Hypocrite: –noun
1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs. (see video proof below)
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.
Synonyms: Maxine Waters, Maxine Waters, Maxine Waters, and Maxine Waters (Are there any others?)
Spelling...not in the phonetic sense, but in the real sense: M-a-x-i-n-e W-a-t-e-r-s.
To assure that no child is left behind, please prepare all future spelling bee contestants of this politcally correct spelling. ~ Norman E. Hooben
Former CBS News president Richard Salant (1961 - 64 and 1966 - 79) explained the major media's role: "Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have." ...and to this very day most Americans haven't noticed they're being brained washed! ~ N. Hooben
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Will This Be A Sign Of The Times
GOP swelling as Ohio voters switch parties
Thursday, April 8, 2010 2:55 AM
In what could be a worrisome sign for the party that controls the White House and Ohio governor's office, substantially more Democrats than Republicans are switching parties this year in early absentee-ballot requests from Ohio's largest counties.
That's a huge change from the 2008 Ohio primary, when far more Republicans than Democrats changed parties.
In Cuyahoga County, for example, the number of Democrats switching to the GOP outnumbered Republicans becoming Democrats by nearly 7 to 1 as of Tuesday. Two years ago, nearly five times as many Republicans switched in Ohio's largest county.
Democrats lead the party conversions by almost 9 to 1 in Hamilton County, while it's about 6 to 1 in Franklin County. Statewide totals aren't available, but the three counties contain about 30 percent of all registered voters in Ohio.
Experts say it's too soon to draw firm conclusions, but they think part of the reason for the change is that Republicans who switched for the heated Democratic presidential primary in Ohio two years ago are moving back to the GOP.
But the trend also could be another sign of concern for Democrats in midterm elections that historically have favored the party not in power in Washington, observers say.
"I think it's certainly a reflection on what I'll call a loss of their momentum," said Paul Beck, an Ohio State University political-science professor.
The trend also is emerging amid criticism of a directive that Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner issued last month requiring anyone switching major parties to sign a challenge form saying they support the principles of their new party.
Yesterday, Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher, who faces Brunner in the May 4 Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate, called on Brunner to reverse the directive and end what he called "a loyalty oath."
His e-mailed comments were his most critical so far in the campaign, in which he has enjoyed a large fundraising advantage over Brunner but led by only single digits in recent polls, with many voters undecided.
The Brunner campaign did not respond, but Brunner has said her directive is merely a reminder of a state law that has been in place for decades - and that she has no power to waive Ohio law.
But interpretations of that law vary. As The Dispatch showed more than two years ago, counties were applying it differently: Some challenged everyone wanting to switch parties while others challenged virtually no one.
Critics also point out that the directive came four days before the start of absentee voting on March 30, forcing some counties to scramble to change procedures. Brunner's office says the directive was in the works for some time but was delayed by having to respond to unrelated lawsuits.
The directive requires any crossover voter to sign a form - under penalty of election falsification, a felony - that he or she "desires to be affiliated with and supports the principles" of the party whose ballots they are requesting.
Party affiliation in Ohio is determined by which party's ballot a voter requests in a primary, and the challenging of party-switchers is designed to prevent people in one party from interfering with the nominating process of another party.
In 2008, for example, conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh encouraged Ohio Republicans to ignore the law and vote in the Democratic primary as part of "Operation Chaos" to prolong the Democratic nomination fight.
In Franklin County two years ago, about 5 percent of voters who requested the Democratic ballot were Republicans. But of the absentee requests so far this year, only 1 percent of those requesting Democratic ballots are Republicans - while 8 percent of Republican-ballot requests are from Democrats.
Seth Bringman, a spokesman for the Ohio Democratic Party, said a small shift statewide isn't a major concern because Democrats had a registration advantage over Republicans of 1 million voters after the 2008 primary.
Statewide, the trend has swung back and forth during the past three primaries in even-number years, a Dispatch analysis shows.
More than twice as many Democrats switched to vote Republican in the 2006 primary, when there was a heated GOP race for governor. But in 2008, nearly 106,000 previous Republicans voted in the Democratic primary, compared with only about 17,500 Democrats requesting the Republican ballot that year.
Dispatch information specialist Julie Albert provided research for this story.
mniquette@dispatch.com
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Obama Is Leading Us Into War (Civil or World, take your pick!) ...this is just one of the reasons!
Telling you that this guy hates Jews never seems to make a din in any public outcry. C'mon people! What is it going to take to toss the bum out. This man has no business running a lemonade stand no less the once most highly respected office the world... I say "once most highly respected" for it is no longer; it's become a den of theives! From Israel's very begining she has been (let me remind you again!) the only ally we have in the Middle East. How much more are we and the Jewish people going to take before this guy gets a pink slip? The following story from JoshuaPundit ...and if yeah, it's OK to scream, "What kind of crap is this?" For that's exactly what is coming out of the White House lately; pure unadulterated crap! ~ Norman E. Hooben
"No Jews Allowed!"
NRG/Maariv (Hebrew link only, sorry) reported today that the Israeli government was stunned when every nuclear technician at Israel's Dimona reactor who had submitted visa requests to visit the United States for ongoing university education in Physics, Chemistry and Nuclear Engineering had their visa applications summarily rejected, specifically because of their association with the Dimona reactor.
This is a new policy decision of the Obama administration. Up until now, it was routine for Israeli nuclear scientists and technicians to receive such visas and to study at US universities.
Israeli security officials have confirmed that these technicians are being denied visas solely because of their employment at the Dimona reactor.
Not only are employees at Dimonas taboo, but reportedly the US has an unofficial embargo on selling anything to be used at the site.
Professor Zeev Alfasi, the head of Nuclear Engineering at Ben-Gurion University in the Negev stated that "the United States doesn't sell anything nuclear-related to the Dimona reactor, and that means absolutely nothing. Radiation detectors, for example have to be purchased now in France because the USA refuses to sell these to Israel."
Here's the odd bit. Obama and his minions might believe that these sneaky, underhanded Jews are all spies, but in real life, nuclear espionage here in America has only occurred from China or from Obama's friends in the Muslim world...especially Iran and Pakistan.
This may very well be a precursor to the denying of visas to Israeli academics, at least on a de facto basis.
hat tip and a commendation to long time Joshua's Army member Joyce C.
