Yesterday the Washington Free Beacon posted the following video shown on MSNBC of Governor Romney’s bus tour. The footage MSNBC added to their photographs of the tour were offensive.
Monthly Archives: June 2012
Whoops!
On June 15th, WattsUpWithThat posted a graph of climate predictions made in 1988 contrasted with what has actually occurred. This is the graph:
Figure 1: Temperature forecast Hansen’s group from the year 1988. The various scenarios are 1.5% CO 2 increase (blue), constant increase in CO 2 emissions (green) and stagnant CO 2 emissions (red). In reality, the increase in CO 2 emissions by as much as 2.5%, which would correspond to the scenario above the blue curve. The black curve is the ultimate real-measured temperature (rolling 5-year average). Hansen’s model overestimates the temperature by 1.9 ° C, which is a whopping 150% wrong. Figure supplemented by Hansen et al. (1988) .
As the chart clearly shows, there was definitely something wrong with their calculations.
The article concludes:
The CO 2 emissions since 2000 to about 2.5 percent per year has increased, so that we would expect according to the Hansen paper a temperature rise, which should be stronger than in model A. Figure 1 shows the three Hansen scenarios and the real measured global temperature curve are shown. The protruding beyond Scenario A arrow represents the temperature value that the Hansen team would have predicted on the basis of a CO 2 increase of 2.5%. Be increased according to the Hansen’s forecast, the temperature would have compared to the same level in the 1970s by 1.5 ° C. In truth, however, the temperature has increased by only 0.6 ° C.
It is apparent that the next to it by the Hansen group in 1988 modeled temperature prediction by about 150%. It is extremely regrettable that precisely this type of modeling of our politicians is still regarded as a reliable climate prediction.
This is more science than I am comfortable dealing with, but the bottom line is simple–they got it wrong. The politicians in many countries are still using these faulty predictions as an excuse to grab more power and limit the ability of their citizens to prosper. It’s time we held them accountable for their reliance on faulty information. The global warming debate was never about saving the planet–it was about more government control.
Those Who Cannot Remember The Past Are Doomed To Repeat It…
I have posted the YouTube video below before. It is a quick summation of the causes of the collapse of the housing bubble.
I am posting the video now because it relates to an article posted at Investors.com yesterday detailing the effect of actions of the Obama Administration on wealth in the African-American community.
The article at Investors.com points out:
Before the crisis, Obama pushed thousands of credit-poor blacks into homes they couldn’t afford. As a civil-rights attorney, he sued banks to rubberstamp mortgages for urban residents.
Many are now in foreclosure. In fact, the lead client in one of his class-action suits has since lost her home and filed bankruptcy.
I understand the desire of community activists to encourage the dream of home ownership in their communities, but that dream has to be balanced with some degree of reality. Unfortunately, we still have not learned that lesson.
The article concludes:
Obama hasn’t learned from his mistakes.
Far from it, IBD has learned the mammoth credit watchdog agency he created (with input from NPA radicals) will dust off Clinton’s 1994 minority lending guidelines to crack down on stingy lenders. And he’s ordered Holder, now acting as his attorney general, to prosecute banks that don’t open branches in blighted urban areas.
Not only has Obama scapegoated banks for the crisis he helped cause, he’s exploited minority suffering to continue reckless policies that hurt those he claims to champion.
Until Americans begin to look at the entire situation–including the impact of forcing banks to grant loans to those who cannot pay they back, the American economy will not recover. Forcing banks to make sub-prime loans sets up a loss for the bank and interferes in the free market. We cannot continue to ignore market forces and expect our economy to recover.
Teach Your Children Well…
John HInderaker at Power Line posted a story yesterday about a kindergarten graduation ceremony in Gaza. The article includes a number of photos from the graduation. Below are two of the photos:
The photos include children depicting a Palestinian being tortured by an Israeli soldier. Also included in the graduation are coffins. The United Nations should condemn this as child abuse. I’m not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.
Saudi Prince Nayef bin Abdulaziz Al Saud Has Died
Fox News is reporting today that Saudi Prince Nayef bin Abdulaziz Al Saud has died. Crown Prince Nayef was in his late 70’s. He was responsible for Saudi Arabia’s crackdown on Al Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks on America. He was the successor to the throne of Saudi Arabia.
The article reports:
Nayef’s death unexpectedly reopens the question of succession in this crucial U.S. ally and oil powerhouse for the second time in less than a year. The 88-year-old King Abdullah has now outlived two designated successors, despite ailments of his own. Now a new crown prince must be chosen from among his brothers and half-brothers, all the sons of Saudi Arabia’s founder, Abdul-Aziz.
