 |
What They've Thought
|
||||
|
|
||||
What They Thought September 3, 2006 Alan
Caruba Click here for columnist bios |
|||||
In late August, Democrats in the California legislature and Governor agreed to a deal that would impose a limit on all greenhouse gas emissions. As reported by the Associated Press, “The bill would require the state’s major industries — such as utility plants, oil and gas refineries, and cement kilns — to reduce their emissions of the pollutants widely believed to contribute to global warming.” Among the many problems involved with this deal is the fact that there is no global warming as defined by environmentalists, i.e., a sharp, scientifically predictable increase in the Earth’s overall temperature in the years, decades, and centuries ahead. After touting a coming Ice Age in the 1970s, the Greens reversed course and began to conjure up global warming. Basing public policy on a hoax has become the political choice of Democrats. Worse, the California deal would allow businesses “to buy, sell and trade emission credits with other companies.” A completely bogus market will be created where real money will buy meaningless “credits” while the emissions involved will continue. You want electricity? Other than nuclear and hydroelectric power, you will have to tolerate some emissions. Slightly more than half of the electricity generated in America today comes from the burning of a resource we have in abundance, coal. California, which has consistently failed to provide for sufficient generation, now wants to make the provision of electricity even more costly. If there was ever a better way to drive business and industry out of the State, it has yet to have been invented. The Democrat Party, intellectually and morally bankrupt as this point in its history, has decided to embrace environmentalism’s biggest lies because they will provide a new basis to attack the industrial heart of the nation’s economy. Ignoring the real threat, the worldwide Islamic Jihad, Democrats will attempt to distract Americans with scary stories about the future climate of the Earth. Addressing the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco in late August, Sen. Dianne Feinstein offered the Democrat plan to attack global warming in the next session of Congress. She unveiled a legislative package she intends to introduce that would require the auto industry to improve mileage and “coax” power producers to meet emissions standards. This is an extension of the deal California lawmakers have reached with the Governor to the entire nation. “There is now a scientific consensus that global warming is happening and we can’t stop it,” said Feinstein during an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle. This is a lie. A very big lie. Far from any consensus, there is a growing body of scientific evidence that utterly disputes and debunks that claims made for global warming. In a recent policy analysis report issued by the Cato Institute, Patrick J. Michaels, a senior fellow in environmental studies, a professor of natural resources at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, and the past president of the Association of State Climatologists, concluded that “It is apparent that many recent stories on melting of high-latitude ice, hurricanes, and extinctions are riddled with self-inconsistencies, are inconsistent with other findings, and are reported — as much by scientists themselves as by reporters — in extreme or misleading fashions that do not accurately portray the actual research.” The Cato analysis was buttressed by 77 footnotes documenting the misuse of science to advance the global warming hoax. Ironically, the early Green warnings of a coming, new Ice Age were far closer to the truth, given the fact that the Earth is nearing the end of an interglacial period, thus putting us closer to a colder, not warmer, future. There is no need for the control of greenhouse gas emissions. Even with such controls, the climate of the Earth will be determined by known cycles of solar activity, by known cycles of oceanic activity, by known cycles of hurricane activity, by forces far beyond the control or influence of human activity. The Democrat program of emissions controls is a cruel hoax tied the even greater hoax of global warming. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Sen. Feinstein’s “goal would be to keep global temperature increases to a manageable 1 or 2 degrees by the end of the century. To do so by 2050, she said, the United States would have to cut carbon dioxide emissions to levels 70 percent below those of 1990.” What Sen. Feinstein and the Democrats are proposing is nothing less than a criminal conspiracy to undermine the American economy while nations such as China, India, and even Europe would continue to ignore such senseless limitations on the use of energy to expand their economies. Sen. Feinstein told her audience at the Commonwealth Club that, “without such measures, the global temperature could rise by maybe 9 degrees. In that scenario, three of every five species would die, the sea would rise by two feet, massive floods would hit every 10 years and the state’s drinking water supply would be in jeopardy.” This is lying and scaremongering on a grand scale and it is about to make its way from California to the halls of the U.S. Congress. She will be joined by Sen. Kerry who is calling for “energy independence” by advocating mandates to reduce U.S. consumption of oil by 2.5 million barrels a day by 2015. Among the steps that would achieve true energy independence would be to open a small section of ANWR to oil drilling and that alone would take ten years before its effect would be felt. Another step would be to require states to permit offshore drilling for oil and natural gas. Meanwhile, China, in cooperation with Cuba will be drilling for oil just ninety miles off the shores of Florida, while that State continues to refuse to permit any drilling. California is about to commit eco-suicide and wants the rest of the nation to join it. The business and industry that will flee the Golden State is incalculable. The danger of these anti-energy policies to the future of the nation is beyond comprehension. |
|||||