Obama's New Policy : All Israeli Nuclear Workers Now Refused US Visas
"No Jews Allowed!"NRG/Maariv (Hebrew link only, sorry) reported today that the Israeli government was stunned when every nuclear technician at Israel's Dimona reactor who had submitted visa requests to visit the United States for ongoing university education in Physics, Chemistry and Nuclear Engineering had their visa applications summarily rejected, specifically because of their association with the Dimona reactor.
This is a new policy decision of the Obama administration. Up until now, it was routine for Israeli nuclear scientists and technicians to receive such visas and to study at US universities.
Israeli security officials have confirmed that these technicians are being denied visas solely because of their employment at the Dimona reactor.
Not only are employees at Dimonas taboo, but reportedly the US has an unofficial embargo on selling anything to be used at the site.
Professor Zeev Alfasi, the head of Nuclear Engineering at Ben-Gurion University in the Negev stated that "the United States doesn't sell anything nuclear-related to the Dimona reactor, and that means absolutely nothing. Radiation detectors, for example have to be purchased now in France because the USA refuses to sell these to Israel."
Here's the odd bit. Obama and his minions might believe that these sneaky, underhanded Jews are all spies, but in real life, nuclear espionage here in America has only occurred from China or from Obama's friends in the Muslim world...especially Iran and Pakistan.
This may very well be a precursor to the denying of visas to Israeli academics, at least on a de facto basis.
hat tip and a commendation to long time Joshua's Army member Joyce C.
Obama The Imposter - "...why has this man published two books but has written NOTHING else?"
The following comment came from a practicing attorney. You can find the full story here: To be (a lawyer) or not to be...
The license stuff is interesting. Would have been nice to have the media actually, you know, look in to Obama's history with a tenth of the intensity with which they looked through Sarah Palin's garbage.
Anyway...
I'm a practicing attorney who went to a top-ranked law school. And this whole "Professor Obama" thing really grinds my gears. Always has. Here's why:
Lawyers write. That's what we do. Pleadings, motions, briefs, memos -- we get paid to write. With a few exceptions (low-level criminal defense) you're writing regularly.
So it's absolutely incomprehensible to me that someone would spend as much time teaching law as Obama did without publishing anything. He never even jumped on someone else's paper as a second author. We're told that Obama's a brilliant writer, that Dreams from My Father is so well-crafted... but Obama doesn't have a shred of legal writing to his name.
I doubt that adjuncts ever had an official publication requirement, but Obama still could have published something at some point. Hell, I have, and I don't claim to be a brilliant writer or thinker. It's just that... when you practice in any area of law for more than a year or so, you probably become the world's foremost expert on some extremely narrow area of the law. It could be mechanic's liens in Texas, or Massachusetts public procurement law. But there's an area where you know all the important cases and all the little tricks, traps, and pitfalls. You certainly amass enough knowledge to put together thirty double-spaced pages on the topic, enough for a short article.
The fact that "Professor" Obama never published ANYTHING, not even for a boring trade publication or bar association newsletter should astonish anyone who ever practiced law or went to law school. It's just so weird.
I suspect that he hasn't written under his own name because he either cannot, or just isn't interested in doing it. And I'm going to lean towards the former, because the latter would certainly have burnished his intellectual credentials in advance of his run for national (or even state) office.
An aggressive independent news media would have asked the questions "why is there no paper trail from Obama's career, which is writing-intensive?" and "why has this man published two books but has written NOTHING else?" Alas, we don't have an aggressive independent news media.
Full Article Here: To Be (a lawyer) Or Not To Be...
The license stuff is interesting. Would have been nice to have the media actually, you know, look in to Obama's history with a tenth of the intensity with which they looked through Sarah Palin's garbage.
Anyway...
I'm a practicing attorney who went to a top-ranked law school. And this whole "Professor Obama" thing really grinds my gears. Always has. Here's why:
Lawyers write. That's what we do. Pleadings, motions, briefs, memos -- we get paid to write. With a few exceptions (low-level criminal defense) you're writing regularly.
So it's absolutely incomprehensible to me that someone would spend as much time teaching law as Obama did without publishing anything. He never even jumped on someone else's paper as a second author. We're told that Obama's a brilliant writer, that Dreams from My Father is so well-crafted... but Obama doesn't have a shred of legal writing to his name.
I doubt that adjuncts ever had an official publication requirement, but Obama still could have published something at some point. Hell, I have, and I don't claim to be a brilliant writer or thinker. It's just that... when you practice in any area of law for more than a year or so, you probably become the world's foremost expert on some extremely narrow area of the law. It could be mechanic's liens in Texas, or Massachusetts public procurement law. But there's an area where you know all the important cases and all the little tricks, traps, and pitfalls. You certainly amass enough knowledge to put together thirty double-spaced pages on the topic, enough for a short article.
The fact that "Professor" Obama never published ANYTHING, not even for a boring trade publication or bar association newsletter should astonish anyone who ever practiced law or went to law school. It's just so weird.
I suspect that he hasn't written under his own name because he either cannot, or just isn't interested in doing it. And I'm going to lean towards the former, because the latter would certainly have burnished his intellectual credentials in advance of his run for national (or even state) office.
An aggressive independent news media would have asked the questions "why is there no paper trail from Obama's career, which is writing-intensive?" and "why has this man published two books but has written NOTHING else?" Alas, we don't have an aggressive independent news media.
Full Article Here: To Be (a lawyer) Or Not To Be...
Florida Court Sets Atheist Holy Day! ... So that's why April 1st got its nom de plume.
----- Original Message -----
From: link removed
To: Norm
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 9:44 AM
Subject: FW: Florida Court Sets Atheist Holy Day!
Subject: Florida
Gotta love this Judge!
You must read this....a proper decision by the courts...for a change.
In Florida , an atheist created a case against the upcoming Easter and Passover Holy days. He hired an attorney to bring a discrimination case against Christians and Jews and observances of their holy days. The argument was that it was unfair that atheists had no such recognized days.
The case was brought before a judge. After listening to the passionate presentation by the lawyer, the judge banged his gavel declaring,"Case dismissed!"
The lawyer immediately stood objecting to the ruling saying, "Your honor, How can you possibly dismiss this case? The Christians have Christmas, Easter and others. The Jews have Passover, Yom Kippur and Hanukkah, yet my client and all other atheists have no such holidays.."
The judge leaned forward in his chair saying, "But you do. Your client, counsel, is woefully ignorant."
The lawyer said, "Your Honor, we are unaware of any special observance or holiday for atheists.."
