn’t it obvious that a decade of free trade policies is now bearing fruit?  And that “fruit” is rotten for America.  It is the direct cause of sending tens of thousands of our best jobs to other countries where salaries are a fraction of our own – where environmental regulations are nearly non-existent.  That fruit is turning into fiscal chaos.

So, is “free trade” really the end all and be all of US trade policy?  Is it the magic pill for economic prosperity and a sustainable high standard of living?  Or is free trade a suicide pill for our nation’s economy.  Is free trade a tool of globalists and socialists to equalize the prosperity of this nation down to 2^nd or 3^rd world status over time?  As long as big government and big multi-national corporations continue to prosper, why should they care about our national sovereignty and prosperity?

Free trade does indeed appear to be an effective component of the “redistribution of wealth” scheme being promoted by the big players in the world.  Once middle America catches on, things will get interesting.  But for now most of us are caught up in the “free trade brings prosperity” deception. 

Sounds like the “hope and change” scheme of 2008.  How’s the “free trade” thing workin’ out for ya.

Why Neil Boortz is wrong about mosques

Herman Cain was recently asked his feelings about communities that wish to ban mosques.  Cain replied,

"Yes, they have the right to do that.”

Understanding the Sharia law-promoting agenda of the Murfreesboro, TN mosque, he further elaborated that mosques are places that promote…

"…infringement and an abuse of our freedom of religion.  Our Constitution guarantees separation of church and state. Islam combines church and state."

Neil Boortz, the consummate libertarian, took exception to Cain, his occasional stand-in on his daily radio talk show.  He mistakenly equates Islam to every other known religion.  That is a dangerous stab at moral equivalency when there in fact is none.

What Neil fails to understand is Islam, more akin to fascism, is primarily an ideology, not a religion.  The majority of Islam's religious text specify how non-Muslims, the infidel, is to be handled.  That is not a personal religion, that is political and military advocacy about how others are to be controlled.

Unfortunately, on this point Neil is part of the majority of ignorant commentators in his failure to understand the fascist Mohammadan teachings of orthodox Islam.  Four important points are being missed with regard to Islamic mosques:

1. Mosques are considered by Muslims to be their military barracks for the conquest of people around them, not merely figuratively as in “Onward Christian Soldiers” but literally in emulation of Mohammadan conquests upon which their ideology is based.
2. Most Mosques in the US are the collection point for funding Islamic activity in the Middle East directed against US interests.
3. Mosque teach and promote a culture and form of governance that is contrary to our form of government and our legal system.
4. All of these purposes of mosques, combined, clearly indicate seditious purposes and intent of such Islamic landmarks.

Herman Cain understands these things.  Apparently Neil Boortz does not.  Communities must establish and maintain the right to prohibit mosques.  Our constitution protects and defends religion.  It does not protect and defend subversives and ideologies that desire to militarily or subversively overthrown the governance of the United States - nor their facilities which symbolize their subversive intent.

Taxes: Who defines “fair share”

So, our socialist-in-chief Obama insists that the only way to avoid default on August 2nd is for those with higher incomes to pay their “fair share.”

With a progressive income tax that we’ve had for decades, those who earn more money are already paying a larger percentage of their income into taxes.  Even if everyone paid exactly the same percentage tax rate, those who have higher incomes would pay more taxes. 

But the current income tax system goes well beyond that.  Higher income individuals are already subject to a higher percentage of their incomes being taken out for taxes than lower income individuals.  The top one percent of earners already pay over 90% of the taxes.  Obama wants to go beyond that.  He insists they pay their “fair share.”
What is “fair share.”  The progressive income tax system we have already doesn’t seem very fair to higher income earners.  Requiring an even higher tax rate for higher earners than already exists seems to me to be significantly less fair.

Our progressive tax system is already blatant income redistribution.  Obama wants to make it more blatant – in the name of “fairness.”  Bull crap!  More in your face bald-faced twisting and misuse of perfectly good words from our socialist deceiver in chief - and the absolutely useless, corrupt, self-serving, controproductive Senate.

How “prepared” should we be?

The question of “how prepared should we be” depends on what we think we should be prepared for.