The figure believed most likely to be tapped as the new heir is Prince Salman, the current defense minister who previously served for decades in the powerful post of governor of Riyadh, the capital. The crown prince will be chosen by the Allegiance Council, an assembly of Abdul-Aziz’s sons and some of his grandchildren.
As much as there are serious questions about some of the links between Saudi Arabia and radical Islam,the Saudis have traditionally been the ones who have been the voice of sanity in keeping the price of oil under control. The Saudi royal family is also on the radar of the Muslim Brotherhood as a target for the Arab Spring. The death of Crown Prince Nayef will have an impact on the balance of power in OPEC and in the Middle East.
You Just Can’t Make This Stuff Up !
This is a totally cheap shot–but I couldn’t resist. Gateway Pundit reported yesterday that after stating in this speech that “They (Republicans) order a steak dinner and martini and then, just as you’re sitting down, they leave, and accuse you of running up the tab,” President Obama made a surprise stop for barbecue yesterday (Does Michelle know?) and had lunch with two service members and two local barbers. Unfortunately, the President left without paying the bill. It seems as if the Republicans weren’t the only ones leaving the bill for others to pay.
What Next ?
Taken from a friend on FaceBook:
The Supreme Court is expected to announce its decision within the next two weeks.
Are These People Going To Vote ?
The Hill reported today on the changes that President Obama unilaterally made to America’s immigration policies. The Daily Caller also posted the story.
The Hill reports:
The new policy will not grant citizenship to children who came to the United States as illegal immigrants, but will remove the threat of deportation and grant them the right to work in the United States.
According to the Department of Homeland Security, the policy change will apply to those who came to the United States before they were 16 and who are younger than 30 if they have lived here for five years, have no criminal history, graduated from a U.S. high school or served in the military.
The Daily Caller points out:
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, called the change a “decision to grant amnesty to potentially millions of illegal immigrants.”
“Many illegal immigrants will falsely claim they came here as children and the federal government has no way to check whether their claims are true,” Smith said in a statement. “And once these illegal immigrants are granted deferred action, they can then apply for a work permit, which the administration routinely grants 90% of the time.”
However, Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, who sponsored the DREAM Act, welcomed the announcement that he said “will give these young immigrants their chance to come out of the shadows and be part of the only country they’ve ever called home.”
I am sure we are going to hear more about this as the November election approaches. There are, however, a few obvious points about this policy change that need to be looked at. First of all, it is an obvious move on the part of the President to get the Hispanic vote. Second of all, it does not solve any of the immigration problem. What happens to the parents of these children–are they granted amnesty also? Third, it will not help the teenage unemployment rate, which the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates is currently 14 percent. This is, unfortunately, a political move rather than a practical move. I understand that nothing is going to get done in Washington between now and the election, but it would have made sense to put immigration on the list for the new Congress and administration (if there is a new administration) to deal with after January.
Marco Rubio posted the following on his website:
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) issued the following statement regarding today’s announcement by the Department of Homeland Security regarding its immigration enforcement policies:
“There is broad support for the idea that we should figure out a way to help kids who are undocumented through no fault of their own, but there is also broad consensus that it should be done in a way that does not encourage illegal immigration in the future. This is a difficult balance to strike, one that this new policy, imposed by executive order, will make harder to achieve in the long run.
“Today’s announcement will be welcome news for many of these kids desperate for an answer, but it is a short term answer to a long term problem. And by once again ignoring the Constitution and going around Congress, this short term policy will make it harder to find a balanced and responsible long term one.”
The Senator has it right.
It’s The Spending, Stupid !
From Eric Bolling at Fox News yesterday:
Please note that the receipts are about the same–the difference is in the spending!
Happy Flag Day !!!
Happy Flag Day!!
A waving American flag atop the United States Capitol Building. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The Race For The Fourth Congressional District
There will be a Republican Primary for the nomination in the Fourth Congressional District in Massachusetts. The two major candidates are Elizabeth Childs (I wrote about her on May 16) and Sean Bielat. I had the pleasure of meeting Sean Bielat tonight at Fitzy’s Pub in Plainville. The Republican Primary will take place on September 18, 2012.
Sean Bielat‘s website is SeanForCongress.com. Sean is well qualified to serve in the House of Representatives–his educational background includes a Master of Business Administration from the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, a Master in Public Policy from the Harvard University, and a Bachelor of Arts from Georgetown University. Sean currently serves as an officer in the United States Marine Corps Reserve.
