Come together in this amazingly anti-human article:

The “inconvenient truth” overhanging the UN’s Copenhagen conference is not that the climate is warming or cooling, but that humans are overpopulating the world.

A planetary law, such as China’s one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days…

…The fix is simple. It’s dramatic. And yet the world’s leaders don’t even have this on their agenda in Copenhagen. Instead there will be photo ops, posturing, optics, blah-blah-blah about climate science and climate fraud, announcements of giant wind farms, then cap-and-trade subsidies.

None will work unless a China one-child policy is imposed…

What is the “one child” policy? It is a policy which mandates forced abortions and sterilization once you’ve had one child per couple. It would “work”; there would be a lot less people around. But are there really too many of us?

The author notes that we’ll reach 9 billion people by 2050 – and “unsustainable” number, in her view. Left out – because it doesn’t fit with a hate-filled, anti-human screed – is the fact that population growth rates, currently about 1.22%, are expected to fall to 0.33% by 2050. Also left out is the fact that some estimates have global population at 7.4 billion in 2050…this if the reduction in the birth rate continues on as current (and there’s no indication of a change in this pattern). Further left out is the projection that population could be 500 million less in 2100 than it was in 2000.

The truth about human population is that the Culture of Death has already seized hold of us – birth rates are dropping like a rock all around the world and most of Europe already has a birth rate lower than replacement. But voluntary suicide isn’t enough – when you really, really hate yourself and the human race, you want more positive measures. So, a one-child policy naturally commends itself.

All of this is, of course, utter nonsense. We’re not overpopulated now. We won’t be overpopulated in 2050. We can never actually overpopulate the world. Breed like mad and without any sense at all and we’ll still not be able to overcome the amount of land and resources available. Current global population density for the land area of the world is about 118 per mile. Japan’s is 874; and Japan is not exactly and environmental basket case. Put 42 billion people on earth and we still won’t have the population density of Japan. Anyone out there think that we’re ever going to reach 42 billion? 20 billion? Heck, even 10 billion? My bet is on the low end of population projections, given that even a here to for fertile nation like Mexico is only an ace away from being below replacement in fertility.

Some of the nations which are already below replacement level include Tunisia (just in case you think all Moslem nations breed like rabbits), China, Germany, Brazil, Japan, Poland (just in case you think Catholic countries are immune), New Zealand and Puerto Rico. Among the nations which will probably shortly fall in to the negative are Iran, United States, Vietnam, Turkey and Indonesia. The most fertile nation on earth is Niger – one of the three nations which have a birth rate of 7 or more per child. My great-grandparents had 14, and that wasn’t unusual a century ago; so, 7 really isn’t all that much in the grand scheme of things. Keep in mind that each nation which falls below 2.1 children per couple can only maintain its current population by immigration – but even the nations which supply the immigrants are drying up.

Our problem is no longer how to deal with growing population, but how to prepare ourselves for a world which will have a declining population. Don’t tell this to the Culture of Death people, however, because it would upset them – if they can’t promulgate new ways to murder the innocent, their whole day is wrecked.

Heritage explains:

This “personal responsibility” provision of the legislation, more accurately known as the “individual mandate” because it commands all individuals to enter into a contractual relationship with a private insurance company, takes congressional power and control to a striking new level. Its defenders have struggled to justify the mandate by analogizing it to existing federal laws and court decisions, but their efforts do not withstand serious scrutiny. An individual mandate to enter into a contract with or buy a particular product from a private party, with tax penalties to enforce it, is unprecedented– not just in scope but in kind–and unconstitutional as a matter of first principles and under any reasonable reading of judicial precedents.

If a health care bill is passed with an individual mandate, I will not participate – and I will welcome any legal sanctions as step one in a legal challenge to any such law. I’m certain that millions of other Americans would gladly join me in such an effort – in fact, we should start thinking of setting in motion a pre-commitment on this. Have people state, in public, that they will not adhere to any law which requires a citizen to engage in an economic activity – its bad enough that we’re required to buy car insurance, but at least there’s the “out” of not driving a car. Under ObamaCare, there would be no way out – save by popular revolt.