The judge said, "The calendar says April 1st is April Fools Day. Psalm 14:1 states, 'The fool says in his heart, there is no God.' Thus, it is the opinion of this court, that, if your client says there is no God, then he is a fool. Therefore, April 1st is his day. Court is adjourned."
You gotta love a Judge that knows his scripture!
This is too good not to forward
In GOD we trust!..
____________________
end of message
...but for those interested there is another message here
(I guess I never really thought about the real reason why ice floats)
(I guess I never really thought about the real reason why ice floats)
Eagles, chickens, and a four year old kid.
The following story comes from my friend Chad Everson ...not an overly exciting story but somehow it brought me back to years gone by (see comment following story). And who ever has a camera ready when your pet chicken has a heart attack... Oh, and by the way Chad, the eagle photos are great! ~ Norman E. Hooben
Eagles are now landing in my backyard, Life is good!
ChadTEverson | 04/07/2010 | 10:56 PM |
Well, as you can imagine things here in the dream fulfilled homestead, things have been a bit on pins and needles. I have taken a drastic measure throwing off years of work and relationships that could possibly become fractured, in order to follow this Grizzly Groundswell Reformation.
Well, this morning an Eagle landed in my backyard as to tell me everything is in God’s hands.
I took these first shots tonight as he came back for more of Gladys.
Michelle shot this last photo this morning of the eagle devouring our Glady’s Emanuel hen that suddenly died a few days ago. She must of had a heart attack and died upon her perch. She was one of my favorite hens, a cross breed that was stunning.
In life and especially when you surround yourself with life, tragedy often is followed with great joy and then again with great tragedy again and again with a few moments in time where you can actually stop and smell the roses. Politics is the same way. It is hard for me to remember when this effort was not beset on from every other angle.
The exciting thing for me today is that whether this new Grizzly Groundswell Reformation works or not, it is all in God’s hands.
Get Grizzly!
Well, this morning an Eagle landed in my backyard as to tell me everything is in God’s hands.
I took these first shots tonight as he came back for more of Gladys.
Michelle shot this last photo this morning of the eagle devouring our Glady’s Emanuel hen that suddenly died a few days ago. She must of had a heart attack and died upon her perch. She was one of my favorite hens, a cross breed that was stunning.
In life and especially when you surround yourself with life, tragedy often is followed with great joy and then again with great tragedy again and again with a few moments in time where you can actually stop and smell the roses. Politics is the same way. It is hard for me to remember when this effort was not beset on from every other angle.
The exciting thing for me today is that whether this new Grizzly Groundswell Reformation works or not, it is all in God’s hands.
Get Grizzly!
comments
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
U.S. Census...the bidding war has started. I bid $20.00 per person. Do I hear $15.00?
----- Original Message -----
From: link removed
To: link removed
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 9:56 AM
Subject: FW: This guy nails it
|
I’ll count everyone in my town for $25 per person. Please send me $250,000 and I’ll send you back the
information (care to guess how many people live inGroton
•Are you really hiring 800,000 people to conduct this count?
Is this really just a government plot to temporarily reduce the
unemployment figures for two months? Each new hire only has to
count 437.5 people—I could do that in one morning and be
done!
•Why did you think you needed a Super Bowl ad to tell people about
the Census? Never mind, I guess that’s obvious since you think you
need to send me a letter to tell me that you’re going to send me a
letter.
•Is it true that every person identified could be “worth” $1,000
in Federal government aid, prompting cities and counties to aggressively
seek out and count illegal residents in their area?
•How many Acorn activists are working on the Census? Are you
comfortable hiring people from an organization that is facing charges of
voter registration fraud?
•The census only has 10 questions, so why are two of them focused
on race? Instead of asking me if I’m Hispanic and THEN asking my
race, you could pretty much just add Hispanic to the race
question.¿Entiendes?
Don’t get me wrong, I really appreciate your letter. It is a stark reminder of
how wacky and over-blown our government has become. I only wish
you were doing this survey in October so we’d be even more energized for
the November elections, if that is possible.
Good luck with your census—we’re all counting on you!
Chuck McKinney
Groton , MA
information (care to guess how many people live in
•Are you really hiring 800,000 people to conduct this count?
Is this really just a government plot to temporarily reduce the
unemployment figures for two months? Each new hire only has to
count 437.5 people—I could do that in one morning and be
done!
•Why did you think you needed a Super Bowl ad to tell people about
the Census? Never mind, I guess that’s obvious since you think you
need to send me a letter to tell me that you’re going to send me a
letter.
•Is it true that every person identified could be “worth” $1,000
in Federal government aid, prompting cities and counties to aggressively
seek out and count illegal residents in their area?
•How many Acorn activists are working on the Census? Are you
comfortable hiring people from an organization that is facing charges of
voter registration fraud?
•The census only has 10 questions, so why are two of them focused
on race? Instead of asking me if I’m Hispanic and THEN asking my
race, you could pretty much just add Hispanic to the race
question.¿Entiendes?
Don’t get me wrong, I really appreciate your letter. It is a stark reminder of
how wacky and over-blown our government has become. I only wish
you were doing this survey in October so we’d be even more energized for
the November elections, if that is possible.
Good luck with your census—we’re all counting on you!
Chuck McKinney
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
a post-racial society? Not as long we have a racist in the White House
The man currently occupying the White House is by far the most racist biased person that ever claimed that address...with maybe the exception of Bill Clinton. These Leftist ideologues subscribe to the radical beliefs of Saul Alinsky (not to mention the Socialists Karl Marx and Norman Cousins and the dictator Stalin) and will certainly cry out just the opposite with words designed to cater to the naive and very ill-informed Americans. With platitudes that defy meaning, everything they say or do is has just the opposite outcome. They are the masters of lies and deceit! This is quite common among those that have no conscience to guide them with the moral values expected of leaders with integrity and religious virtues. Even the mention of religion is distasteful in their warped minds.
During the last presidential campaign Mr. Obama said, "Given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers. " This radical statement was carefully prepared and/or designed to reduce our beliefs (or as John Dewey said, "...a synthesizing of all religions.") of the Founding Fathers...to lesson the grip we have on our past which brought us to where are. The where we are has been denigrated to where we had been and without getting rid of the stench in Washington we may never recover our republic for which we once stood... a freedom loving and God fearing people!