Sean’s carreer highlights are listed on his website:
Major, U.S Marine Corps Reserve
Independent Consultant. Helped client companies build market strategies
Program Manager, iRobot Corporation. Led $100 million, 100 person business line providing life-saving defense robots used to destroy roadside bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan
Chairman, NATO Industrial Armaments Group. Led an international team studying the potential for use of advanced reconnaissance technology in urban warfare
Management Consultant, McKinsey & Company
Lieutenant, U.S. Marine Corps (active duty)
Both candidates for the Republican nomination are well-educated, smart, articulate people. I am impressed by the quality of the candidates the Republican party is fielding across the state. The main difference that I see between the candidates is on social issues, and if you understand that social issues impact fiscal issues, saying you are a fiscal conservative and a social moderate makes no sense. I support Sean Bielat because I believe he understands the linkage between social and fiscal issues. Just in case you have forgotten, the name of this website is rightwinggranny. I am a conservative and will tend to work for and support the more conservative candidate. However, I will support the winner of the Republican primary in the race against Joseph Kennedy III.
An Interesting Development In Egypt
Fox News is reporting today that the Islamist parliament in Egypt has been dissolved by Judges appointed by Hosni Mubarak. The Judges have ruled that Mubarak’s former prime minister can run in the runoff election this weekend. A victory by the former prime minister would allow the military and the remnants of the old regime to stay in power.
The article reports:
The rulings effectively erase the tenuous progress from the past year’s troubled transition, leaving Egypt with no parliament and concentrating rule even more firmly in the hands of the military generals who took power after Mubarak’s ouster. The fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood, which stands to lose the most from the rulings, called the moves a coup and vowed to rally the street against the ruling military and former prime minister Ahmed Shafiq, the presidential candidate seen by critics as a favorite of the generals and a symbol of Mubarak’s autocratic rule.
In the past (as in after the assassination of Anwar Sadat) when an Egyptian leader was removed from power, the top person in the military simply took over. There was some belief that when Hosni Mubarak was removed from power, the country would transition to a democracy. That does not seem to be happening. The elections that gave the Muslim Brotherhood a majority were legal, but the danger is that the history of the Muslim Brotherhood is one election to declare democracy and no elections after that. If the Muslim Brotherhood gains full control of Egypt, there will be no freedom for the Egyptians. Sharia Law (the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood) is incompatible with freedom and democracy.
The article further reports:
The dissolution of parliament now raises the possibility the military council could appoint the panel, a step that would fuel accusations that it is hijacking the process.
The legal adviser of the Freedom and Justice Party, the Brotherhood’s political arm, said the court rulings were “political,” lamenting the outgoing legislature as the country’s “only legitimate and elected body.”
“They are hoping to hand it over to Ahmed Shafiq and make him the only legal authority in the absence of parliament. The people will not accept this and we will isolate the toppled regime,” Mukhtar el-Ashry said in a posting on the party’s website.
A moderate Islamist and a former presidential candidate, Abdel-Moneim Abolfotoh, said the rulings amounted to a “coup” and warned that the youth, pro-democracy groups that engineered the uprising that toppled Mubarak last year would protest the court’s rulings.
A military take-over of Egypt is unfortunate for those who wish to see freedom and democracy in Egypt; however, the election of the Muslim Brotherhood to the presidency and the majority of the parliament will also mean the end of freedom and democracy. There really is no good choice for the Egyptian people.
About That Civility Thing…
The U.K. Guardian is reporting today that the HBO cable channel has apologized after Game of Thrones used a prosthetic head of George W Bush on a stake in the series.
The article reports:
“We were deeply dismayed to see this and find it unacceptable, disrespectful and in very bad taste,” the cable channel said in a statement. “We made this clear to the executive producers of the series who apologised immediately for this inadvertent, careless mistake. We are sorry this happened and will have it removed from any future DVD production.”
How is this inadvertent and careless? Didn’t the producers have any idea what was being shown on the screen? Did they not recognize President Bush? I hate to be cynical (but I seem to be pretty good at it), but my feeling is that they are sorry they got caught–not sorry for what they did.
The article further reports:
HBO’s strong apology followed an earlier statement of contrition by the co-creators of Game of Thrones, David Benioff and DB Weiss. They admitted that the head was Bush’s but said there was no political commentary intended.