For some reason the truth and liberals go together about like baklava and apple streusel. When I wrote An Affair to Remember and A Reliable Source, I pointed out that no law had been broken. All we heard from the liberals and their media mouthpieces was that the Republicans couldn’t be trusted with National Security. As is always the case, the exact opposite has turned out to be true. The leak, which broke no law whatsoever, actually came from the offices of the State Department. Where are the Commie hunters when you really need them? All we heard for months on end was the sound of rolling blunder, which, like rolling thunder, quite often never produces anything that is of consequence. How is it that the media and the liberals get a free pass on this? It is because they are all one in the same. We’ll never hear any apologies from any of these people who subjected the nation to the psychological equivalent of a body cavity search in public as they emboldened our enemies. They spoke of accountability and have none. You are the ones who are responsible for holding them accountable. Quit supporting them! Quit making it possible for them to do the dirty work of our enemies. To all of you liberals and fraudulent conservatives (read "pseudo-cons") out there who just don’t get it, I have two words for you: “Grow up!” The recent arrest of the British cells showed me that I can actually trust the rational mid-eastern communities more than I can trust my own media, and that includes the beloved liberal politicians. It turns out that it was people within the mid-eastern community that caught the radicals in their plot to blow up jets in mid-air on their way to our country. I would say that I find it amazing that they understand before the liberals, but that would be a lie. If one lives in a fantasy land, it is very difficult to accept that you’re not only lying to the world but even to yourself. Those who are capable of lying to themselves are the worst of liars and shouldn’t be trusted with anything so dangerous as a writing stylus of any sort (sharp object), or especially a camera and the capacity to modify pictures or explain away the lies. They may very well end up hurting themselves at some point. As a matter of fact, they do keep hurting themselves with those objects. It is up to us, the public, to stop the insanity they are subjecting us to. I think the most frustrating thing is that they are still in business. The amusing thing about all of this is that the liberals flocked to this like flies on a Kennedy speech, and it led to the same thing it always does: nothing that matters except the liberals showing they are clueless about everything. For months leading up to this election, the liberals have harped on this as the evidence they needed to prove Republicans can’t be trusted with protecting the country. I noticed that a few months back they began to realize they were wrong and have backed away from the issue. Since they thought it was so important then, I think that it is important now. In the upcoming elections, they will refer to this incident without going into detail. They spent a lot of time smearing the administration during a time of war with lies. I think it is even more important to pick up all of this mess and smear it all over them, and I mean head to toe. We must never forget the lies all of them told. I mean the politicians and the media. During the war in Iraq, they said there was no evidence of these weapons of mass destruction, and no uranium. They did begin to talk about how we should have controlled one particular facility a little better because the locals had plundered it for the 55 gallon barrels so they could store food and water. Their complaint? The drums were contaminated with uranium and it was killing those who had taken the drums. Did any of these people make the connection? Of course not. They are doing a connect-a-dot picture of an eagle, but because they are copying off of Joseph Stalin’s sheet, they are drawing an aardvark. It turns out that the source of the insignificant leak on Valerie Plame was Richard Armitage who was attached to Colin Powel at the State Department. Anyone who remembers biology will remember that the colon is attached to something else, and that has once again borne out to be the case here. I don’t mean Armitage necessarily; I mean the liberals and the media. R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||
Dear Uncanny Image of the Virgin Mary: I’ve noticed you have a thing lately for appearing to people in the form of their foodstuffs. A St. Louis man, for instance, recently discovered your likeness in the greasy drip pan of his signature George Foreman Grill. Only days before that, workers in a California chocolate factory discovered a Mary-like figure — that’s you: you’re Mary — born of misshapen chocolate drippings. Finally, who can forget the famous Virgin Mary grilled cheese sandwich — as old as the JonBenet case, and yet, ten years and thousands of dollars later, still just as fresh? If you’d only pulled this stunt once or twice, it would be easy for me and my fellow Americans to shrug this off as mere coincidence. After all, faces appear in our food all the time. Just last week, I saw former New York City Mayor David Dinkins swimming in my soup. But surely you’ve heard the expression, “Fool me twice with uncanny images of the Virgin Mary, shame on you. Fool me three or more times with uncanny images of the Virgin Mary, shame on me.” And I’m afraid that’s what we’re up against with all these uncanny images of the Virgin Mary here. I’ve been fooled before. I won’t get fooled again. Unlike the rest of the media, I’m done tossing softballs. Other reporters want to give you a pass. But me? I think it’s time to start asking the tough questions. No more weak-kneed queries along the lines of, “Is it or isn’t it an image of Mary?” The media want to simplify the issue in order to mislead the public, but I say it’s time to grill you — metaphorically speaking — and let the people be the judge. So here goes. 1. Question number one. Why food? I understand you want to get through to people and send them a message, but wouldn’t it be easier just to leave them a Post-It note? 2. Speaking of which, how come every Post-It notepad I ever buy disappears after I use it two times? Where are all those little yellow notepads running off to? Is there a warehouse where you’re storing them somewhere? Is that the same place where you’re keeping all my socks? 3. Suppose it makes sense for you to appear in people’s food. Are those people then supposed to eat that food? I would think, as the Mother of God, you’d prefer us to eat the food you appear on instead of wasting it or selling it back and forth to each other. There are kids on this planet who are lucky when they even have food — face or no face on it. 4. If we eat food with your face on it, would that make us cannibals? 