A friend and I were discussing investing in food storage.  Doubting the need for more than a couple of months of food storage, he asked me “would you stop buying groceries at the store just because the price goes up a little?”  I answered “well, if the price goes up just 10 or 15% (which is still quite a lot within a single year – and it has already gone up even more than that), then no, I would not stop buying groceries at the store.  But,” I added, “if the price goes up 200 or 300 percent, I may not buy groceries at the store.”

What would cause food at the stores to go up 200 or 300 percent?  Here are some very real reasons that may be just around the corner:

• Nation-wide meteorological conditions.  We’ve had record-breaking floods, we’ve had record-breaking drought.  Crops and crop land have been destroyed.  This will result in less land to grow crops on, higher agricultural land prices, fewer crops, more expensive crops, greater cost to feed cattle, and higher meat prices.
• QE3 (the third round of printing billions of dollars out of thin air without any value backing it up) is just around the corner.  This increases our national debt, inflates the dollar, and makes all goods and services cost more dollars, including food.
• Reduced credit rating for the US as a debtor nation may be just around the corner.  This increases our cost of borrowing, requiring our payment of higher interest rates to induce other entities, including nations, to lend us the money that we need to continue to borrow to maintain our solvency and sustain our economy.  This cannot end well, and may well lead to the burst of the “trust bubble” that is the basis for people trusting our currency.  This is the event that will result in social unrest, runaway hyper-inflation, and food shortages.  It has happened in other nations - as recently as 2001 in Argentina.  See the book “Surviving the Economic Collapse”. 

Those are the likely scenarios that would create food shortages and 200 to 300 percent price increases.

There are additional scenarios that are slightly less likely:

• Electromagnetic pulse:  Either in the form of hyper-solar activity (due within the next one to three years) that severely damages our power grid and communications electronics; or a EMP attack which does the same thing.
• Any other form of major terror attack, whether nuclear, biological, or conventional.
• Political upheaval primarily as a result of a poor economy getting worse, or the left exerting its influence against what it perceives as middle America awakening to thwart the left’s socialist/Marxist aspirations.

So yes, I believe that at this time in American history, current events amply justify that each person should have at least 6 to 12 months of food storage.  Since it cannot all be the 10 and 16 oz. cans common in grocery stores because of the less than two year shelf life of canned goods and the hassle of a “can rotation regimen” that would be required, food with a longer shelf life is more practical.

Such long-shelf life food is available either in packets or cans from specialty retailers.  Google: “food storage” or “emergency food storage” for a list of options that will last for 5 to 25 years.

For those without the available cash to do this all at once, commit to buy a months’ worth of food storage once every two or three months until you reach your goals.  If you believe as I do that severe national problems will occur prior to 2013, you may be motivated to use some of your savings to stock up.  Food is a commodity.  If you are buying gold or silver, it makes even more sense to buy food.  Food is the first commodity that will be in high demand.

It is interesting to observe that those of us who are most well informed are the ones who are taking action to prepare.  Those who are not so well informed don’t see a need and will consider those that do as “rather odd.”

The word “oblivious” comes to mind to describe such folks.

Obama: Culmination of populist apathy and government corruption…

The struggle with Islam as well as our federal government’s fiscal irresponsibility are both rooted in the pernicious double-dealing of our elected representatives and Presidents.  Yes, I say Presidents – plural.  This is not just an “Obama” thing, although he has consciously carried the” destroy America agenda” further and faster than any other.  Most of the past half dozen Presidents have created our current predicament.  Presidents and Congress have all ignorantly proclaimed that Islam is a “religion of peace” as well as destroy our economy by over spending and over legislating.  Obama has taken the extra step at destroying our relationship with one of our best real allies:  Israel.


Peter M. Friedman at planesafe@aol.com has written an article that parallels my own thinking.  Hearing this sort of thing from another person is a double-edged sword:  It tells me I am not alone in interpreting events as I do, but it confirms some of my worst fears for our nation.  Peter invites comments on his article.

At the risk of alienating any supporters of mine, I feel compelled, after watching BHO's BS speech this morning on the rise of the unemployment number to 9.2%, to attempt to address "reality" as painful as it may be. It is only my opinion of course, but, as a student of history, "history" is always repeating itself, and we are condemned if we do not confront reality just like a cancer patient! 