I’m not having any of this – I hold fast to my liberty and say, “thus far, but no further” to government attempts to control my life.

Why do liberals want ObamaCare and Cap and Trade? Here’s why:

It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds. – Frederic Bastiat

…and pretty soon, you’re talking about real money:

In a bold but risky year-end strategy, Democrats are preparing to raise the federal debt ceiling by as much as $1.8 trillion before New Year’s rather than have to face the issue again prior to the 2010 elections.

“We’ve incurred this debt. We have to pay our bills,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told POLITICO Wednesday. And the Maryland Democrat confirmed that the anticipated increase could be as high as $1.8 trillion — nearly twice what had been assumed in last spring’s budget resolution for the 2010 fiscal year.

Republicans should attempt a filibuster – certainly, all Congressional Republicans must vote “no” on this, as a matter of principle. Make the Democrats, if we can, vote for increases on a month by month basis so that the people can ask the question: when will we balance the budget? Obama says he’ll cut the deficit in half by the end of this term – meaning, that we’ll “only” have $700 billion or so deficits, given the deficit for 2009. This is absurd – we must stop spending more than we take in.

Showing there is no end to liberal idiocy. See it here.

Interesting:

On its face, the probability of the U.S. defaulting on its spiraling debts seems highly unlikely. But that’s not what the markets think. The price of insurance against such a default—using derivatives known as credit default swaps—has jumped by more than 50% in the private market in recent months. According to CMA DataVision in London, a specialist in these contracts, it will now cost you 0.34% of the principal per year to buy default insurance on U.S. government bonds. If you held $1 million in Treasurys, insuring against default would cost you $3,400 for the year. A few months back, insuring those bonds would’ve cost less than $2,000.

Not exactly a vote of confidence in Uncle Sam. Now, as the author of the linked piece goes on to note, an actual default on US bonds is highly unlikely – but there’s nothing stopping Obama and the Fed from forcing in a round of inflation, thus making the bonds we currently hold functionally worthless, and thus easy for the government to pay back. For as long as the US has issued bonds, our bonds have been the gold standard – the “risk free” investment. But, are they really?

I will review my decision to go in to bonds – perhaps I’ll find somewhere else to park my money.

According to Public Policy Polling, 44 percent of voters would rather have George W. Bush back as president, while those who prefer having Obama has dropped to 50 percent.

What does this suggest?

Given the horrendous approval ratings Bush showed during his final term that’s somewhat of a surprise and an indication that voters are increasingly placing the blame on Obama for the country’s difficulties instead of giving him space because of the tough situation he inherited. The closeness in the Obama/Bush numbers also has implications for the 2010 elections. Using the Bush card may not be particularly effective for Democrats anymore, which is good news generally for Republicans and especially ones like Rob Portman who are running for office and have close ties to the former President.

Given the disaster of the past year, almost anyone would be better than Obama, but definitely count me as a voter who would very much rather have Bush back in office.

I imagine it won’t be long before a majority of voters join me.

As Obama makes the masses appreciate President Bush, consider donating to the George W. Bush Presidential Center.

I think we’re pretty much wide awake now – the Obama glow is gone and people realize that we’ve been had:

President Obama hopes to use money still unspent from the $787-billion economic stimulus plan to fight the nation’s 10% unemployment rate, and one of the ideas on the table is to channel money to states to keep them from laying off public employees.

But a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 22% of Americans favor providing federal bailout funds to states with serious financial problems. Fifty-eight percent (58%) oppose giving bailout money to financially troubled states.

On top of that, 56% of Americans oppose the passage of another economic stimulus package this year. While House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other congressional Democrats are hoping to spend more to combat unemployment, just 33% favor another stimulus plan.

As Lincoln said, you can fool some of the people all of the time; all of the people some of the time; but not all of the people, all of the time. The only people still fooled by Obama are his hard core, leftist supporters who simply will not look at the facts and realize their worldview is based upon a series of false assumptions. But outside of those precincts, people fully realize that Obama’s rhetoric of 2008 was just so much BS to get him past election day.

Obama, of course, will try to re-capture the center in 2010 and, especially, 2012 but I don’t think he’ll be able to fool a majority a second time. Only a miraculous turn-around in the economy – made ever more impossible with each new dose of Obama policies – would give him even a shot at suckering a majority in to granting him a second term. But, where does that leave us, today?

