Facebook Parenting: For the troubled teen.

In this age of social networking, email, texting and instant messages parents sometimes can feel out of touch or even out of control when it comes the normal teen angst. Where a grumbling teen used to gripe to their friends at school about how mean and unfair their parents were, now the dirty laundry of family interaction can be posted for the entire world to view.

This father of a teen girl who decided to get even with her parents by talking disrespectfully and using language befitting a Marine Corps Drill Sergeant discovered her rant on her Facebook page despite her best efforts to block her family. Her undoing was that she didn’t block the family’s dog’s Facebook page… ROFLMAO!

Anyway, without further ado here is the video:

Here is the link to the original Facebook page.

Blogger Debate Series Continued – Third Party Viability question 2 rebuttal

The question in this part of the continuing third party viability debate is:

Is a third-party vote “wasted?” If so, how? If not, why?”

I want to say that I have enjoyed debating scratcher. He is passionate about what he believes and makes excellent points. Scratcher has his rebuttal up at his blog, so now I will respond.

Here in part is what scratcher said:

“I guess if you want to believe in changing the Party, a third party vote may seem like a waste. But if you’re like me and believe the Party can’t – or rather won’t – be changed, then a third party may be the only way to go. It’s got to come down to what you want to stand for come election day…”

Okay, if you only want to look at this topic via what it means to you, personally then yes; I agree with scratcher. Voting for a third party is what you need to do; which goes to the original point I made that a vote cast is not a vote wasted. But does that vote cast do anything to keep the liberal statists from advancing their agenda? It isn’t just that you vote for a third party, it is what your vote does to aid the opposition. To this, scratcher said:

“Realistically, we can only be thankful right now that the progressives haven’t been able to force their agenda of change on the schedule they’d hoped to. A bottom-up infiltration of an unwilling and aware entity could take decades… if it succeeds at all.”

Well I would only mention Woodrow Wilson at this juncture. Since his Presidency, statism has been on the march; slowly in general, sudden at times, but steadily ‘progressing’ on our society. Statism has long been pushed by the left, it isn’t an invention of Barack Obama and even though it will take decades, we need to start somewhere. We can no longer let statism go unchecked, for as we have seen of late, the far left in the Democratic Party will stop at virtually nothing to foist their socialist agenda upon the American people. That is why voting for a third party in the general Presidential election would be nothing short of disastrous for the conservative cause.

Scratcher also said:

“I think it proves instead the point I’m trying to make. The trouble with NY-23 wasn’t knowledgeable voters resisting a RINO liberal and breaking for the third party candidate. The problem was an arrogant Republican Party that ignored those voters, then sent Newt Gingrich to tell the common folk what was best for them. Had the Republican establishment thrown their support behind the popular and desired conservative candidate, Hoffman and the GOP would have both won – as would the voters.”

First of all, Newt Gingrich noted his mistake in supporting Dede Scozzafava in a meeting with Tea Partiers in New Hampshire:

“Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says that he was wrong to endorse Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava in last November’s special election in New York’s 23rd District.

At the time, as a party builder and someone who has always been trying to help build the party, it struck me that she was the local nominee. She turned out to be a huge disappointment. And she turned out not to be frankly a loyal Republican,” Gingrich added. Responding to those critical of his endorsement, “And I think that those folks have the better of that argument.

And secondly, I think that what we need to remember here is that the Republican National Committee, according to their bylaws are prohibited from getting involved in the picking and choosing of a local candidate. Once a candidate has been chosen, the RNC can throw its support behind that person, but they cannot select candidates. This was a local problem made by Chicago style backroom deals and would probably not ever have been noticed in a different election cycle; which is only more proof that the Tea Party Movement is effective as it stands. Without their involvement this past year, you would not have seen the amazing election results in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts.

Something else that scratcher said really hit me:

“That’s what it’s coming to for me. I’m going to vote for the person I think is best for the job, and never mind the Party choices. Will it reform the Republicans? I doubt it. But if they lose enough elections due to independent-minded conservatives like myself breaking for the third party, perhaps they’ll start looking for more appropriate candidates.

