Note: see my related posting on Wednesday November 25, 2009
Sarah Palin wrote an excellent column, entitled "COPENHAGEN'S POLITICAL SCIENCE", in the Washington Post, Wednesday December 9, 2009 in the Opinions section. (This can be viewed free on-line in the newspapers archives.)
This has caused a big stir on blog sites and with liberal commentators, all of whom wind up calling Palin names rather than having to think about what she writes and the corruption behind the emails among the climatologists who have manipulated the public into believing in global warming due to man-made carbon dioxide and the inevitable catastrophic conclusion that life as we know it will be over if we don't spend trillions world wide over the next two decades to combat this impending disaster.
Indeed, there are threats to life on this planet and some have caused extinctions in the past billion years and may do so in the future. Some possible life-extinction events from natural causes that could affect a large part, or all, of the planet are:
Solar Super Flare (Destroys all Electronics)
Super Tsunami (1000 ft high)
Super Volcano Eruption (like Yellowstone Caldera)
Super Earth Quake (greater than 10.0 on Richter Scale)
Nearby Gamma Radiation Burst from Supernovae
Huge Asteroid Impact (5 to 10 miles wide)
Global Pandemic (Deadly Mutation of Known Virus)
Sustained Cooling (Earth's orbit & tilt)
Sustained Global Heating(Earth's orbit & tilt)
Massive Methane Release From Ocean Crust
Then add the man-made extinction possibility from Nuclear (war) Winter
THESE ARE LOW PROBABILITY EVENTS AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY, CANNOT BE MILKED FOR MONEY, POWER AND GLORY!
However, some very clever climatologists and politicians recognized that SOLAR FLARES (seen as sun spots) which influence cloud formation can affect short-term NATURAL warming or cooling, and this can be turned into the greatest ever world-wide scam for money making and gaining political and economic power. The idea is simply to blame the impending disaster on man, then alter and delete contradictory data and manipulate models to falsify the predictions of: CO2 effects, temperature rises and extrapolated sea levels rises, all occurring in this lifetime. Do this and you are set for your career in funding and investment opportunities.
SO, FRAUDULENT SCIENCE SUPPORTED BY POLITICAL SCHEMING HAVE CREATED THE HOAX OF MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING WITH THE POTENTIAL OF MULTI-TRILLION DOLLARS TO BE SPENT AND REDISTRIBUTED BY POLITICIANS AROUND THE GLOBE AND THE PRETENDER SCIENTISTS BENEFITING ALONG THE WAY.
WITH AN AMUSING PLAY ON WORDS, SARAH TAGS THIS "POLITICAL SCIENCE" AND SHE NAILS IT PERFECTLY.
If you are interested in more on Global Warming and particularly on "Carbon Cap and Trade" check out the following postings here:
1. Wednesday, Nov 25, 2009 " Scandal of Man-Made Global Warming...."
2. Wednesday, Sep 2, 2009 "Ethanol: Bush Plana Total Failure......"
3.Thursday, Jul 23, 2009 "Cap and Trade"-Other Countries Dump the Idea..."
4. Friday, July 10, 2009 "How will Cap and trade Affect You?"
5. Tuesday, June 2, 2009 "The Cap and Trade Fraud"
and a related posting:
Thursday, Nov 18, 2009 " Environmentalists Run Amoke and Everyone Pays"
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Friday, December 4, 2009
The Joke of Obama's Job Summit
Obama's Job Summit is a joke. It's all show and no substance, like Obama himself. If he was serious he would get down to business with leaders of big corporations and owners of small businesses of various sizes, all having jobs in the private sector. Instead, Obama also invited politicians, community organizing group leaders and union leaders.
1. Professional politicians, particularly Democrats, don't understand free markets and capitalism; most have been feeding at the public trough for years, if not their entire career.
2. Community groups for the most part represent poor or lower middle class people who don't create, but need, jobs or need government assistance. They might be happy with government make-work jobs that do not create wealth and are not long lived.
3. Unions for the most part don't create jobs and those jobs that they create are not economically necessary jobs; they pressure corporations for work rules that lend to inefficiencies and thus extra hires and unions forestall technology that will lower cost, make U.S. corporations more competitive but perhaps cost jobs in the short run.
Of course, Obama never having worked in the private sector( except as a civil rights attorney) has no experience or knowledge. He just wants photo ops and a chance to pander to his constituency in unions and community groups.