Your comments, good or bad, are always welcomed. 

The unemployment numbers were released today, and they rose to 9.2%.
Obama made another obfuscating speech today, which any normal intelligent person might ask, “What planet is he on?” It is really very simple, but you have to have the capacity to think the unthinkable. 

Here’s what’s really happening! 

Republican politicians are attempting to deal with Obama as they would like him and his administration to be. Our government makes the very same error in dealing with Muslims. America deals with Muslim as it would like them to be. However, this is suicidal! That is why Americans denigrate Israel, because Israel tries to deal with the Muslims who want to annihilate them as they are, and not as Israel would like them to be. Americans consistently ask Israel, “Why can’t you be more like us?” Because Israel understands reality!

Americans do not!  Republicans need to be more like Israelis. 

What Obama and his administration have accomplished since January 20,
2009 is not the “Balkanization” of America, but the “Tribalization” of America! Since WW2 Presidents and their administrations have attempted to Balkanize the voters of America seeking“group” votes using entitlements, the very basis of our bankrupting debt. These administrations have used our taxes collected against us in a political partisan redistribution of wealth for no other reason than to garner votes to retain them in office. In 1838 the French Minister Alexis de Tocqueville stated, “When the population discovers they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury, the [American] experiment will be over.” It has been over for over a century! We just refuse to admit it. 

Obama has now taken us from Balkanization to Tribalization in just thirty months. He is the quintessential “Pied Piper” of partisan politics, except he is not really a Democrat. Obama is a sociopathic,narcissistic, psychopath to put it in clinical terms. He has a finger on the“button”, and that is really scary. Obama has, in thirty months, taken America from “Red States” and “Blue States”, to a Middle East “tribal” mentality.Instead of Republican and Democrats, Liberals and Conservatives, we now have the tribes of African-Americans, Jewish-Americans, Muslim-Americans,Hispanic-Americans, Wealthy-Americans, Working-Americans, Unemployed-Americans, Middleclass-Americans,
Welfare-Americans, Retired-Americans, and the Union-Americans, each with their own claims on the public treasury. It is the epitome of the “divide-and-conquer” process. It is working undoubtedly way beyond Obama’s wildest dreams, because most voting Americans are ignorant and apathetic. They don’t want to learn the truth, and they just can’t bring themselves to think that a President of the United States, and those with whom he has surrounded himself, are hell-bent on destroying America for whatever deranged agenda they may have. They can’t, and won’t admit they made such agrandiose error in judgment in November, 2008. 

How did this happen? Since the election of 2000 the mainstream media in America, and in many parts of the world, concentrated on pursuing George Bush, who turned out to be no great intellectual, and denigrating him from the very onset of his election. How long did the media and the Democrats beat the drum that Bush stole the election? 

This mantra followed Bush throughout his Presidency the effect of which was to inculcate within the voters that Bush and the Republicans perpetrated a fraud on America. It was no surprise that the ignorant voters, who had been brainwashed, overwhelmingly voted for Democrats in 2006, and then Obama in 2008, to allegedly counteract everything related to George Bush. They neglected to properly vet Barack Hussein Obama, and they followed him into pseudo-history by electing a man with no executive experience, no credentials, and no verifiable personal history just to counter the negative Bush legacy perpetrated by the mainstream media. In my opinion, the positive legacy Bush will enjoy historically will be his appointments of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Without these two Justices, America would be done! You must remember that FDR attempted to“pack” the Supreme Court during his administration because the Court stopped him on numerous occasions from violating our Constitution. Hopefully, now as then, the Supreme Court will finally pick up the constitution ball and run with it before Obama can do more harm to America. 

Obama is merely the mirror image of those who elected him and continue to support a man whose agenda is to “fundamentally change” America. Yes, he IS fundamentally changing America – he’s completely Hell-bent on destroying America! It is most frustrating to view Republican politicians trying to “negotiate” with Obama as though he is legitimately negotiating with them. He is merely keeping them in the dialogue and treading water, while he plods along undeterred in his traitorous undertaking. America “partnering” with the Muslim Brotherhood”? Are you kidding? Obama has so far usurped the balance of power from both Congress and the Supreme Court. He is “governing” by Executive Order“fiat”, just as tyrants in recent history have done in the past century. He dares anyone to challenge him, including Congress and the Supreme Court. 