And for thoseof you who may remember the words of James MacGreor Burns form his 1984 book, The Power To Lead, "The framers of the U.S. constitution have simply been too shrewd for us. The have outwitted us. They designed separate institutions that cannot be unified by mechanical linkages, frail bridges, tinkering. If we are to 'turn the Founders upside down' -- we must directly confront the constitutional structure they erected.", Mr Obama has laid claim to the word shrewd. ...with one little exception, he has dropped the 'w' and with all of his hope and change has decided to shred he Constitution by turning the Founders upside down. ~ Norman E. Hooben
By Thomas Sowell
April 6, 2010
Few combinations are more poisonous than race and politics. That combination has torn whole nations apart and led to the slaughters of millions in countries around the world.
You might think we would have learned a lesson from that and stay away from injecting race into political issues. Yet playing the race card has become an increasingly common response to growing public anger at the policies of the Obama administration and the way those policies have been imposed.
When the triumphant Democrats made their widely televised walk up Capitol Hill after passing the health care bill, led by a smirking and strutting Nancy Pelosi, holding her oversized gavel, some of the crowd of citizens expressed their anger. According to some Democrats, these expressions of anger included racial slurs directed at black members of Congress.
This is a serious charge-- and one deserving of some serious evidence. But, despite all the media recording devices on the scene, not to mention recording devices among the crowd gathered there, nobody can come up with a single recorded sound to back up that incendiary charge. Worse yet, some people have claimed that even doubting the charge suggests that you are a racist.
Among the people who are likely to be most disappointed with the Obama administration are those who thought it would usher in a post-racial society. That they wished for such a society is a credit to their values. But that they actually expected a move in that direction suggests that they ignored both Barack Obama's history and the heavy vested interest that too many people have in race hustling.
This is just one of many areas in which this country is likely to pay a very high price for the fact that too many voters paid attention to Obama's rhetoric while ignoring his actual track record.
However soothing the Obama rhetoric, and however lofty his statements about being a uniter rather than a divider-- both racially and in terms of bipartisanship-- everything in his past fairly shouts the opposite, but only to those who follow facts.
Has he been allied with uniters or dividers in the past? Do Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers and Father Pfleger sound like uniters?
What has his administration done-- as distinguished from what the president has said-- since taking office?
It has dropped the prosecution of black thugs caught on camera stationed outside a polling place intimidating voters.
Obama has promoted to the Supreme Court a circuit judge who dismissed a discrimination lawsuit by white firefighters, whose case the Supreme Court later accepted and ruled in their favor.
He preceded this appointment by talking about needing people on the court with "empathy." That is a pretty word but the ugly reality is that it is just another euphemism for bias. For generations, white Southern judges had all kinds of empathy for other white Southerners, which is to say, bias against blacks.
The question is whether you want equal treatment or you want payback. Cycles of revenge and counter-revenge have been at the heart of racial and ethnic strife throughout history, in countries around the world. It is a history written in blood. It is history we don't need to repeat in the United States of America.
Political demagoguery and political favoritism have turned groups violently against each other, even in countries where they have lived peacefully side by side for generations. Ceylon was one of those countries in the first half of the 20th century, before the politics of group favoritism so polarized the country-- now called Sri Lanka-- that it produced a decades-long civil war with mass slaughters and unspeakable atrocities.
The world has been shocked by the mass slaughters of the Tutsis by the Hutus in Rwanda but, half a century ago, there had been no such systematic slaughters there. Political demagoguery whipped up ethnic polarization, among people who had co-existed, who spoke the same language and had even intermarried.
We know-- or should know-- what lies at the end of the road of racial polarization. A "race card" is not something to play, because race is a very dangerous political plaything.
---
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His Web site is http://www.tsowell.com/.
Monday, April 5, 2010
What Have you Done? - An Open Letter To Americans ... a Canadian speaks the harsh truth...the job Americans are unwilling to do!
Source: Front Page Magazine 
An open letter to Americans:
As a Canadian, I’ve been observing for some time now, with great concern and even greater disbelief, the political farce enacted day after day in your country. And I keep asking, what have you done? For it seems to me, and to many others as well, that you have embarked upon a truly destructive course that may eventually bring the United States to the brink of ruination.
What have you done? You have elected a president on the strength of an ellipsis, neglecting to fill in the three dots trailing after his every echoing jingle—“Yes we can”…what? You have credited a nimble spinner of tales, a pretty fellow with no significant experience of the real world of risk, hard work and the hazards of survival, a thug with a beguiling smile. You have elevated to the highest office in the land a man without discernible qualifications who is plunging the nation into unredeemable debt for generations to come. You have installed possibly the most consummate liar in POTUS history, who breaks campaign promises as if he were cracking eggs for the skillet and changes his mind almost daily like a weathervane on steroids. You have put your trust in an intellectual lightweight and geopolitical bungler who makes Jimmy Carter look like a paragon of acute intelligence, moral substance and rare diplomatic foresight.
What have you done? You have bought into a fraudulent narrative. You have made a Faustian bargain with a suave Mephistophelian who offers hope and change but delivers instead inevitable suffering and a violated people. As in all such compacts, the price for a brief state of euphoria is subsequent prolonged distress. You have given carte blanche to a man with a personal dossier blacked out in many places like a letter from the front, so as not, apparently, to divulge sensitive information. You have raised among you a man whose friends and influences would surely have precluded him from meriting your confidence had you paid attention to plain facts rather than to quasi-mystical incantations. You have anointed a man with a sinister agenda. You have voted for your historical nemesis who with his every move and decision renders you increasingly insecure in a violent and unforgiving world.
If you need a slogan to trigger a reaction, it should not be “Yes we can”—whatever that might conceivably have meant—but “What have we done?”—whose implications should now be obvious. I pray it is not too late to reverse the trajectory you have unthinkingly plotted for yourselves. It may be a shame to let a serious crisis go to waste, as your president’s intimate adviser cynically put it, but it would be a much greater shame to let a crisis reach the point of no return. And there is little doubt that you are now facing an impending crisis of the first magnitude, both domestically and globally.
Let us count the ways.