1. Professional politicians, particularly Democrats, don't understand free markets and capitalism; most have been feeding at the public trough for years, if not their entire career.
2. Community groups for the most part represent poor or lower middle class people who don't create, but need, jobs or need government assistance. They might be happy with government make-work jobs that do not create wealth and are not long lived.
3. Unions for the most part don't create jobs and those jobs that they create are not economically necessary jobs; they pressure corporations for work rules that lend to inefficiencies and thus extra hires and unions forestall technology that will lower cost, make U.S. corporations more competitive but perhaps cost jobs in the short run.
Of course, Obama never having worked in the private sector( except as a civil rights attorney) has no experience or knowledge. He just wants photo ops and a chance to pander to his constituency in unions and community groups.
Obama Helps All Parties Involved Decide on Their Afghan Strategy
The chance of Obama's vote of "present" being a successful Afghan strategy has to be close to zero.
1. Not only did Obama lay out a strategy for the United States but at the same time he laid out a strategy for the Afghan War Lords and tribal leaders, the Afghan drug cartels, the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The strategy for all of the latter is to hide and duck for 18 months, harass U.S. military enough to cause more deaths and avoid major military confrontations, and don't dare align yourself or provide aid to the U.S. military because you will be executed after the U.S.leaves.
2. For the Afghan population in general, Obama has provided a strategy as well; that is, don't be identified as being for democracy or as a friend of the U.S. forces because you will pay for it latter.
3. For our allies who might contribute troops, Obama has provided the guideline that don't get into combat assignments and risk your lives for an announced strategy of retreat and defeat.
4. For the U.S. troops in, or being sent to, Afghanistan, Obama has provided the incentive to avoid conflict, don't risk getting killed or wounded because your Commander In Chief U.S. has already accepted retreat and defeat as an acceptable outcome, after making a show for 18 months.
How nice it is of Obama to help all these diverse groups decide what needs to be done.
1. Not only did Obama lay out a strategy for the United States but at the same time he laid out a strategy for the Afghan War Lords and tribal leaders, the Afghan drug cartels, the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The strategy for all of the latter is to hide and duck for 18 months, harass U.S. military enough to cause more deaths and avoid major military confrontations, and don't dare align yourself or provide aid to the U.S. military because you will be executed after the U.S.leaves.
2. For the Afghan population in general, Obama has provided a strategy as well; that is, don't be identified as being for democracy or as a friend of the U.S. forces because you will pay for it latter.
3. For our allies who might contribute troops, Obama has provided the guideline that don't get into combat assignments and risk your lives for an announced strategy of retreat and defeat.
4. For the U.S. troops in, or being sent to, Afghanistan, Obama has provided the incentive to avoid conflict, don't risk getting killed or wounded because your Commander In Chief U.S. has already accepted retreat and defeat as an acceptable outcome, after making a show for 18 months.
How nice it is of Obama to help all these diverse groups decide what needs to be done.
Lack of Private Sector Experience in Obama Cabinet
A J.P. Morgan research report examined the PRIOR PRIVATE SECTOR EXPERIENCE of the cabinet officials. The officials that one might expect a president to turn to in seeking advice about helping the economy include secretaries of State, Commerce, Treasury, Agriculture, Interior, Labor, Transportation, Energy, and Housing & Urban Development, and excludes Defense, Health, Education & Welfare, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security. The results for private sector experience:
Obama 7 %
GWB 53%
Clinton 37%
GHWB 52%
Reagan 56%
Carter 30%
Ford 43%
Nixon 53%
LBJ 45%
JFK 28%
Ike 58%
Truman 50%
FDR 50%
Public sector employment has ranged since the 1950s at between 15 percent and 19 percent of the population while the makeup of the Obama cabinet has 93 percent of its prior experience in the public sector or only a meager seven percent in the private sector. In ninety-three percent of their experience, they never had to make a profit, meet a payroll, raise capital, invest in a business, manufacture, market, sell, create a value chain, innovate, design, control quality, eliminate waste, negotiate with unions, maintain and repair facilities and equipment, meet shipping schedules, provide customer service, establish budgets or be held accountable for financial results.
Obama’s key cabinet members have spent their careers living off government funding (taxes paid by others) and charitable contributions from foundations and corporations to not-for-profit organizations. Obama's own experience in the private sector is nil; even while working for a law firm he was also teaching law, writing about himself and concentrating his law practice as a civil rights attorney for nonprofit community organizations.
