Global Warming Hoax Update

Mark Noonan75 Comments

From Canada Free Press:

Global warming is likely to be less extreme than claimed, researchers said yesterday. The most likely temperature rise will be 1.9C (3.4F) compared with the 3.5C predicted by the Intergovern­mental Panel on Climate Change. The Norwegian study says earlier predictions were based on rapid warming in the Nineties. But Oslo University’s department of geosciences included data since 2000 when temperature rises “levelled off nearly completely” – John Ingham, Daily Express, 26 January 2013

The Earth’s mean temperature rose sharply during the ­Nineties. This may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity. We are most likely witnessing natural fluctuations in the climate system – changes that can occur over several decades – and which are coming on top of a long-term warming. – Professor Terje Berntsen,University of Oslo, 24 January 2013

These results are truly sensational. If confirmed by other studies, this could have far-reaching impacts on efforts to achieve the political targets for climate. – Caroline Leck,Stockholm University, 25 January 2013

Remember the hoax wasn’t the claim that the world is warming – there is data to indicate that is true – the hoax was that human-produced CO2 was the primary culprit.  That was the hook – that was the way global socialists hoped to gain political and economic control of our lives, because they ostensibly had to control how much CO2 we emitted or the world would suffer catastrophe.  Now, after a decade of no measurable warming, a bit of actual science (not a “consensus” that the world is warming up being hitched to a claim that massive government intervention is needed to save us) is showing up in the debate…and if the world is warming, it will be far less than the alarmists expected, and may not be bad for the world.

Now, I wonder if Al Gore will give back the money he made pushing this scam?

Women in Combat

Mark Noonan16 Comments

It was, perhaps, inevitable that women would be allowed in to combat roles – though as we’ve gone along this line of liberal nonsense, there still is the fact that women will only be in combat roles if they volunteer for them.  This is a secret acknowledgement that most women don’t want to and cannot perform the role of combat soldier.  Men in the military, of course, go where they are sent.

Any military force, if it is guided by anything akin to wisdom, seeks to be the most powerful it can be.  There is a reason for physical fitness requirements in soldiers – because while technology can do a lot, when it gets down to bullets flying and all is confusion, blood and fear, you need soldiers who have the physical strength to endure the strain.  It isn’t easy and even the strongest physical specimens can break down under the burden, even if not actually harmed by combat.  Right now, our army has done very well on this – you can see it in the soldiers:  they are often massive bruisers, far larger than, for instance, yours truly.  Even in my younger days, I probably couldn’t have measured up to the physical requirements of today’s troops.  Today’s soldiers are, in my view, better trained and more able than any soldiers we’ve ever placed in the field – and this is stated in knowledge that my Dad joined the Marines in 1944 while my uncle, when asked, stated he “earned” his VA benefits at a little ridge named “Heartbreak” in Korea.  And I like the fact that today’s soldiers outclass not only myself, but my Dad and my uncle…and, heck, even my grandfather and all his brothers (all of whom served in World War One and all of whom were wounded in action, some of them quite seriously).  My worry about this ruling is not so much that women will be in combat, but that the requirements for being a combat soldier in the United States Armed forces will be lowered so that women can participate.

In a population as large as ours, there will be some percentage of women who can actually meet the current physical requirements for being a combat soldier.  I can’t say what the percentage would be, but it would be fairly small – and out of that percentage of women who can do it, you would only get those who also wanted to do it, which would be the merest fraction of the total percentage who possibly could (in spite of intensive recruitment efforts among women, their percentage of the military has been stuck at 15% for ages; most women just don’t see the military as the place to be).  But what if there are women who want it – let’s face it, being in a combat role in the military is the path to advancement – but who can’t measure up?  Will standards be lowered so that they may participate?  We’ve already seen physical requirements lowered for police and firefighters in the United States so that women can participate – will that now become the rule for the military, as well?

If women are to serve in a combat role it must only be if the can meet the actual physical requirements currently in place.  Period.  If we do anything else – any mealy-mouthed, lying liberal excuses to lower standards – then we will be deliberately creating a weaker military just so we can make leftist feminists happy.  And that weaker military will pay in blood for being weaker when it could have been stronger.  I do not want Americans to wind up dead simply because we put in to combat roles people who can’t take the strain.