Wow. Obamacare, Cap and Tax, Card Check, Amnesty for Illegals – I can only ask, does anyone think that we can afford to lose enough elections due to independent-minded conservatives voting for third party candidates to force a change in the GOP that way? Personally, I don’t want to take that chance.

We have, coming up in the next two election cycles, a once in a lifetime chance to effect change in the Republican Party. The Tea Party Movement has sent a clear message that the electorate is fed up with the big government, out of control spending ways that the GOP fell into. Rasmussen says that the GOP is enjoying an unprecedented lead in the generic congressional ballot survey:

“Evidence is mounting that adopting Obamacare over sustained and vocal public opposition to government-run health care could lead to an electoral catastrophe for Democrats, as they fall 10 points behind Republicans in Rasmussen’s generic congressional ballot survey.

The survey measures which party candidate for Congress voters intend to vote for in the November congressional election.

Rasmussen notes that: “The two parties were very close on the Generic Ballot throughout the spring of 2009, but in late June – around the same time Democrats began their campaign for health care reform — Republicans pulled ahead for good.”

If the GOP still has a double digit lead come November, the party will regain control of both houses of Congress with significant majorities.

For a little perspective, the GOP only held a 4 point lead in 1995, one year AFTER the Contract with America. Presently we are eight months away from the mid term elections. To waste this lead on the idea that we should hitch our horse to a third party wagon will only get us stuck in the mire of a fractured conservative vote while the far left in the Democratic Party continue on down the road to their socialist utopia.

Happy 99th Birthday Ronald Reagan

On this, Ronald Reagan’s 99th birthday let us all give thought and thanks to a man who helped this great nation in ways that are still being recognized to this day. Reagan didn’t govern by the polls; he didn’t succumb to political pressure, instead preferring to do what was the right thing, even when it wasn’t the easy thing.

All my loyal and regular readers here at Present Discontent know that I am a HUGE Reagan fan. I recently posted an article entitled, “The Prescience of Reagan” over at Conservative Hideout 2.0, in which a stump speech he gave in 1988 articulated and described so very accurately then candidate for Senate, Harry Reid. It seems that Ronald Reagan’s penchant for pinpointing and highlighting issues in a way that resonated with the public are still working long after his death. President Reagan had a talent that not even he was aware of; he seemed to be able to read the future. Now maybe he could or maybe the face of liberalism never really changes. Either way, his words from decades ago lend themselves to the problems we face in America today. Problems like combating liberalism and deciding the fate of the GOP.

I submit for you portions of his speech to what was then the 2nd annual CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) Convention in March of 1975.

“Since our last meeting we have been through a disastrous election. It is easy for us to be discouraged, as pundits hail that election as a repudiation of our philosophy and even as a mandate of some kind or other. But the significance of the election was not registered by those who voted, but by those who stayed home. If there was anything like a mandate it will be found among almost two-thirds of the citizens who refused to participate.

Bitter as it is to accept the results of the November election, we should have reason for some optimism. For many years now we have preached “the gospel,” in opposition to the philosophy of so-called liberalism which was, in truth, a call to collectivism.”

——————————

“Make no mistake, the leadership of the Democratic party is still out of step with the majority of Americans.

Speaker Carl Albert recently was quoted as saying that our problem is “60 percent recession, 30 percent inflation and 10 percent energy.” That makes as much sense as saying two and two make 22.

Without inflation there would be no recession. And unless we curb inflation we can see the end of our society and economic system. The painful fact is we can only halt inflation by undergoing a period of economic dislocation — a recession, if you will.

We can take steps to ease the suffering of some who will be hurt more than others, but if we turn from fighting inflation and adopt a program only to fight recession we are on the road to disaster.”