“We use a lot of prosthetic body parts on the show: heads, arms, etc,” the pair said in a statement. “We can’t afford to have these all made from scratch, especially in scenes where we need a lot of them, so we rent them in bulk. … After the [Bush] scene was already shot, someone pointed out that one of the heads looked like George W Bush. … We meant no disrespect to the former president and apologise if anything we said or did suggested otherwise.”
I definitely have a problem with this whole thing–they used George W. Bush’s head at the end of a stake but meant no disrespect? Wow! What would it take to portray disrespect? They simply had an extra head of George W. Bush lying around? Good grief.
Retired Military Speak Out Against The Law Of The Sea Treaty
This is the letter sent to Senator John Kerry by a number of retired senior military leaders regarding the Law Of The Sea Treaty:
June 14, 2012
Hon. John Kerry
Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
444 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-0802
Dear Chairman Kerry:
Much is being made at the moment of the support of the U.S. military for the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which is better known as the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). In your Foreign Relations Committee hearings to date, you have invited testimony from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and six other serving four-star commanders. We wish respectfully to challenge the perception that military personnel uniformly support this accord by expressing our strongly held belief that LOST’s ratification would prove inimical both to the national security interests and sovereignty of the United States.
This conclusion is ineluctable given five facts about the Law of the Sea Treaty:
- President Ronald Reagan recognized that the terms and institutional arrangements inherent in the treaty—including, but not limited to, seabed mining—were adverse to this country insofar as they were intended and designed to establish and empower a supranational government. For these reasons, he refused to sign this accord. And, as his Counselor and Attorney General, Edwin Meese, has observed, those defects continue to afflict LOST—despite suggestions to the contrary, based on false claims that a separate agreement signed by some but not all LOST signatories satisfactorily addressed Mr. Reagan’s concerns.
- There is already ample reason for Americans—in and out of uniform—to be leery of entrusting more power and authority to the United Nations. Yet, our membership in LOST would dangerously empower that organization. After all, this treaty creates an executive, legislature and judiciary that are supposed to govern seventy-percent of the world’s surface. And LOST’s institutions are intertwined with the UN system and would be capable of raising revenues. Given the UN track record of corruption and hostility to America and its allies, it would be reckless to endorse such arrangements, let alone subject ourselves to them.
- Of particular concern is the obligation under LOST to submit any and all disputes to binding arbitration or judicial action by entities that are inherently rigged against us. The treaty’s expansive mandate is so broad—involving virtually anything affecting the world’s oceans—that it is an invitation to UN and other nations’ interference in our affairs on an unprecedented scale.
- That prospect has particular implications for the national security were the United States to become a party to the Law of the Sea Treaty. As such, we would be required to make myriad commitments at odds with our military practices and national interests. These include agreeing to reserve the oceans exclusively for “peaceful purposes.” Contentions that we need not worry about such formal commitments because we, as a maritime nation with a powerful navy, are not expected to be bound by them will surely prove unfounded.
- The same is certain to apply to assurances that the exemption of “military activities” will preclude LOST from having harmful effects on our armed forces and their necessary operations on, over, under and from the seas. Since the treaty does not include an agreed definition of what constitutes such activities, disputes are sure to arise—disputes we will be obliged to resolve through one LOST mechanism or another. [In the attachment, Judge Advocate General Captain Vince Averna (USN, Ret.) lays out a number of the treaty’s provisions that may invite such challenges.]
One example of how untenable such assurances will prove can be found in the area of anti-submarine warfare (ASW). Of necessity, ASW training to be effective must necessarily replicate actual combat operations and thus involve the periodic use of high-power sonars and explosives. Unfortunately, some assert that these training activities cause harm to ocean wildlife, like dolphins and whales, and have sought to use judicial means to restrict or preclude them.
We must, therefore, recall that, during the Clinton administration, Secretary of State Warren Christopher called LOST “the strongest comprehensive environmental treaty now in existence or likely to emerge for quite some time.” That being the case, the U.S. armed forces must reckon with the prospect that what they consider to be essential and exempted military activities will be treated under LOST as environmental predation very much within the jurisdiction of its Tribunal and arbitration panels. The effect of adverse rulings, especially if enforced by federal judges, could prove devastating to our power projection and other defense capabilities.