 

Paul Asks Kerry the Important Question

Mark Noonan55 Comments

From Allahpundit at Hot Air:

Excellent, and not just the Libya stuff. Stick with it for Paul’s questions about how smart it is to be arming the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt when Morsi is already wheezing about Jews controlling the media in official diplomatic sessions with the U.S. If you’re wondering why it fell to Paul to ask this question instead of any of the more senior senators who preceded him, it’s because the Senate was perfectly happy to have Obama act unilaterally on Libya. The Iraq war authorization came back to haunt many of them; no one knew at the time how messy Libya might get. O did them a favor, left and right, by freeing them from a tough vote. But Kerry can’t say that so instead he squirms through a few minutes of how the two bombing campaigns are different because they just are. Frankly, Paul let him off easy. You could, if you chose, defend U.S. actions in Cambodia as a cross-border extension of the war already being fought in Vietnam. No such defense for Libya; if anything, the Libya war cut against the AUMF against Al Qaeda that was passed after 9/11 because, as we’ve recently learned, eliminating Qadaffi was actually a boon to jihadist groups like AQ…

Do go to the link and check out the video of the questions.  Allahpundit is exactly right that Congress was perfectly happy to let Obama go off on his own in Libya – because it prevented any of them from having to take a vote which, at election time, may have been a burden to carry.  The atrophy of the legislative power of the United States was starkly displayed in the Libya mess, as it is now being put on display in Mali.  This is not actually Obama’s fault – at least in the sense that he didn’t make it all happen by himself.  All Presidents since World War Two have routinely encroached on legislative powers, with the only time Congress acting in a Congressional manner during the Nixon years, and even that wasn’t on principal but merely because Democrats wanted to get Nixon (why?  Because Nixon – establishment Republican that he was – was also a stout anti-communist in the 50’s and was actually more effective, in certain ways, in exposing liberal fellow-traveling with communists than McCarthy ever was; they hated Nixon because he exposed the truth about liberals).   Rand Paul, being a strict constitutionalist, is actually behaving like a Senator who has oversight powers over the Executive branch…and Paul should watch out:  the more he exposes the truth, the more the left is going to hate him.

 

Rubio and Paul Question Clinton

Mark Noonan47 Comments

So, Hillary had continual conversations with the Libyan government about the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi…and, then…

Paul notes that Hillary didn’t read the cables from Benghazi which called attention to the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi…

Essentially, Hillary’s contention is that she was on it, but then didn’t bother to read the most important information provided:  that of her ambassador on the ground, whom she has said elsewhere she selected for the job and thus must be presumed to be someone Hillary had trust in.  Paul points out that its not a matter of expecting the Secretary of State to read all cables – that would be both impossible and pointless.  But Libya was clearly a hot spot – we had engaged in military actions to help remove the previous Libyan government and we were making strenuous efforts to forge a viable, pro-western government in Libya…certainly something which should command the interest of our chief foreign policy officer.  Basic competence would require that Hillary read every bit of data coming out of Libya at that time – it strains credulity well past the breaking point to believe that she didn’t read all the cables.  But, she says she didn’t – which might, in a legalistic mind like Hillary’s, get her off the hook but which, in reality, just makes it worse:  it was her job to know.  It is what we paid her to do – and she didn’t do it.

As I expected, Hillary’s testimony as nothing but a patchwork of lies and blame shifting.  Of course, Hillary’s main purpose here was to protect the Clinton brand.  She is thinking of running for President in 2016 and right now she’s very popular in the polls…but Benghazi is the symbol of the utter failure of Obama’s foreign policy as executed by Secretary of State Clinton.  When she does run in 2016, not only will Republicans keep asking about this, but her competitors in the Democrat primary will, too (though Joe Biden will be reticent about it).  Hillary wants this to go away – but between Rubio and Paul (both of whom will probably run in 2016), her utter failure is exposed.

Hillary probably expects her answers to be the final word – more than likely, she won’t ever take any future questions on the matter except in the most friendly venues.  Is pressed, she’ll refer all to her Senate testimony and claim that its old news and there’s nothing more to be said.  But the people of the United States know – with certainty – that by her own words, Hillary failed as an executive officer of our government.

The Second Amendment

Federalist 201266 Comments

Guns

The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There is one irrefutable fact, supported by contemporary writings of a number of the Founders: the 2nd amendment was written to enable the individual people of this nation, as a last resort, to overthrow a tyrannical government. Self-protection, hunting and shooting were well received by-products; however the original intent has never changed. The Founders themselves armed for war with smooth bore muskets, which at four shots per minute, were the commonly issued assault rifles of their day.

Contemporary rifled bore flintlock rifles, while having more far range in the hands of elite marksman only fired one shot per minute, and some took far longer to load. Hand grenades had been in military use in the United Kingdom as early as the Battle of Holt Bridge in 1643, and had been in widespread use for 100 years. Artillery, from swivel guns to cannon, howitzers, and mortars, were in common use and owed by private citizens and communities.