The response to a looming international menace is paralysis, appeasement and misconstrual—to the dire effects of which we are all, not only Americans, susceptible. American troops are targeted on the battlefield by the interventions of rogue regimes, such as Syria and Iran, which the present administration refuses to condemn and, indeed, with which it is seeking closer engagement. Defense capability is progressively truncated. Officials sworn to defend the nation to the best of their ability are saddled with the fear of prosecution, discouraging their peers and successors from properly doing their job. Detained terrorists are repatriated to their fields of operation, many taking up once again the jihadist activities for which they were originally interned. Acts of military aggression are adjudicated as civil offenses, awarding terrorists the same constitutional rights as ordinary Americans. Solemn alliances are flouted with whimsical impunity and typical hissy fits while manifest tyrants are treated with kid gloves and gestures of obeisance. UN kleptocrats and avowed enemies are laureled with meretricious authority. This is what your president’s current foreign policy amounts to, abetted by a carefully selected and pliable cadre of career puppets without character or backbone.
Meanwhile, legitimate dissent is denounced as a form of subversion. The Constitution is euphemistically interpreted as a “living document,” that is, as subject to tampering, which is nothing less than an assault upon the foundational heritage of the Republic. Individual liberties are being relentlessly eroded and private behavior regulated by an expanding government bureaucracy. The prospect of enfranchising up to eleven million illegal immigrants presages an American ochlocracy, that is, government by the masses rather than the laws—the very antithesis of Republican rule. Unelected officials, appointed by the president and known as “czars,” wield disproportionate power as they carry out their master’s directives. Unsustainable entitlement programs impinge dramatically upon the future. Income redistribution schemes disincentivize industrial and commercial productivity, creating a shrinking GDP and budgetary shortfall. Discredited hypotheses such as anthropogenic “climate change” are allowed to drive economic policy, leading to even further instability. Major tax hikes are on the horizon, complemented by the shell game of disappearing numbers, especially in regard to the so-called healthcare “reform,” with revenue calculated over a longer period than expenditures. New debt is piled on old debt like Pelion on Ossa. Fiscal blood drains from the nation’s arteries. These and more are the daylight consequences of your electoral delirium.
Who am I to address the citizens of another country? A loyal friend, and a citizen of a nation whose fate is inextricably bound up with yours. My interests are also at stake. That is why I am glad to note that many people are now awakening to the nature and extent of their folly, but far too many still malinger in the grip of a profound narcosis. To these latter, I would say that, in your desire for novelty, your pampered sense of frivolous grievance and your hypnotic suggestibility, you have chosen to cohabit with an incubus. You have shown a readiness to be seduced not by a lover of freedom but by a votary of his own malign gods. Despite the recent surfeit of Hollywood films, TV programs and neo-gothic novels fondly rehabilitating the undead, deep down you must know there is no such thing as a good vampire.
And so, in conclusion, I ask once again. What have you done?
What Have you Done?
Posted By David Solway On April 5, 2010 @ 12:01 am In FrontPage
An open letter to Americans:
As a Canadian, I’ve been observing for some time now, with great concern and even greater disbelief, the political farce enacted day after day in your country. And I keep asking, what have you done? For it seems to me, and to many others as well, that you have embarked upon a truly destructive course that may eventually bring the United States to the brink of ruination.
What have you done? You have elected a president on the strength of an ellipsis, neglecting to fill in the three dots trailing after his every echoing jingle—“Yes we can”…what? You have credited a nimble spinner of tales, a pretty fellow with no significant experience of the real world of risk, hard work and the hazards of survival, a thug with a beguiling smile. You have elevated to the highest office in the land a man without discernible qualifications who is plunging the nation into unredeemable debt for generations to come. You have installed possibly the most consummate liar in POTUS history, who breaks campaign promises as if he were cracking eggs for the skillet and changes his mind almost daily like a weathervane on steroids. You have put your trust in an intellectual lightweight and geopolitical bungler who makes Jimmy Carter look like a paragon of acute intelligence, moral substance and rare diplomatic foresight.
What have you done? You have bought into a fraudulent narrative. You have made a Faustian bargain with a suave Mephistophelian who offers hope and change but delivers instead inevitable suffering and a violated people. As in all such compacts, the price for a brief state of euphoria is subsequent prolonged distress. You have given carte blanche to a man with a personal dossier blacked out in many places like a letter from the front, so as not, apparently, to divulge sensitive information. You have raised among you a man whose friends and influences would surely have precluded him from meriting your confidence had you paid attention to plain facts rather than to quasi-mystical incantations. You have anointed a man with a sinister agenda. You have voted for your historical nemesis who with his every move and decision renders you increasingly insecure in a violent and unforgiving world.
If you need a slogan to trigger a reaction, it should not be “Yes we can”—whatever that might conceivably have meant—but “What have we done?”—whose implications should now be obvious. I pray it is not too late to reverse the trajectory you have unthinkingly plotted for yourselves. It may be a shame to let a serious crisis go to waste, as your president’s intimate adviser cynically put it, but it would be a much greater shame to let a crisis reach the point of no return. And there is little doubt that you are now facing an impending crisis of the first magnitude, both domestically and globally.
Let us count the ways.
The response to a looming international menace is paralysis, appeasement and misconstrual—to the dire effects of which we are all, not only Americans, susceptible. American troops are targeted on the battlefield by the interventions of rogue regimes, such as Syria and Iran, which the present administration refuses to condemn and, indeed, with which it is seeking closer engagement. Defense capability is progressively truncated. Officials sworn to defend the nation to the best of their ability are saddled with the fear of prosecution, discouraging their peers and successors from properly doing their job. Detained terrorists are repatriated to their fields of operation, many taking up once again the jihadist activities for which they were originally interned. Acts of military aggression are adjudicated as civil offenses, awarding terrorists the same constitutional rights as ordinary Americans. Solemn alliances are flouted with whimsical impunity and typical hissy fits while manifest tyrants are treated with kid gloves and gestures of obeisance. UN kleptocrats and avowed enemies are laureled with meretricious authority. This is what your president’s current foreign policy amounts to, abetted by a carefully selected and pliable cadre of career puppets without character or backbone.