For all these reasons (among others), it is our considered professional military judgment that the United States should remain unencumbered by state-party status in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea—free to observe those provisions we chose to and unencumbered by the others. We have demonstrated in the three decades since President Reagan refused to sign LOST that as a non-party great power we can exercise great and essential influence on matters involving the oceans without being relegated to one vote among 160-plus, obliged to abide by the will and whims of a generally hostile majority without the benefit of a veto to protect American national interests. There is no basis for contending that we will be better off if we have a so-called “seat at the table” under such circumstances.
We hope our insights and conclusions will be made part of the record of your Committee’s deliberations on this matter and would welcome an opportunity to participate in such deliberations if that would be helpful to you and your colleagues.
Sincerely,
Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin, USA (Ret.)
Former Commanding General, U.S. Army Special Forces Command;
Former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence
Former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence
Adm. Thomas B. Hayward, USN (Ret.)
Former Chief of Naval Operations
Adm. G.E.R. Kinnear II, USN (Ret.)
Former U.S. Member of the NATO Military Committee
Gen. Richard L. Lawson, USAF (Ret.)
Former Deputy Commander-in Chief, Headquarters U.S. European Command
Adm. James “Ace” Lyons, Jr., USN (Ret.)
Former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet
Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney, USAF (Ret.)
Former Assistant Vice Chief of Staff, USAF
Vice Adm. Robert Monroe, USN (Ret.)
Former Director of Navy Research, Development Testing and Evaluation
Gen. Carl E. Mundy, Jr., USMC (Ret.)
Former Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps
Adm. Leighton “Snuffy” Smith, USN (Ret.)
Former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Navy Forces Europe and
NATO Allied Forces Southern Europe
NATO Allied Forces Southern Europe
cc: Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
The letter and more information on the letter are posted at the website of the Center For Security Police website.
A Slightly Different Take On The Recent National Security Leaks
Andrew McCarthy posted an article at PJMedia about the recent leaks of classified information and the search for the source of the leaks. He points out that a special prosecutor may not be the answer to solving the problem of who is leaking and stopping the leaks.
Mr. McCarthy explains why pursuing the leaks as a criminal matter is probably not a good idea:
The lesson here — of far more political than legal significance — is that President Obama is a reckless custodian of the nation’s secrets. That is yet another good reason why it is so important to defeat him come November. The rest — who said what — is details. It’s the guy in the Oval Office who sets the tone. And that guy, by the way, is fully empowered to declassify whatever information he chooses to declassify, no matter how sensitive, no matter how damaging its disclosure. So if it turns out that Obama effectively approved the leaks, they are probably not actionable disclosures of classified information anyway.
I will admit–that is an angle I had not considered.
Mr. McCarthy further reminds us:
If the president decides to make information public, it is public — no matter how classified it was before, and no matter who in the government thinks the publicizing of it is a bone-headed move. The president gets to do that — and that’s part of why it matters who the president is.
Classified information belongs to the executive branch. Under the Constitution, the executive power is vested in a single official, the president. As Justice Scalia pointed out in his classic dissent in Morrison v. Olson, this does not mean some of the executive power; it means all of the executive power. The president can make a bad de-classification decision, but it is his decision to make.
It does matter who the President is.
Why It Matters Where You Get Your News
Yesterday YouTube posted a video giving a general summary of Fast and Furious as it now stands. The video was produced and posted by the American Future Fund.
The video gives a short explanation of what Fast and Furious was and how the Obama Administration has successfully blocked (as of now) any serious inquiry into the origin and supervision of the program.
Meanwhile, Fox News posted a story remarking that NBC first reported on Operation Fast and Furious on Tuesday night. Brian Terry was killed in December of 2010 with a weapon traced to Fast and Furious. There have been questions about his death since then. Where has the major media been? The network slanted the story as a partisan battle between the Republicans and Attorney General Holder. This is not a political battle–it is a battle about a government agency out of control.
The article at Fox News reports:
Correspondent Kelly O’Donnell then took over, repeating the Williams theme that this was all about a Republican ax to grind. — And certainly never about an American border agent being killed by guns that Holder did everything but Fed-Ex to Mexican drug lords. — Williams and O’Donnell mentioned Republicans seven times and Democrats just twice because this was a “long simmering conflict between Republicans and Attorney General Eric Holder.”
It’s time the major media started reporting the news accurately and completely. The bias of the network is indicated not only in how they slant the story, but in the stories they cover. If American voters want to be informed, they are going to have to look past the major media.
One Indication Of How The Economic Recovery Is Going
Yesterday Business Week posted an article about what has happened to the wealth of the average American family since 1989.