——————————

“Inflation has one cause and one cause only: government spending more than government takes in. And the cure to inflation is a balanced budget. We know, of course, that after 40 years of social tinkering and Keynesian experimentation that we can’t do this all at once, but it can be achieved. Balancing the budget is like protecting your virtue: you have to learn to say “no.” This is no time to repeat the shopworn panaceas of the New Deal, the Fair Deal and the Great Society.”

Reagan touched on many issues in this speech. Isn’t it amazing how his words ring true today? Time after time when he would speak, he connected with the American public. Even those who were his political rivals admired and respected him, with nary a negative word being spoken about him. Reagan is being touted as the spiritual leader of the Tea Party Movement and even though I know his values and those of the Tea Partiers are in harmony, Reagan would warn us of a third party and the damage that it could do to the conservative cause.

In 1977, at the 4th annual CPAC Convention, Reagan addressed this issue:

“You know, as I do, that most commentators make a distinction between [what] they call “social” conservatism and “economic” conservatism. The so-called social issues — law and order, abortion, busing, quota systems — are usually associated with blue-collar, ethnic and religious groups themselves traditionally associated with the Democratic Party. The economic issues — inflation, deficit spending and big government — are usually associated with Republican Party members and independents who concentrate their attention on economic matters.

Now I am willing to accept this view of two major kinds of conservatism — or, better still, two different conservative constituencies. But at the same time let me say that the old lines that once clearly divided these two kinds of conservatism are disappearing.

In fact, the time has come to see if it is possible to present a program of action based on political principle that can attract those interested in the so-called “social” issues and those interested in “economic” issues. In short, isn’t it possible to combine the two major segments of contemporary American conservatism into one politically effective whole?”

What Reagan is saying here is that united we stand, divided we fall. Today, the phrase “Big Tent” is thrown around quite a bit, but Reagan was espousing just that philosophy over three decades ago. Easier said than done, but it was achieved, for if it had not been achieved then Reagan would never have been elected to the Oval Office. But how do we do this? How do we reconcile the different branches of conservatism? Let us once again turn to Reagan:

“Let me say again what I said to our conservative friends from the academic world: What I envision is not simply a melding together of the two branches of American conservatism into a temporary uneasy alliance, but the creation of a new, lasting majority.

This will mean compromise, but not a compromise of basic principle. What will emerge will be something new: something open and vital and dynamic, something the great conservative majority will recognize as its own, because at the heart of this undertaking is principled politics.”

Reagan then went on to explain what he saw as conservative answers to the issues of the day:

“When a conservative states that the free market is the best mechanism ever devised by the mind of man to meet material needs, he is merely stating what a careful examination of the real world has told him is the truth.

When a conservative says that totalitarian Communism is an absolute enemy of human freedom he is not theorizing — he is reporting the ugly reality captured so unforgettably in the writings of Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

When a conservative says it is bad for the government to spend more than it takes in, he is simply showing the same common sense that tells him to come in out of the rain.

When a conservative quotes Jefferson that government that is closest to the people is best, it is because he knows that Jefferson risked his life, his fortune and his sacred honor to make certain that what he and his fellow patriots learned from experience was not crushed by an ideology of empire.”

Lastly, Reagan made certain that he believed in keeping the integrity of the two party system against populist ideals that would only serve to fracture the process and ensure Democratic majorities.

“Our first job is to get this message across to those who share most of our principles. If we allow ourselves to be portrayed as ideological shock troops without correcting this error we are doing ourselves and our cause a disservice. Wherever and whenever we can, we should gently but firmly correct our political and media friends who have been perpetuating the myth of conservatism as a narrow ideology. Whatever the word may have meant in the past, today conservatism means principles evolving from experience and a belief in change when necessary, but not just for the sake of change.

Once we have established this, the next question is: What will be the political vehicle by which the majority can assert its rights?