Meanwhile, legitimate dissent is denounced as a form of subversion. The Constitution is euphemistically interpreted as a “living document,” that is, as subject to tampering, which is nothing less than an assault upon the foundational heritage of the Republic. Individual liberties are being relentlessly eroded and private behavior regulated by an expanding government bureaucracy. The prospect of enfranchising up to eleven million illegal immigrants presages an American ochlocracy, that is, government by the masses rather than the laws—the very antithesis of Republican rule. Unelected officials, appointed by the president and known as “czars,” wield disproportionate power as they carry out their master’s directives. Unsustainable entitlement programs impinge dramatically upon the future. Income redistribution schemes disincentivize industrial and commercial productivity, creating a shrinking GDP and budgetary shortfall. Discredited hypotheses such as anthropogenic “climate change” are allowed to drive economic policy, leading to even further instability. Major tax hikes are on the horizon, complemented by the shell game of disappearing numbers, especially in regard to the so-called healthcare “reform,” with revenue calculated over a longer period than expenditures. New debt is piled on old debt like Pelion on Ossa. Fiscal blood drains from the nation’s arteries. These and more are the daylight consequences of your electoral delirium.
Who am I to address the citizens of another country? A loyal friend, and a citizen of a nation whose fate is inextricably bound up with yours. My interests are also at stake. That is why I am glad to note that many people are now awakening to the nature and extent of their folly, but far too many still malinger in the grip of a profound narcosis. To these latter, I would say that, in your desire for novelty, your pampered sense of frivolous grievance and your hypnotic suggestibility, you have chosen to cohabit with an incubus. You have shown a readiness to be seduced not by a lover of freedom but by a votary of his own malign gods. Despite the recent surfeit of Hollywood films, TV programs and neo-gothic novels fondly rehabilitating the undead, deep down you must know there is no such thing as a good vampire.
And so, in conclusion, I ask once again. What have you done?
Barack Husein Obama: Definition - A deep structual flaw that does not take responsibilty for..." aah, this is really a book report, I just got side tracked
This is by far one of the most outstanding book reviews I've read in a number of years. As I've advocated for some time now Islam should be banned from the list of the world's religions... it is, as some say, "a worldwide political movement meant on domination" and I should add, by any means possible! How often have we heard or read, "Death to the infidels!"? And that is suppose to identify with, "the religion of peace"! Even though I thought I had a pretty good handle on the philosophy of Islam, I am further educated by the line,"Muslims in the twenty-first century still fear they may be raided by others and live every second of their lives preparing to raid someone else. The philosophy of raiding rules their lives..."
And speaking of having a handle on one's beliefs...this passage certainly clarifies the well-known and so often identified with the Muslim in the White House, "A deep structural flaw in Islamic culture is that nobody wants to take responsibility for his own shortcomings or mistakes, which are always blamed on somebody else or on God’s will. There is no clear distinction between truth and lie, between yes and no. Things happen or don’t happen inshallah (Allah willing), not because you take personal responsibility for them." Now if that's not a perfect description of Barack Husein Obama! Webster should take note of this, the definition fits! Blame George Bush! ~ Norman E. Hooben
The following from:
And speaking of having a handle on one's beliefs...this passage certainly clarifies the well-known and so often identified with the Muslim in the White House, "A deep structural flaw in Islamic culture is that nobody wants to take responsibility for his own shortcomings or mistakes, which are always blamed on somebody else or on God’s will. There is no clear distinction between truth and lie, between yes and no. Things happen or don’t happen inshallah (Allah willing), not because you take personal responsibility for them." Now if that's not a perfect description of Barack Husein Obama! Webster should take note of this, the definition fits! Blame George Bush! ~ Norman E. Hooben
The following from:
Fjordman Book Review: Wafa Sultan's "A God Who Hates"
I am thrilled to publish Fjordman's most excellent review of Wafa Sutlan's seminal, must read book, A God Who Hates. If you never read anything on Islam, read this former Muslim's breathtaking account of her harrowing journey from complete submission to Islam to freedom.
I read and reviewed the book here for Front Page Magazine. Devastating, and I read it all.
I read and reviewed the book here for Front Page Magazine. Devastating, and I read it all.
Book Review: A God Who Hates, Wafa Sultan
Fjordman
The book A God Who Hates: The Courageous Woman Who Inflamed the Muslim World Speaks Out Against the Evils of Islam was written by Wafa Sultan, a Syrian-American ex-Muslim. Breaking with Islam takes tremendous courage, as the traditional death penalty for leaving Islam is still upheld today. The only good byproduct of Muslim immigration to the West is that it has allowed a handful of such former Muslims to publish their thoughts about leaving Islam. One of these titles is Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out, edited by Ibn Warraq. Another is Understanding Muhammad by the Iranian ex-Muslim Ali Sina, the founder of Faith Freedom International. I have reviewed his book at Jihad Watch previously.
In her writing, Wafa Sultan draws extensively on her own personal experiences as well as those of friends and others in her society, especially the women, who suffer from an appalling level of brutality and repression. She manages in a very convincing manner to tie many of these problems directly to Islamic teachings, all the way back to Muhammad, his wives and companions. Far from representing a “perversion” of Islam, she shows us that the repression and violence that is endemic in Islamic societies represent the true essence of Islam.
In sharp contrast to the self-proclaimed “reformist” Irshad Manji, whose knowledge of Islamic doctrines is quite limited, Sultan shows us how Islam was born in the Arabian desert and is still shaped by this 1400 years later. The raids Muhammad and his companions carried out in his lifetime – which amounted to at least twenty-seven if you believe Islamic sources – occupy a major part of his biography. They were intended to acquire booty, but also to inflict physical and mental harm upon rival tribes in order to deprive them of their ability to resist.
Wafa Sultan, page 66: “For me, understanding the truth about the thought and behavior of Muslims can only be achieved through an in-depth understanding of this philosophy of raiding that has rooted itself firmly in the Muslim mind. Bedouins feared raiding on the one hand, and relied on it as a means of livelihood on the other. Then Islam came along and canonized it. Muslims in the twenty-first century still fear they may be raided by others and live every second of their lives preparing to raid someone else. The philosophy of raiding rules their lives, the way they behave, their relationships, and their decisions. When I immigrated to America I discovered right away that the local inhabitants were not proficient in raiding while the expatriate Muslims could not give it up.”
On the Islamic “culture of shouting and raiding,” she states on page 69: “My experience has been that two Muslims cannot talk together without their conversation turning into shouts within minutes, especially when they disagree with each other, and no good can come of that. When you talk to a Muslim, rationally, in a low calm voice, he has trouble understanding your point of view. He thinks you have lost the argument. A Muslim conversing with anyone else – Muslim or non-Muslim – cannot remember a single word the other person has said, any more than my mother could remember a single word of what the preacher in our local mosque said.”
A master-and-slave mentality dominates Arab-Islamic society, both in public and in private. A person can often be a master in one relationship and a slave in another, simultaneously.