Warships, the most powerful weapons of the day, were often privately owned; in fact, the eight frigates of the Continental Navy performed pitifully, and were all sunk by 1781. The only real naval successes enjoyed by the rebellious Americans were from privateers, who made the best of the 1,697 letters of marque issued by Congress. (1)

This posting will cover the original intent of the second amendment as well as an introduction to a few of the many legislative attempts to place limitations on it. This document relies on vetted on-line information, books, and other available materials from institutes of higher education. Credit will be given to the best of the ability of this writer. Spelling will contain the spelling of the time of publication. I can only hope this post can lead to further discussion of the subject matter. Continue reading →

Walk Into The Fire

Cluster40 Comments

I have become a big fan of political commentator Ben Shapiro as of late and have started reading his new book “Bullies”, which is terrific. Not surprisingly, Ben was mentored by the late Andrew Breitbart who pioneered the conservative tactic that Ben has now taken up the mantle on and that is to shine the light on the left and their despicable bullying tactics. It is imperative that conservatives spend the next four years methodically exposing the left, Obama, and the media for the shameful, divisive nature of their politics that they display daily, and have successfully used as a club to gain control and power. The tactic is to pit “victims” against “aggressors”, and to famously champion the victims. And of course, the Democrats side with the victims, therefore, anyone opposed to the Democrats is the aggressor; ie: bully, ie: Conservatives. And everyone hates a bully therefore everyone should hate Conservatives. Obama has even made himself into the victim claiming that people think that his name is funny, that he doesn’t “look” like previous Presidents, and that Republicans attack him on the floor of the Congress, all of which is designed to foment hatred against those who oppose him. This tactic has been very effective on the low information voter, and the intellectually challenged, which unfortunately constitutes far too many of the current population of voters, and is a tactic that Obama and the media have recently accelerated as evidenced by John Dickerson’s column on “pulverizing” the GOP.

Ironically in 2008, Obama ran as, and was elected as a uniter. But that again was just another lie as his Chicago thug-like nature took over shortly after the election, displaying no real interest in building coalitions, a fact cemented by his appointment of Rahm “dead fish” Emmanuel as his Chief of Staff. But why should he build coalitions? When all he has to do now is continue to play the well established “victim” card and demonize anyone who opposes his sanctimonious agenda. We are seeing that in the gun debate, the gay marriage debate, the higher tax debate, and so on and so on. This allows Obama and the Democrats to avoid any adult like, real substantive debate on the issue and unfortunately, this fact sails over the head of too many people. This shameful tactic was also in full display during the last campaign, when Obama relentlessly attacked the very character of Romney, claming him to be an uncaring, rich person who evades taxes, strips people of their healthcare and allows spouses to die. And the complicit media carried his water the entire way. That is why conservatives have no choice and must confront this tactic head on, and as Breitbart famously exclaimed “walk into the fire”.

What OWS Got Wrong…and What We Have to Get Right

Mark Noonan122 Comments

 

I don’t often say that a video is “must see”, but this one is.  It lays out what is wrong with our financial and government system.  Our task is to educate the American people about the fact that what has happened is that Big Government and Big Corporation have got together and screw everything up.  The OWS people were shouting about the banks…and demanding that government fix it!  Government carefully and diligently assisted the bankers in ruining the economy.

Free markets are the silver bullet to fix what ails us – politically and economically.  We must have a revolution so that we can ensure that anyone who wants to participate in either market can do so without let or hindrance from a corporate or government bureaucrat.  If we want to occupy something, then we should be occupying the Federal Reserve and the Department of the Treasury – that would set us on a path back to rationality.

Content Of Their Character

Cluster26 Comments

This weekend we honor a great American. MLK was a true visionary, and devoted his life to advance a noble cause, a cause of which we as Americans unfortunately still struggle with. MLK risked his life for that cause, and in that battle, he is credited with one of the all time great historical quotes, and personally one of my favorites:

“I have a dream that one day my four children will one day live in a nation where they will  not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”

Nearly 50 years later it seems as though we have not only not lived up to that dream, but have lost sight of it altogether. Today we have politically devolved to the point that we still judge people by the color of their skin, or at least I should say some of us do, and unfortunately that includes the President, who ironically was one of whom benefited the most from MLK’s efforts. Today, our current Democratic Party seems to over look content of character in favor of color of skin to rile up an over emotional political constituency and to advance a political agenda. Liberals within the party have an inherent mistrust of the individual character believing that individuals if left to their own accord are inherently racist, inherently unfair, inherently selfish and because of those character flaws, will not make good decisions. Therefore, they promote a large federal bureaucracy that will serve to “level the playing field”.

Conservatives on the other hand, believe in the individual character. Conservatism is the inherent belief that if left to their own accord, the individual is not racist, is fair and unselfish and will make good decisions. The Constitution was also written in that firm belief in the individual character by mandating smaller, more decentralized government that empowered the individual over the federal bureaucracy and that fact is the reason why America has advanced so far, so quickly. By contrast, many liberals see the Constitution as a racist, and misogynistic document, no doubt as a result of the fact that it was written by older white men of Faith, and completely ignore the fact that that document has resulted in a country that has offered the most civil rights to more people than any other governing document in the history of the world. And it did so, because of the inherent belief in the individual character, just like MLK implored us to believe in so many years ago.