I respect that view and I know that those who have reached it have done so after long hours of study. But I believe that political success of the principles we believe in can best be achieved in the Republican Party. I believe the Republican Party can hold and should provide the political mechanism through which the goals of the majority of Americans can be achieved. For one thing, the biggest single grouping of conservatives is to be found in that party. It makes more sense to build on that grouping than to break it up and start over. Rather than a third party, we can have a new first party made up of people who share our principles. I have said before that if a formal change in name proves desirable, then so be it. But tonight, for purpose of discussion, I’m going to refer to it simply as the New Republican Party.

The New Republican Party I envision is one that will energetically seek out the best candidates for every elective office, candidates who not only agree with, but understand, and are willing to fight for a sound, honest economy, for the interests of American families and neighborhoods and communities and a strong national defense. And these candidates must be able to communicate those principles to the American people in language they understand. Inflation isn’t a textbook problem. Unemployment isn’t a textbook problem. They should be discussed in human terms.”

Again, President Reagan’s words could be used today. So let us draw power and knowledge from them and put forth a strong Conservative movement that holds the GOP accountable to the people, for Government that governs least, governs best.

Share

Stephen A. Smith on Modern Conservatism and the Minority Community

Stephen A. Smith, the personality most well known to fans of ESPN was recently interviewed on the Mark Levin radio show. I was astounded. Not that he is a black man that is also a conservative, because studies show that there are a great many black conservatives in America. No, what really struck me, was in the way he put into words how he felt about, not only our President, but also about what it means to be a conservative. He is eloquent and direct. And as Mark asks him in the interview, he could very well run for President, or at the very least, public office. This man is exactly what the Conservative cause needs at this time.

Stephen A. Smith of ESPN

Mark Levin: Now Stephen, one of the things that impresses me about you is, you fundamentally understand liberty. Doesn’t mean we agree on everything.

Stephen Smith: Right.

ML: But you fundamentally understand that this is what we have to defend. I don’t care who we’re defending it from, this is what we have to defend. What do you make…what do you make of what’s going on today with all the government push and all the racism charges and all the rest of it?

SS: Well I’m disturbed to be quite honest with you. Ah, you can hear me clearly, correct Mark?

ML: Yes sir.

SS: Yes sir, I’m very, very disturbed. I mean, you know as an African American growing up in the streets of New York City I understand what poverty is all about, I understand, you know, what trials and tribulations mean. But at the same time, I’m looking at what we’re witnessing from our President, a man that I voted for; a man that I was proud to vote for at the time simply because, from a historical perspective what he represented. And then I’m looking at, you know, what I consider to be a government takeover. And I’m quite alarmed; I don’t think it’s what he campaigned on. I know that his record was radical, I listen to Sean Hannity a lot and Sean Hannity made it a point to say that everyday. But I certainly didn’t expect us to own 80% of AIG. I didn’t expect us to own a part of the automobile industry. Its one thing to put forth a $787 billion stimulus package, but to drop on top of that $410 billion omnibus package, a $3.6 trillion budget, a cap and trade bill, and then to come with universal health care that ultimately leans towards a government takeover of the health care system. Um these…I did not have to listen to Mark Levin or Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh to recognize that this is something that should make all of us extremely uncomfortable. Because as a young black man growing up in the streets of New York City; no matter what you say about so many of the critics that were perceived as leaders within the community, people may have advocated Mark, government intervention in terms of supervising things and making sure that we all were operating under a fair and equitable system. But I don’t recall anybody, and I do mean anybody that has ever walked into the black community and advocated a government takeover of anything. It’s about handling your own business, grabbing yourself by your own bootstraps and lifting yourself up. We may all need assistance, but a takeover is an entirely different situation altogether, and I’m extremely uncomfortable with it, and I’m even more uncomfortable with the fact that race has become a part of the discussion.

We all know racism exists to some degree, but to act as if it is as prevalent as it was years and decades ago is completely untrue and it serves to divide this nation, which I think is a catastrophic thing.

ML: Are you running for president? Cause I’ll vote for you.

SS: (Laughter)

ML: I – I’m not kidding. What you just said was so damn good and I’m not kidding, because, uh, in fact I have, I have shivers going down, uh up my leg, or whatever the guy said, Chris Matthews.