We’re stuck with him – and his Congress, at least until January of 2011 (and the way the electoral math goes, we have to presume on, at the very least, a Democrat Senate majority until 2013). Matt pointed this out after Sotomayor was confirmed – this is the wages of being upset with the GOP for not nominating a candidate conservative “enough”. Regardless of what one thinks of McCain, we can rest assured that he wouldn’t be burying us in debt and corruption like Obama is. Next time, hopefully, we’ll have learned our lesson – better even a RINO we can pressure than dimwit liberal we have no control over (this applies only to Presidential contests – in House and Senate contests, especially when a GOPer is in the White House, better a Democrat than a RINO – and if we sift out the RINOs in State and Congressional races, we’ll have that much less chance of a RINO Presidential nominee. Ya dig?). Of course, a true conservative would be better – and that is what we should shoot for.

It is time for us to adhere to core, conservative principles – defense of the family, balanced budgets, low taxes, strong national defense and American exceptionalism. We can do much to derail the worst aspects of Obama’s policies, but we cannot stop them, altogether – especially as Obama has no problem with end-runs around the US Constitution, such as the EPA act on CO2. But we can offer a stark – and hopeful – contrast to the morass of Obama’s liberalism. Provide that clear divide – make ourselves clearly not part of what is going wrong, and we’ll reap the electoral reward. Perhaps enough by 2012 to have the power to really reshape American government.

Feeling down about America and our prospects? Don’t.

We cannot escape our destiny, nor should we try to do so. The leadership of the free world was thrust upon us two centuries ago in that little hall of Philadelphia. In the days following World War II, when the economic strength and power of America was all that stood between the world and the return to the dark ages, Pope Pius XII said, “The American people have a great genius for splendid and unselfish actions. Into the hands of America God has placed the destinies of an afflicted mankind.”

We are indeed, and we are today, the last best hope of man on earth. – Ronald Reagan

I believe, indeed, that God has placed in our hands the responsibility for protecting right and decency in a world gone mad – we are very imperfect in this and it is a wonder, at times, that God would so entrust us…but, then again, God has long been known for picking out the oddest people to do His will. We are temporarily partially afflicted with the madness which is consuming the rest of the world, but the events of the past year show that deep inside America, the spirit of 1776 still lives – that this people will fight for freedom and decency.

We will overcome – this, too, shall pass. We’re Americans, so I’m sure of it.

A pack of lies, of course:

Nobel Laureate Al Gore Wednesday called former Alaska governor Sarah Palin a “global warming denier.”

Speaking with MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell, Gore also repeated his false claim about ClimateGate e-mail messages obtained from Britain’s Climatic Research Unit: “the most recent one is like ten years ago.”

As Andrew Bolt reported Wednesday at Australia’s Herald Sun, the most recent e-mail message obtained from CRU was sent less than a month ago on November 12.

Unfortunately, much like his appearance on CNN earlier in the day, Gore was playing fast and loose with the facts.

Read the whole thing over a Newsbusters.

Al Gore is the Con Artist in Chief of anthropogenic global warming. He has no scientific training, but he has become an “expert” about climate change. Why? Because he’s successfully pushed the agenda – and made a bundle of money in the process.

Gore is now in damage control mode – his fat paychecks are dependent upon AGW continuing as a “crisis” and, of course, the US government passing cap and trade so that he and his fat cat buddies can rake in even more money. “Climategate” has proven, conclusively, that AGW not only isn’t true, but that it was never even a likely theory – they faked the reports and destroyed the underlying data. You can walk around like an idiot and believe the scammers who are selling a story about just why they’d do this other than the obvious explanation that they’re frauds – you can, if you want to be a fool.

UPDATE: More verification of Gore’s lies. It seems to me that Gore and the AGW have settled on a talking point – we’re to ignore “Climategate” because its old news. Well, (a) its not old – some of the e mails are from 2009 – and (b) even if the e mails were all from ten years ago, they still show that data underpinning AGW is fraudulent.

UPDATE II: Owellian science; 2 + 2 = 5