Page 158: “When you speak calmly to a Muslim, he perceives you as being weak. The American saying ‘speak softly and carry a big stick,’ is, unfortunately, of no use when dealing with Muslims. It would be more appropriate to say (until we can change this way of thinking), ‘speak forcefully and carry a big stick’; otherwise you will be the weaker party and the loser. Democracy cannot spread in societies like these until the people who live in them have been reeducated, for they cannot function unless they are playing the role of the master or the slave.”
A deep structural flaw in Islamic culture is that nobody wants to take responsibility for his own shortcomings or mistakes, which are always blamed on somebody else or on God’s will. There is no clear distinction between truth and lie, between yes and no. Things happen or don’t happen inshallah (Allah willing), not because you take personal responsibility for them.
Page 215: “Never in my life have I heard or read of a Muslim man’s expressing feelings of guilt about something he has done, even in fiction. People feel guilty only when they feel a sense of responsibility and acknowledge that they have made a mistake. But Muslims are infallible: The mere fact that they are Muslim makes their every error pardonable. A man’s adherence to Islam is defined not by his actions and responsibilities, but only by the profession of faith he recites: ‘I testify that there is no god but God, and that Muhammad is the messenger of God.’ As long as he continues to repeat this profession of faith he will continue to be a Muslim, and no crime he may commit against others can diminish this. Saddam Hussein was one of the great tyrants of history, but most Sunni Muslims consider him a martyr. At his funeral they chanted: ‘To paradise, oh beloved of God.’”
Islam constitutes an extremely and arguably uniquely repressive belief system. Already in the first days of Islam, Muhammad linked obedience to himself with obedience to God.
A God Who Hates, page 159: “Muhammad understood that the ruler was the link between himself and the populace, and so concentrated on the need to obey the ruler, saying in a hadith: ‘Whosoever obeys me obeys God, and he who obeys my emir obeys me. Whosoever disobeys me disobeys God, and he who disobeys my emir disobeys me.’ In confirmation of this, a verse rolled down from the mountaintop, as follows: ‘Obey Allah and the Apostle and those in authority among you’ (4:59). ‘Those in authority among you’ means, according to works of Koranic exegesis, ‘your rulers.’ In order to ensure that Muslims would obey their rulers implicitly and without reservation, Muhammad told them in a hadith: ‘Obey your emir even if he flogs you and takes your property.’ Fearing that some Muslims would rebel against such unquestioning obedience, he justified it by saying in another hadith: ‘If a ruler passes judgment after profound consideration and his decision is the right one, he is rewarded twice. If he passes judgment after profound consideration and his decision turns out to be the wrong one, he receives a single recompense.’”
Page 160-161: “Never in the history of Islam has a Muslim cleric protested against the actions of a Muslim ruler, because of the total belief that obedience to the ruler is an extension of obedience toward God and his Prophet. There is only one exception to this: A Muslim cleric of one denomination may protest against the actions of a ruler who belongs to a different one. How can a Muslim escape the grasp of his ruler when he is completely convinced of the necessity of obeying him? How can he protest against this obedience, which represents obedience to his Prophet and therefore also to his God? He cannot. Islam is indeed a despotic regime. It has been so since its inception, and remains so today. Is there a relationship more representative of the ugliest forms of slavery than that between a ruler and a populace whom he flogs and whose money he steals while they themselves have no right to protest against this behavior? The ruler acts by divine decree, and the people obey him by divine decree.”
Islam is totalitarian to such an extent that it is difficult to comprehend for outsiders. Critics often compare it to totalitarian ideologies such as Nazism and Communism from the Western world, which is apt in many ways. Yet Islam is even more totalitarian than those creeds. Even the Nazis and the Communists didn’t ban wine and beer, all works of pictorial art, sculptures and most types of music. I can think of other religious denominations and groups who restrict the use of alcohol, but I cannot think of any other religious creed on this planet that bans wine, pictorial art and most forms of music at the same time. Islam is unique in this regard.
I have developed a beer hypothesis of civilization, which stipulates that any society that does not enjoy beer and wine cannot produce good science. I say this 80% as a joke and 20% seriously. The Middle East before Islam produced some scientific advances at a time when the ancient civilizations were great consumers of beer and wine. The Middle East after Islam did, for a while, produce a few scholars of medium rank, but these contributions steadily declined until they almost disappeared. This time period overlaps with the period when there were still sizeable non-Muslim communities and by extension sizeable production and consumption of wine in this area. The medieval Persian scholar Omar Khayyam was a good mathematician, but a bad Muslim who loved wine. The Ottoman Turks largely chased away what remained of wine culture in that region. Incidentally, the Turks also contributed next to nothing to science.
The one possible objection I can see to the consumption of beer and wine is that some men become alcoholics who proceed to beat their wives, and some women beat or abuse their children when they drink. This is unfortunately true sometimes and constitutes an issue that should not be ignored. Yet Islamic societies suffer from an extreme level of child abuse, domestic violence and general violence of all kinds, which means that the one really serious objection to alcoholic beverages carries no meaning there. The Koran 4:34 says quite explicitly that men are allowed to beat their women.Ibn Warraq (Editor) They don’t need to get drunk to do so.
A God Who Hates is easy to read, but at the same time deeply disturbing and packed with examples from everyday life of how Islamic doctrines ruin the lives of millions of people. Wafa Sultan’s book provides us with an insightful, but unpleasant look into a culture that damages the soul of its inhabitants. It paints a portrait of a society where women are mistreated daily and barely seen as human. They will in turn project their own traumas on their sons, daughters and daughters-in-law, creating an endless cycle of mental and physical abuse. It is very hard to see how this vicious cycle can be broken without repudiating Islam.
New York Times Circling The Drain? ... And I thought they were already in the sewer.
The following From Wake Up America
New York Times' Comical Mistake
Long story short, a blogger made false claims, with the intent of trapping other bloggers into writing about it and instead of bloggers getting caught in the trap, New York Times did.
Teaser:
Teaser:
And these clowns wonder why they are circling the drain? This lawyer pulled the fake story stunt to entrap us – political bloggers – because “fact checking is not” our “strong suit,” so he claimed. We ignored the story, and the NYT ran with it.
Read the whole thing... this is your entertainment for the day.