SS: I tell you something; one of the things, listening to your show, listening to Sean, listening to Rush, I’ve agreed with Rush in a lot of the things in the past, but I remember…I’ll tell you a little story Mark. Just a few days ago I was in Washington D.C. for an event and an African American happened to be driving me. He was a cab driver and I’m talking to him because he’s a big time supporter of Obama. And I said to him, “Listen you’re not going to be able to put that tag on me, ‘Oh, you know what? You’re being critical of Obama, so therefore you must be against him.’” No, no, no, no, no. The fact is, he is the President of the United States of America, he received 69 million plus votes, he received 52% of the popular vote; he has sworn to be a president to ALL Americans, not just African Americans. I appreciate his sensitivity or what would appear to be his sensitivity to some degree, but that doesn’t mean we don’t get to be critical of his policies. And you can’t tell me that what you’re seeing from his policies right now should make you comfortable. If it makes you comfortable, it’s because you must be ignorant to the issues. Because if you are paying attention, then you cannot be comfortable with the American way of life that you knew before, watching what’s taking place right now. And I was, I ended up surrounded by about 15 or 20 people, and I was basically saying to them, Mark, “Listen, at the end of the day, its about, if you walked up to any African American in this country and you said to them, ‘You know what? I’m gonna give you universal health care, or I’m gonna give you a cap and trade tax, or I’m gonna give you X,Y and Z.’ If you gave them that option, or the option to have money in their pocket and for them to make their OWN decisions. They would choose the latter.” I said, “I got news for you. That would make you somebody with a conservative point of view. You better wake up and recognize.”

ML: I think I just found a superstar. I-I’m not kidding you. Now, by the way, do you know I get –

SS: Yes sir.

ML: I get notes from cab drivers all the time asking me for a copy of Liberty and Tyranny? I mean people make assumptions, bigoted assumptions about people based on their race, or what they’re doing in their lives or something like that. You know I just think if we explain liberty more, if we explain competition more, and you’re right, if we, if we, and we spend a lot of money, if we’d spend it the right way to help people that truly cannot help themselves, I’m all for that. I’m not an Anarchist, I’m a Conservative. But that said, there’s no reason to destroy the entire health care system in order to help people. There’s just no need for it.

SS: I-I’ll tell you what, if you don’t mind me saying so. I’ll tell you what the conservatives and the Republican Party is up against more so than anything else. You don’t have a great messenger, outside of talk radio.

ML: You’re – It’s true.

SS: That ultimately, that ultimately is your problem. I like Michael Steele, I certainly don’t want to do anything that would impugn his integrity, or, or stain him in any way. But, you know he has to do a better job of making sure that the message of the Conservative party is coming across because I don’t think it’s reaching the masses. I think you’ve got to have people that can go in any community because the reality is that when you look at Conservatives, when you look at Republicans you know that you’re going – you know that there’s a vast majority of white Americans that are going to vote in that direction. But when you talk about the Hispanic and in particularly the Black community then it becomes a problem. You’ve got to have somebody that can walk into these disenfranchised and minority communities and really explain what it is all about.

I didn’t know who Mark Levin was from a can of paint. But when I listened on a radio show, and I listened to him, I said, “You know what? When it’s six o’clock on the East Coast, if I’m in my car, to hell with music, and the hell with talk radio, everything else –

ML: (Laughter)

SS: I’m turning on Mark Levin, because I wanna LEARN something.” And even if I disagree, I’m still going to learn something even in the process of disagreeing, and therefore it’s going to make me more intelligent about the arguments that I make for or against whatever somebody like you is saying. Too many people do not do that and that needs to change, especially when we’re witnessing what we’re witnessing what’s taking place in our country today.

Wow. That is really all I can say. We need more people to orate the conservative position this well.

Health Rationing in our Future?

This is an eye opening article from the Los Angeles Times. Health rationing is probably the scariest issue associated with socialized medicine. Around the world many other countries are doing it right now as we speak. Even our own state of Oregon has a rationing body.