How do people such as Obama get into power? They are elected by ignorant “tribal” populations. A good example would be, especially in California, Fortney “Pete” Stark in Fremont, and Maxine Waters in Los Angeles,both Democrats, and both related to the Democratic Socialists of America(DSA.org). Stark was re-elected with an overwhelming vote in his district in spite of the fact that he consistently denigrates and insults his constituency.Waters, who has been involved in corruption her entire time in office, is always overwhelmingly re-elected by her “tribal” constituency, reminiscent of the jury nullification in the OJ Simpson trial. It is a tribal reality that is a permanent disgrace and stain on the character of America, and it will never be erased because of the political reality that maintains a specific “victim”mentality. 

Republicans, and the intelligent voters, absolutely must come to the realization that no current member of the Obama administration,including Obama himself, is dealing from a position of integrity being an honest broker in ANY negotiation! We must begin immediately to deal with this administration as the Israelis must deal with the Palestinians. Both the PLO and Hamas Charters have called in writing for the total extermination of Israel and Jews since their inception. This too is “fundamental change”, and American voters must confront this reality – this administration is Hell-bent on “changing” America for the worse. Obama doesn’t just not get it – he is completely complicit in purposefully destroying America as anything“exceptional”. 

It is clearly elucidated in his pseudo-autobiography “Dreams from My Father”. He has surrounded himself since day-one with people of like-minded mentalities who mostly are 1960s dope-ridden radicals who, with the support of the mainstream corrupt media, were bright enough to take full advantage of the gaping political chasm created by that media against George Bush and the Republican Party which was asleep at the switch. 

WAKE UP AMERICA BEFORE YOU LOSE YOUR COUNTRY!

Source of global warming: .0000000001% human

If there was a .00000000001% chance of an airplane crashing, would you get on it?  That is a more logically equivalent question than Dick Durban’s.  Dick asked:  “If there was a 1% chance of an airplane crashing would you get on it?”  He then asks “if there is only a 20% chance of a human cause of global warming” would we ignore it?” This attempt at logical equivalence fails on several levels.

Airliners have closer to a .0000000001% chance of crashing.  Now THAT is a closer equivalency to human activity causing global warming.  And yes, we DO get on planes with that percentage chance of it crashing.  And not only is the assumption that there is as little as a 20% chance that human activity causing global warming, human activity as the cause is probably LESS than .0000000001% chance of a plane crashing.

Solar activity very possibly has 1,000,000,000 times the influence on global warming and cooling than human activity has.  We could replant 20 trillion new trees, scrap every non-Prius automobile, eliminate every emission from every smokestack on the planet and there is a great probability that we would STILL experience global warming.

I can’t stand irrational bullshit.  See HERE, HERE, and HERE for valid opinions that debunk the politically correct BS.

However, there is a greater than 50% probability that university scientists are highly influenced by the purposes of government grants based on public policy that has an agenda.  They seek out these grants, strings and all, like a desert nomad seeks water.  Government and liberal foundation research grants are the lifeblood of academia.  The agenda and related strings attached to these grants promote the old 1970’s academic mythology of the benefits of zero population growth and “sustainable” development.  These concepts have become politically bastardized to apply to situations to which they should never be applied in a manner that makes them politically expedient.

“Zero population growth” favors atheistic principles and ignores the Biblical mandates about the role of man.  Suppressed family creation demands immigration from 3rd world countries to fill the void that our unreproductive demographics fail to fill.  This conveniently fits the one-world/new world order agenda of the left.  “Sustainable development” as applied today fails to look at the economically sound principle of life-cycle costs of what we do.  Life-cycle costing is the most we are able to rationally rely upon to implement “sustainability” without having to do some radical guessing.  Instead, the academician’s “sustainability” looks at long term consequences of activities that are economically unachievable and technologically unknowable.

Unfortunately, even most politicians seem ready to scuttle what’s left of our economy in favor of an unachievable nirvana of reversing global warming to achieve “sustainability”.  That is economic suicide that will occur eons sooner than burning up as a result of too much water vapor (aka Co2) in the atmosphere.