Earthquake ... Largest Since 1992 In Southern California
Earthquake closes San Diego Airport
A major earthquake of 7.2 magnitude which struck at forty seconds after 3:40 p.m. PDT on Easter Sunday, April 4, 2010 was centered 39 miles (63 kilometers) SSE of Calexico, CA in the upper Baja California peninsula of Mexico,...
Keep Reading » includes videos
Keep Reading » includes videos
The biggest hustle in human history. Investigators discover numerous bogus claims on Obama's resume!
Investigation reveals numerous bogus claims on Obama resume
In what is being called 'the biggest hustle in human history,' a special investigation has discovered numerous bogus claims on Barack Obama's resume, including the outright lie that he was a 'Constitutional scholar and professor.'The claim turns out to be false.
(AP Photo/Alex Brandon).
As investigators delve further into the background of Barack Obama, a disturbing picture is emerging of a man who is not who he claims to be. The information the public has been told concerning Obama is turning out to be false--fabrications and inventions of a man and an unseen force behind him that had clear ulterior motives for seeking the highest office in the land.
According to a special report issued by 'the Blogging Professor,' the Chicago Law School faculty hated Obama. The report states that Obama was unqualified, that he was never a 'constitutional professor and scholar,' and that he never served as editor of the Harvard Law Review while a student at the school.
The real truth is that Barack Obama was merely an 'instructor' at Chicago Law School, not a professor. Commonly, instructors are non-tenure-track teachers hired by colleges and universities to teach certain courses for a salary that is well below that of Associate Professors or full Professors.
In the hierarchy of higher education, the status of instructors is below that of associate professors and professors because they lack the credentials.
In fact, it can be safely concluded that the claims of Barack Obama concerning his educational credentials and work history in higher education are a complete sham. The President of the United States is a complete fraud.
According to Doug Ross:
I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about "Barry." Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn't even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn't have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.Thus, the question arises, was the claim that Obama was editor of the Harvard Law Review a 'put-up job' as well, allowing the student to claim he held this prestigious position without having the qualifications or meeting the requirements of holding that position? And why?
The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool. According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement).
Further,
Consider this: 1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a "lawyer". He surrendered his license back in 2008 possibly to escape charges that he "fibbed" on his bar application.These are highly disturbing facts, verified facts from the people who know at the Chicago Law School.
2. Michelle Obama "voluntarily surrendered" her law license in 1993.
3. So, we have the President and First Lady - who don't actually have licenses to practice law. Facts.
4. A senior lecturer is one thing. A fully ranked law professor is another. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, "Obama did NOT 'hold the title' of a University of Chicago law school professor". Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law professor at the University of Chicago.
5. The University of Chicago released a statement in March, 2008 saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) "served as a professor" in the law school, but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed in 2008.
There is more from Ross, however:
6. "He did not hold the title of professor of law," said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago School of Law.
7. The former Constitutional senior lecturer cited the U.S. Constitution recently during his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
8. The B-Cast posted the video.
9. In the State of the Union Address, President Obama said: "We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in ourConstitution: the notion that we are all created equal."
10. By the way, the promises are not a notion, our founders named them unalienable rights. The document is our Declaration of Independence and it reads: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
11. And this is the same guy who lectured the Supreme Court moments later in the same speech?
When you are a phony it's hard to keep facts straight.
Obama has made sure that all of his records are sealed tight. And apart from the courageous souls at the various educational institutions who dared to speak the truth, the schools Obama claimed to attend unanimously refuse to release transcripts, records, or other bits of evidence concerning Obama's presence in their institutions.
BREAKING DEVELOPMENT--just as these disturbing facts come to light about Barack Obama, the White House is busy making deals with numerous 'journalists,' promising unprecedented access to the President in exchange for refraining from reporting certain information 'they may discover.'
What would you do? What are you doing now? When are you going to face reality?
A lot can happen in just over four minutes...watch this:
There's an analogy to this story...it may be one of many analogies but I think we ought to consider this one:
Is this what Eric Holder meant when he said, "We are a nation of cowards."
I think that most Americans are sitting on the bus just going along for the ride while Obama is stealing the country right out from under our noses. Wake up America!
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Decision Time Rapidly Approaching
Below we have yet another story filled with scare-mongering rhetoric regarding global warming; none of which is true, i.e. "greenhouse gas emissions that are increasing ocean acidity at an alarming rate." This is all garbage. The primary purpose of any environmental regualtion is to increase revenue and facilitate the takeover of the United States by the United Nations. It has nothing to do with the environment...nothing, nothing, nothing! ~ Norman E. Hooben
______________________
EPA May Use Clean Water Act to Regulate Greenhouse Gas Emissions
By Larry West,
Sunday April 4, 2010
If some businesses and politicians, plus the usual Greek chorus of climate skeptics and conservative pundits, are up in arms about the Environmental Protection Agency's plan to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions (and the U.S. Supreme Court decision that authorized the agency to do so), they're likely to be livid about a new move the EPA is considering: using the Clean Water Act to control greenhouse gas emissions that are increasing ocean acidity at an alarming rate.
But with climate legislation stalled in Congress, the Obama administration is exploring other options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming, accelerate climate change, and cause other problems such as increasing ocean acidification.
Since the beginning of the Industrial Age, the ocean's acidity has increased about 30 percent. Today, the world's oceans are absorbing 22 million tons of carbon dioxide every day. Scientists are worried that increasing acid levels in the oceans could disrupt the complex and delicate marine food chain.
But with climate legislation stalled in Congress, the Obama administration is exploring other options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming, accelerate climate change, and cause other problems such as increasing ocean acidification.
Since the beginning of the Industrial Age, the ocean's acidity has increased about 30 percent. Today, the world's oceans are absorbing 22 million tons of carbon dioxide every day. Scientists are worried that increasing acid levels in the oceans could disrupt the complex and delicate marine food chain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
When I was about four years old I had a pet chicken (not really a pet, just the only one of about fifty or so that would follow me around the yard). I never gave it a name or anything like that but I would talk to her like she was a human…at least she seemed to listen to whatever I had to say. She sometimes was annoying…like the time I was doing something real important (may not have been anything of the sort, but to a 4 year old everything was meaningful) and she came clucking at my knees. Having told her to go away at least a hundred times (more like 2 or 3) my frustrations finally got the best of me… I turned to her and said, “Now go away!” as I kicked her (not very hard) in the butt… She went away OK, but not before she emptied a fresh mix of that excrement that comes from her cloaca (rhymes with kaka) all over my shoe.