IS IT ANY SURPRISE THAT THIS CREW CANNOT CREATE PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS?
Obama 7 %
GWB 53%
Clinton 37%
GHWB 52%
Reagan 56%
Carter 30%
Ford 43%
Nixon 53%
LBJ 45%
JFK 28%
Ike 58%
Truman 50%
FDR 50%
Public sector employment has ranged since the 1950s at between 15 percent and 19 percent of the population while the makeup of the Obama cabinet has 93 percent of its prior experience in the public sector or only a meager seven percent in the private sector. In ninety-three percent of their experience, they never had to make a profit, meet a payroll, raise capital, invest in a business, manufacture, market, sell, create a value chain, innovate, design, control quality, eliminate waste, negotiate with unions, maintain and repair facilities and equipment, meet shipping schedules, provide customer service, establish budgets or be held accountable for financial results.
Obama’s key cabinet members have spent their careers living off government funding (taxes paid by others) and charitable contributions from foundations and corporations to not-for-profit organizations. Obama's own experience in the private sector is nil; even while working for a law firm he was also teaching law, writing about himself and concentrating his law practice as a civil rights attorney for nonprofit community organizations.
IS IT ANY SURPRISE THAT THIS CREW CANNOT CREATE PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS?
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Obama Votes "Present" on His Afghanistan Strategy
OBAMA FOUND A WAY TO VOTE "PRESENT" ON HIS AFGHAN STRATEGY.
He couldn't duck a decision as he did so often in his previous positions, so he came up with the most middle of the road strategy possible.
The problem is it was probably the worst possible decision, SHOWING OBAMA'S INCOMPETENCE AS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF.
This was obviously a political decision about the 2012 election and not a decision about winning the war in Afghanistan by defeating the Taliban and Al Qaeda and making the U.S. more secure.
1. The Taliban and Al Qaeda must be jumping for joy today, knowing that they have to hold out for only 18 months.
2. The Taliban and Al Qaeda can now be assured of a halfhearted participation by Afghan troops and police who will see no point in risking their lives with the U.S. pulling back on a fixed short time table.
3. Obama made the Afghan War Lords happy since they can remain neutral or support the Taliban behind the scenes rather than risk retribution from the Taliban when the U.S. retreats.
4. The Afghan drug cartels (often these same War Lords) are happy because they know business will be as usual if they just hold out 18 months.
5. Meanwhile, U.S. troops are being asked to risk their lives for a president who has announced a retreat date before the surge even begins whether we are winning or losing the war. This must be a real morale booster!
6. The U.S. commanders only got 3/4 of the minimum they requested and got a retreat date to boot; being loyal to the CIC Obama, they are saying they are satisfied.
7. The other coalition countries are going to be very reluctant to send their troops into combat situations, losing lives, when there is a planned retreat date.
ALL OF THIS TOOK OBAMA OVER THREE MONTHS OF DITHERING TO FIGURE OUT A STRATEGY THAT MIGHT BENEFIT HIM IN 2012, WHICH WAS CLEARLY HIS MAIN OBJECTIVE.
He couldn't duck a decision as he did so often in his previous positions, so he came up with the most middle of the road strategy possible.
The problem is it was probably the worst possible decision, SHOWING OBAMA'S INCOMPETENCE AS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF.
This was obviously a political decision about the 2012 election and not a decision about winning the war in Afghanistan by defeating the Taliban and Al Qaeda and making the U.S. more secure.
1. The Taliban and Al Qaeda must be jumping for joy today, knowing that they have to hold out for only 18 months.
2. The Taliban and Al Qaeda can now be assured of a halfhearted participation by Afghan troops and police who will see no point in risking their lives with the U.S. pulling back on a fixed short time table.
3. Obama made the Afghan War Lords happy since they can remain neutral or support the Taliban behind the scenes rather than risk retribution from the Taliban when the U.S. retreats.
4. The Afghan drug cartels (often these same War Lords) are happy because they know business will be as usual if they just hold out 18 months.
5. Meanwhile, U.S. troops are being asked to risk their lives for a president who has announced a retreat date before the surge even begins whether we are winning or losing the war. This must be a real morale booster!
6. The U.S. commanders only got 3/4 of the minimum they requested and got a retreat date to boot; being loyal to the CIC Obama, they are saying they are satisfied.