5. Is cannibalism a sin? 6. Can a vegetarian be a cannibal, since they’re technically not eating animals? 7. Was Jesus a vegetarian? Also, was he cool? 8. Sometimes my Kellogg’s Rice Krispies talk to me. Should I believe it when Snap, Crackle, and Pop claim to be the three wise men? 9. How do we know that edible images of the Virgin Mary are really the Virgin Mary? Couldn’t it be some other Mary? Maybe it’s Meredith Baxter Birney. I wouldn’t be surprised. 10. Sometimes I see images of Bill O’Reilly on my television. They look and talk just like him. Should I take that as a sign? 11. In 1989, Pizza Hut sold special “futuristic” sunglasses to promote Back to the Future, Part II. Did you see where I put mine? I can’t find them. Can you tell me where they are? 12. Can you see people when they go in the bathroom? 13. If you can see them in the bathroom, do you watch or close your eyes? 14. I don’t think you should watch people in the bathroom. This isn’t really a question. Just an opinion I figured I’d share with you. 15. Instead of food, have you ever considered, say, appearing on a painting of the Virgin Mary? 16. Follow-up question. Suppose you appeared on such a painting. How would you do it? Would it be like that gimmick from Conan O’Brien where they use a picture of someone and make their eyes and mouth move? Or would it be more like a small Virgin Mary appearing on the face of the painted Virgin Mary? 17. Am I going to hell for asking these questions? 18. How come David Hasselhoff keeps appearing on slices of baloney? 19. Do you think it’s weird that a couple of Prophet cartoons cause Muslims all over the world to riot, yet a chocolate Virgin Mary causes factory workers in California to pray? 20. I’m thinking of a number between 1 and 3. What is it? 21. If Heaven exists, what would you like to hear Inside the Actors Studio host James Lipton say when they turn him away at the Pearly Gates? 22. Would you show up in my dinner tomorrow if I promise to split the money? No further questions. Thank you and good night. Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||
Globalists and one-world promoters never seem to tire of coming up with ways to undermine the sovereignty of the United States. The most recent attempt comes in the form of the misnamed "Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America (SPP)." In reality, this new "partnership" will likely make us far less secure and certainly less prosperous. According to the US government website dedicated to the project, the SPP is neither a treaty nor a formal agreement. Rather, it is a "dialogue" launched by the heads of state of Canada, Mexico, and the United States at a summit in Waco, Texas in March, 2005. What is a "dialogue"? We don't know. What we do know, however, is that Congressional oversight of what might be one of the most significant developments in recent history is non-existent. Congress has had no role at all in a "dialogue" that many see as a plan for a North American union. According to the SPP website, this "dialogue" will create new supra-national organizations to "coordinate" border security, health policy, economic and trade policy, and energy policy between the governments of Mexico, Canada, and the United States. As such, it is but an extension of NAFTA- and CAFTA-like agreements that have far less to do with the free movement of goods and services than they do with government coordination and management of international trade. Critics of NAFTA and CAFTA warned at the time that the agreements were actually a move toward more government control over international trade and an eventual merging of North America into a border-free area. Proponents of these agreements dismissed this as preposterous and conspiratorial. Now we see that the criticisms appear to be justified. Let's examine just a couple of the many troubling statements on the SPP's US government website: "We affirm our commitment to strengthen regulatory cooperation...and to have our central regulatory agencies complete a trilateral regulatory cooperation framework by 2007." Though the US administration insists that the SPP does not undermine US sovereignty, how else can one take statements like this? How can establishing a "trilateral regulatory cooperation" not undermine our national sovereignty? The website also states SPP's goal to "[i]mprove the health of our indigenous people through targeted bilateral and/or trilateral activities, including in health promotion, health education, disease prevention, and research." Who can read this and not see massive foreign aid transferred from the US taxpayer to foreign governments and well-connected private companies? Also alarming are SPP pledges to "work towards the identification and adoption of best practices relating to the registration of medicinal products." That sounds like the much-criticized Codex Alimentarius, which seeks to radically limit Americans' health freedom. Even more troubling are reports that under this new "partnership," a massive highway is being planned to stretch from Canada into Mexico, through the state of Texas. This is likely to cost the US taxpayer untold billions of dollars, will require eminent domain takings on an almost unimaginable scale, and will make the US more vulnerable to those who seek to enter our country to do us harm. This all adds up to not only more and bigger government, but to the establishment of an unelected mega-government. As the SPP website itself admits, "The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America represents a broad and ambitious agenda." I hope my colleagues in Congress and American citizens will join me in opposing any "broad and ambitious" effort to undermine the security and sovereignty of the United States. Rep. Ron Paul Web Site Back to Top |
|||||
|
No column this week. Nancy
Salvato
Web Site Contact
Back to Top
|
|||||
©2004-2006 by their respective authors. Reprinted by permission. |
|||||
|
news | constitution | bill of rights | our view | your view | their view awards to win | awards we've won | resources | goodie shoppe our mission | about us | contact us | privacy policy | site map | home This page last updated on Tuesday, September 5, 2006 9:15 PM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
|||||
|
site content ©2002-2006 site design by |
|||||