The article reports on median family net worth:
1989: $79,600
1992: $75,400
1995: $81,200
1998: $95,500
2001: $106,100
2004: $107,200
2007: $126,400
2010: $77,300
As you can see, family net worth was climbing pretty steadily until 2007. Part of the reason for the drop is the housing bubble. That bubble was the result of the Congressional plan to enable all Americans to buy houses whether they could afford to pay off the mortgage or not. A lot of that had to do with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their collapse, but even then, these numbers are disturbing.;
The article concludes:
The Fed changed its methodology for the survey starting in 1989, so it doesn’t compare current numbers with pre-1989 ones. At the risk of comparing apples and oranges, I went ahead and did the calculations for two earlier surveys—in 1962 and in 1983. In 1962, median net worth (in 2010 dollars) was $54,200. In 1983, it was $88,000.
If those numbers are correct, then median family net worth rose 62 percent from 1962 to 1983, then fell 12 percent from 1983 to 2010. Since the methodology of the survey changed, those numbers are almost certainly off, but there’s no way for an outsider to tell how much—or even in which direction. Still, if they’re anywhere close to reality, it’s more evidence of how the American economy has failed to generate rising living standards for most people in recent decades.
At the same time the net worth of families was declining, the cost of living has gone up–gasoline is double what it was five years ago, food prices have gone up, our tax burdens have increased, etc. Some of us are still paying real estate taxes on the value of our houses before the housing bubble burst. It really is time to elect people who understand the economy–the things we are currently doing are not working.
Why A Two-State Solution In The Middle East Will Not Work
The Washington Free Beacon posted an article today about a puppet show seen recently on Palestinian television.
This is a link to a video recently translated and put up at YouTube:
The article at the Washington Free Beacon reports:
The video, obtained and translated into English by the Palestinian Media Watch research organization, was performed for children in East Jerusalem, and included puppets singing, “Jerusalem, whose youth are being killed by the Jews… Jerusalem, we will not surrender to the enemies or be humiliated.”
According to Burj al-Luq Luq’s [a Palestinian Authority social organization] website, the organization has been supported by several branches of the UN, including UNICEF and UNESCO, and also has been backed by a number of international donors.
How many parents helping their children ‘trick or treat for UNICEF’ are even remotely aware of how the money raised is being spent? This is totally offensive. We need to stop funding this sort of propaganda (and stop funding the UN).
As long as hatred is being openly preached to Palestinian children, there will be no peace in the Middle East.
The Agenda Behind The Myth Of Global Warming
Today’s Washington Examiner posted a story about the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development to be held in Rio next week.
The article reports on one agenda item at the conference:
“We recognize that subsidies for non-renewable energy development should be eliminated and replaced with a global tax on the production of energy from non-renewable energy sources,” the UN draft agenda, amended by non-governmental organizations at the invitation of the UN, says. “The income of this tax should be allocated to renewable energy development.” The draft agenda was obtained by the Center for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), a group skeptical of the UN’s position on global warming.
There is no proof of global warming or that man contributes to it. This is simply a way to redistribute the weath of countries that have prospered to countries that have not prospered. Generally speaking, countries that have prospered are countries with private property rights, freedom, and free economies not controlled by their governments. If the UN really wanted to bring prosperity to the poorer nations of the world, shouldn’t they be working toward establishing freedom in the countries where poverty is rampant?
The article further reports:
CFACT reported in December that negotiators at the UN conference on climate change in Durban, South Africa, discussed the future implementation of “a new tax on every foreign currency transaction in the world,” that would disproportionately fall on the United States because “transactions within the Eurozone won’t have to pay this new tax.”
It really is time for the United States to get out of the United Nations.
Welcome To Alice In Wonderland’s America
John Podhoretz posted an article yesterday at the New York Post contrasting the press coverage of the Obama Administration with the press coverage of the Bush Administration. He cites specific instances of how similar stories were covered and how many stories were written about similar incidents. I admit–I assume bias on the part of the press, but to see the details listed was amazing to me.
The article reminds us:
To take just one example: Scooter Libby was accused, though not charged or convicted, of revealing the name of a covert CIA operative, thus potentially endangering her life. In the case of “Fast and Furious,” a federal agent was in fact murdered by a gun that was effectively sold to a Mexican cartel by the Justice Department.
The thing that always amazed me about the ‘covert CIA operative’ was that she drove to CIA headquarters every day. Didn’t anyone ever think that if anyone wanted to find out what she did for a living all they had to do was follow her to work?