My hope is that we as a country will eventually coalesce around that dream but considering the current state of our political discourse, and the completely irresponsible media, I am afraid that that hope is fading. The over emotional, hyper sensitive liberals in the media and in politics seem to be drowning out the rational adult voices in our society and until that dynamic changes, America will continue to lose sight of the dream.

UPDATE: Speaking of inherent mistrust of character. I ask you – how is this kind of rhetoric helpful?

“Obama’s only remaining option is to pulverize. Whether he succeeds in passing legislation or not, given his ambitions, his goal should be to delegitimize his opponents. Through a series of clarifying fights over controversial issues, he can force Republicans to either side with their coalition’s most extreme elements or cause a rift in the party that will leave it, at least temporarily, in disarray.” – John Dickerson, Slate Magazine

UPDATE II, by Mark Noonan:  Just wanted to point out that the Error of Obama is now officially half over, boys and girls…there is less Obama time in front of us than there is behind!

Term Limits Back in the Public Square

Mark Noonan28 Comments

It came and then it faded away – mostly because a court decision absurdly ruled that the States cannot limit their federal office holders terms.  But the American people do seem to want it – according to Gallup, 75% of Americans want term limits on members of Congress.  This is broadly supported by Democrats, Republicans and Independents and all age groups are in favor.  Gallup didn’t break it down by ethnicity, but I doubt the measurements would come out much different if they had.

Term limits are, in my view, a vital aspect of ensuring that government is responsive to the will of the people.  To arguments that we need experienced legislators I answer:  like the ones we have now?  To arguments that staff will take control if legislators are rapidly overturned I answer:  why in heck do we even have large staffs for each legislator?  They are supposed to be writing the laws (and these days we know they don’t even read them before they vote on them…seems like the staffs are already in control in our non-term limited legislature).  Three terms for House members, two terms for Senators, that is my ideal.  If I thought I could get it in there, I’d also forbid sitting office holders from seeking a different office until at least two years after they left office.  We’re not supposed to have a professional, political class but, instead, have citizen legislators who serve for a time and then go back home to live under the laws they wrote (no elected official should have a pension, nor should they have their health care provided by government…they are there to serve, darn it!).

There is a mood to change things for real in America – and whomever taps in to it first and best will win everything.

 

Is it Time for a Left/Right Alliance?

Mark Noonan20 Comments

The other day Legal Insurrection had a post about a meeting – pleasant and mutually enriching – between TEA Party and MoveOn activists.  Today, Pajamas Media had an announcement from the Hacktivist group, Anonymous:

…“Obama has been working hard to try and ban semi-automatic weapons and shotguns while at the same time increasing the weapons and firepower that police and government agencies have. Within minutes of the Connecticut shooting, politicians were on the state run media saying it was time to get rid of the guns and they will be talking about it for weeks to come,” Anonymous wrote on its blog. “The Obama administration and his government funded media have been promoting this idea for months. Every time there is a shooting performed by a crazy person the media talks about it non-stop for weeks or months. But when there is an illegal or unlawful shooting by police that does not fit Obama’s agenda the story is barely mentioned.”

Anonymous notes that not only do police shootings barely get any attention, but cases where slaying are committed without guns or where guns are used to save lives also fly under the radar.

“Mr. Obama the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution does not talk about an army, that is covered elsewhere in the constitution. It does talk about a well regulated militia which is made of civilians with their own weapons. The second amendment of the US Constitution does not talk about protecting government or government resources, but it does talk about being necessary for the security of a free state. The second amendment of the US constitution does not say a single word about hunting or sport. But it does say ‘The peoples right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed’.”…

To be sure, be wary!  Gentle as lambs but wise as serpents, as one bit of wisdom commanded.  The left is, in its leadership, made up of junior-league Leninists who crave control because they honestly believe they are smarter than the rest of us and have an innate right to command.  But, still, this is interesting – I haven’t seen any better exposition of the 2nd Amendment from right wing groups since the Newtown Massacre.

Clearly, there is something going on here which doesn’t fit the narrative.  The goal of those who are wrecking our nation is to keep us all divided – as I’ve said before, I say the Lord’s Prayer in the same pew as a black man, but because of the narrative he and I are supposed to mistrust each other and each turn to government to protect us from each other.  There could be a growing separation between the leadership of the left and the rank and file, just as we rank and file GOPers/conservatives/libertarians are increasingly alienated from those who allegedly lead us.  While the left and right will never agree on most things, we might all agree on this, at least:  that individual liberty, at this moment, trumps all and we’d better ensure we’ve got that.  Once we’ve got our liberty secured, we can set about each other for all we’re worth as we determine relative trivialities like tax rates and spending levels.

It is something to weigh in our minds.