7. The other coalition countries are going to be very reluctant to send their troops into combat situations, losing lives, when there is a planned retreat date.
ALL OF THIS TOOK OBAMA OVER THREE MONTHS OF DITHERING TO FIGURE OUT A STRATEGY THAT MIGHT BENEFIT HIM IN 2012, WHICH WAS CLEARLY HIS MAIN OBJECTIVE.
Can Reform Actually Make Health Care Less Costly?
A Washingotn Post column wrote: "Health-care reform that actually controls costs -- rather than just pretending to do so -- would be virtually impossible to achieve".
This thinking arises only if ObamaCare with a single-payer government run program is the end-point.
What is neglected by the liberal media is an entirely different approach that removes government barriers to lowering cost and keeps the government out of health care beyond the entrenched Medicaid and Medicare programs.
All of these measures are opposed by Obama and the Democrats because they do not increase government power and control. Here are some examples, there are more.
1.Remove the laws that prevent competition for buying insurance across state lines (e.g. equal policies in NJ and PA can cost $12,000 and $7000, respectively.
2. Change the tax law so that individuals get the same tax deduction on health insurance premiums as do corporations (remove the 7% of adjusted gross income offset against individual medical expenses).
3. Remove the restrictions on carryover of Flexible Spending accounts as an incentive for individuals to not use unspent funds by year end.
4. Remove all limitations on Health Savings Accounts to encourage lower cost private catastrophic insurance policies with individuals taking more responsibility for initial expenses in unlimited HSA contributions.
5. Institute true tort reform that limits lawyers fees and jury awards and will result in lower liability insurance for doctors and less medical testing.
6. Make the penalties much higher for insurance companies who wrongly refuse claims and index the penalties to the frequency of wrongful rejections for each company.
7. Provide income scaled government vouchers for health insurance for those caught in the gap between Medicaid eligibility and those that can afford their own insurance (perhaps at 3x poverty level).
8. Make penalties very high for insurance companies that drop an insured because of too many claims.
9. Create very-high risk pools with appropriate high premiums for those with pre-existing conditions (as is done for teenage drivers or those with DUI records).
10. Increase the investigations and increase the penalties (fines and prison-time) for Medicaid and Medicare fraud.
11. For people below a certain age (perhaps 30 to 40) abandon Medicare and create long-term health insurance investment plans along the lines of long-term-care policies. Employee and employer contributions to Medicare can be diverted to a plan by private insurance companies an perhaps guaranteed by the government as are many private pension plans.
This thinking arises only if ObamaCare with a single-payer government run program is the end-point.
What is neglected by the liberal media is an entirely different approach that removes government barriers to lowering cost and keeps the government out of health care beyond the entrenched Medicaid and Medicare programs.
All of these measures are opposed by Obama and the Democrats because they do not increase government power and control. Here are some examples, there are more.
1.Remove the laws that prevent competition for buying insurance across state lines (e.g. equal policies in NJ and PA can cost $12,000 and $7000, respectively.
2. Change the tax law so that individuals get the same tax deduction on health insurance premiums as do corporations (remove the 7% of adjusted gross income offset against individual medical expenses).
3. Remove the restrictions on carryover of Flexible Spending accounts as an incentive for individuals to not use unspent funds by year end.
4. Remove all limitations on Health Savings Accounts to encourage lower cost private catastrophic insurance policies with individuals taking more responsibility for initial expenses in unlimited HSA contributions.
5. Institute true tort reform that limits lawyers fees and jury awards and will result in lower liability insurance for doctors and less medical testing.
6. Make the penalties much higher for insurance companies who wrongly refuse claims and index the penalties to the frequency of wrongful rejections for each company.
7. Provide income scaled government vouchers for health insurance for those caught in the gap between Medicaid eligibility and those that can afford their own insurance (perhaps at 3x poverty level).
8. Make penalties very high for insurance companies that drop an insured because of too many claims.
9. Create very-high risk pools with appropriate high premiums for those with pre-existing conditions (as is done for teenage drivers or those with DUI records).
10. Increase the investigations and increase the penalties (fines and prison-time) for Medicaid and Medicare fraud.
11. For people below a certain age (perhaps 30 to 40) abandon Medicare and create long-term health insurance investment plans along the lines of long-term-care policies. Employee and employer contributions to Medicare can be diverted to a plan by private insurance companies an perhaps guaranteed by the government as are many private pension plans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)