The article reminds us:
But the issue isn’t whether the Times or any other media organization has done some stories. What was present during the Bush years scandals but isn’t in the Obama years is “the drumbeat.”
The drumbeat happens when a story reaches critical mass in all media sectors. The New York Times and The Washington Post assign reporters to focus on it full-time. Their stories appear daily, often on the front page or in prominent locations on their Web sites.
The questions raised by those stories dominate the White House press briefing at midday. The answers at the press briefing, combined with new details, are the focus of NPR’s “All Things Considered” and the network-news programs. The reports here are strengthened by reaction from Congress members.
All that, in turn, provide the Times and the Post with more stories, and the hearings they set up and the political machinations that follow create more stories in affiliated media.
None of this is managed, manipulated or directed communally. It’s organic, the way the media business works.
Except it really hasn’t worked this way with coverage of the Obama campaign in 2008 or the Obama administration in the years since.
I remember BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). Generally speaking, the press would have had their toenails pulled out rather than say anything nice about George Bush or the people around him. I didn’t necessarily agree with everything George Bush did, but I believe he was a good man who loved America. The press treated him very shabbily. It is my hope that if Mitt Romney is elected, the press will do its job, but not set out to destroy his administration as they have attempted to do with Republican administrations in the past.
Finally, I should thank the major media for their bias–it has created a demand for alternative media, of which I am a part. Thank you, you have made a little old retired lady feel useful!
The Saudis Bring Reason To OPEC
The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is meeting this week. The Financial Times reminds us that oil prices have dropped from $128 a barrel in March to a current price of about $100. The drop is partially due to the financial difficulties in the European Union and the general slowdown in the world’s economy. Normally when the price of oil drops, OPEC calls for a decrease in production so that the price will rise again (supply and demand works!).
Recently OPEC has been producing more oil than its quota in an effort to lessen the impact of the oil sanctions that Europe and America have placed on Iran in an attempt to end Iran’s nuclear program. Saudi Arabia seems to be responsible for the increase–Ali Naimi, Saudi Arabia’s oil minister, told the Financial Times in March that he would like to see lower oil prices “that will not hurt the global economic recovery”.
The Saudis have called for higher oil output levels despite the lower prices. I would love to be a fly on the wall (one who understood whatever language is spoken) at the coming OPEC meeting!
Adding Some Facts To The Discussion On Unemployment
Marc Thiessen at the Washington Post posted an article yesterday with some of the Labor Department statistics on the workforce in America. It turns out that the President’s statement that “It’s very clear that private sector jobs are doing just fine.” is simply not true. The original statement about the public sector was made by Harry Reid about six months ago when the Democrats were asking for another $35 billion to help states hire more public sector employees.
The article points out:
Obama and Reid have it precisely backward: It’s the public sector that’s doing fine. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate for government workers last month was just 4.2 percent (up slightly from 3.9 percent a year ago). Compare that to private-sector industries such as construction (14.2 percent unemployment), leisure and hospitality services (9.7 percent), agriculture (9.5 percent), professional and business services (8.5 percent) and wholesale and retail trade (8.1 percent). As Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute points out, the public-sector unemployment rate “is the lowest of any industry or class of worker, even including the growing energy industry.” If the rest of Americans enjoyed the same unemployment rate as government workers, Obama would be cruising to reelection.
Figures don’t lie, but evidently politicians do. The article further reminds us that Obamacare will add $46 billion in annual costs of new regulations to an already struggling economy.
The problem with President Obama’s statement (other than the fact that it is not true) is that it reinforces the idea that the President is anti-business. There is a perception of the President that he does not believe wealth can be created without someone other than the person creating the wealth being exploited or shortchanged in some way. He simply does not seem to respect free enterprise or understand how it works.
The article concludes:
How bad is all this for the president? Here’s how bad: Last week Mitt Romney accused President Obama of being “out of touch with the American people.” When a guy building a California vacation mansion with a car elevator for his wife’s two Cadillacs calls you “out of touch” — and no one laughs — you know you are in trouble.
I think it’s time for the Obama Campaign to find another line of attack.
The Truth About The Impact Of Sequestration on Defense
The Center for Security Policy posted a video of a program entitled “‘Like Shooting Ourselves in the Head’: The Implications of Sequestration on Defense.” The program was put on by the Reserve Officers Association (ROA) and co-sponsored by the Defense Education Forum and the Center for Security Policy. This is a long video, so I suggest you watch it in a few sittings–there is an awful lot of great information included. (The video does not actually start until about 30 seconds into the count).
I really can’t adequately summarize the discussion of sequestration, but there are a few things I learned that I can share. The defense budget is a very small part of the overall spending in America–drastically cutting it will not only not help with overall spending, but the civilian job losses as a result of the cuts will further slow down the economy. Sequestration is not about defense–it’s a cover for a tax increase on Americans. The Obama Administration and the Senate Democrats understand the dangers of sequestration–they are counting on the Republicans not to let it happen. The Democrats are playing a game of chicken with the defense of America. If the Republicans want to stop sequestration, the Democrats will gladly do it–if a tax increase is included in the proposal.
Please watch the video and decide for yourself what is happening. Again, I can only say that part of the road to fiscal sanity in America has to be a Republican Senate. Otherwise, all we will hear is a constant cry to raise taxes and not lower spending.
Massachusetts Fishermen Are Still Fighting For Their Livelihood
SouthCoastToday posted an article on May 30th about a recent meeting in New Bedford by the New England Fishery Management Council. During the meeting seafood auction king Richie Canastra read a letter written by Captain Mark Phillips of the F/V Illusion who could not be there because he was out fishing.
The letter showed that the fishermen who are out working their trade every day understand more about the ecology and techniques of fishing than the bureaucrats at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
The article points out:
The shiny new federal research vessel Bigelow lies at the center of this argument. For example, fishermen who really know how to fish are consistently pointing out that the too-big Bigelow is using the wrong net, a one-size-fits-all compromise arrangement that isn’t designed to target yellowtail.
Government scientists, say the fishermen, deploy the wrong net the wrong way and then trawl too fast, with the yellowtail making their escape. The conclusion is drawn that the yellowtail aren’t down there to start with. So we cut quota.
The letter from Captain Phillips explains how the information the Bigelow collects on the yellowtail is not accurate due to the lack of actual fishing knowledge on the part of the people on the boat. The thing to remember here is that the fishermen are not attempting to over-fish–if they over-fish, they put themselves out of business. In my experience, hunters and fishermen, both professional and amateur, understand more about the ecology of wildlife than the people who want to regulate it. Education has value, but hands-on experience is needed when making decisions that impact people’s ability to make money.
The article concludes:
At the meeting last week, one person after another targeted the design of the net as a real culprit in stock assessments for yellowtail. Tellingly, no one in a position of authority, including the government scientist, uttered a word of rebuttal. They were silently confirming that what the fishermen were saying is true.
At this point there is no excuse for not having fishermen on the Bigelow as observers, the way government observers ride the fishing boats. We could also send out fishing boats to shadow Bigelow to compare results. We could even hire some of these fishing pros to do the survey work.
It makes perfect sense. It also could hurt somebody’s feelings, I’m afraid.
It’s time to bring sanity to fishing quotas.
LTG (Ret.) Jerry Boykin Will Speak In Massachusetts On July 11
Ahavath Torah Congregation’s Hausman Memorial Lecture Series
Presents
AN EVENING WITH LTG (Ret.) JERRY BOYKIN
“A General’s Perspective: US/Israeli Relations – The Ties That Bind “
Wednesday July 11th
@
Ahavath Torah Congregation
1179 Central Street
Stoughton, MA 02072
Meet and Greet BBQ with Boykin will begin at 5 PM – $100 paid RSVP (cash or check only)
General event will begin at 7 PM – $20
*A portion of the proceeds will be donated to Homes for Our Troops (www.HomesForOurTroops.com)
LTG (ret.) Jerry Boykin was one of the original members of the US Army’s Delta Force. He was privileged to ultimately command these elite warriors in combat operations. Later, Jerry Boykin commanded all the Army’s Green Berets as well as the Special Warfare Center and School. In his thirty-six years in the army, LTG Boykin also served a tour with the CIA. He has participated in clandestine operations around the world and served his last four years in the Army as the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence. He has played a role in almost every recent major American military operation over the past four decades, serving in Grenada, Somalia, and Iraq. He is currently an author and teaches at Hampden-Sydney College (Virginia).
Most people might remember his exploits surrounding the Black Hawk Down incident in 1993. His books include Never Surrender: A Soldier’s Journey to the Crossroads of Faith and Freedom, and he served as team leader for the Competitive Analysis The Team BII Report.General Boykin is one of this country’s leading experts on defense policy, terrorism and the US-Israel relationship.
For information email office@atorah.org
Co-sponsored by Christians and Jews United for Israel, Rabbis and Ministers for Israel