“To our knowledge, the Oregon Health Plan is the first government health care program anywhere in the world that has drawn up a formal procedure for rationing. After comment from interested parties, this state health program for low-income people ranks treatment for various diseases and conditions, currently from 1 to 680, in order of priority. The health care dollars available determine which priorities are met. As program costs have grown, the list of covered procedures has become shorter.

Reordering Priorities. Surprisingly, between 2002 and 2009 there was a fairly radical reordering of the plain language priorities. A great many life-saving procedures that ranked high in 2002 have been relegated to a much lower position in 2009, while procedures that are only tangentially related to life and death have climbed to the top. (While extensive code lists define actual treatment, most people must rely on the plain language to judge list adequacy.)

For example, medical treatment for Type I diabetes, which ranked second in 2002, was demoted to 10th place in 2009. Oddly, given that not providing treatment for Type I diabetes is a death sentence, it has been placed behind spending on smoking cessation, sterilization and drug abuse treatment. And this is not an isolated case.”

www.ncpa.org/pub/ba645

This article goes on to talk more about Oregon’s health care rationing. Even saying that the Bush administration was correct to deny Oregon the ability to alter their Medicaid program to reflect their new health procedure ranking system.

“It was rationing by recipe. Regardless of almost any other variable concerning one’s health status, reimbursement was based on whether or not a given procedure was on or off an approved list Human beings are not, of course, so readily classified. That’s why triage decisions take into account holistic judgments about individuals. By following blindly the Oregon norms, any number of absurd outcomes were bound to result.

That is exactly what happened when Oregon tried to implement its program three years ago. A twelve-year-old boy with leukemia was denied a potentially life-saving bone marrow transplant bone marrow transplant. At the same time, patients near the end of their lives were receiving nonessential care because those procedures were on the list.”

www.thefreelibrary.com/Rationing+in+Oregon:+not+this+way-a012702783

And lastly, here is the article that shows how Obama feels about end of life care:

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/medicine/la-oe-allen5-2009jul05,0,213990.story

Obama is frantically trying to get his health care reform passed by this August. Why? Where is the rush? Why can we not have debate on an issue this large? I will tell you why. He knows that if the American public wakes up and examines what he wants to do, he will not be able to get it passed. Wake up, America.

Present Discontent Mission Statement

It has been brought to my attention that some posts may not be showing up as viewable. I want to say right up front that I will delete no posts, I accept all comments whether they agree with my positions or not. The only editorial license that I take in that regard is in deference to posts that contain severe profanity or of course spam.

My reason for becoming a blogger is simple. I am trying to get as much information about our Government out and in a public forum. I am doing my part in helping to continue the conservative message. I claim allegiance to neither political party, but rather to the philosophy of conservatism. Our founding fathers began this country on the idea that it is a government for the people, not the other way around. We are a nation that holds personal liberties dear and the idea that freedom is an unalienable right, so for me to pick and choose which posts I publish would be contrary to my beliefs.

Cap and Trade? More like Tax and Kill…the Global Warming Myth

Well, looks like Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House is trying to ram Global Warming down our throats, via the Cap and Trade Climate Bill. Why? More than thirty one thousand experts agree that global warming is a hoax. The science is inexact and faulty. Yet the mainstream media keeps helping to perpetuate the myths that surround this near religion of climate change. The facts about climate change, global warming, greenhouse gases; whichever term you prefer are simply this. Global Warming caused by man is a myth. It is false. Take this statement from the Petition Project that has to date; over 31,000 signatures of scientists and experts that all say the idea of man-made global warming is not possible.

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

But just for fun, let’s look at some of the myths surrounding global warming, okay?

  • Myth: The world is getting warmer!!
  • Fact: Since 2001, the earth has actually cooled
    • “This warmth peaked in 1998, and the temperature trend the last decade has been flat, even as CO2 has increased 5.5 percent. Cooling began in 2002. Over the last six years, global temperatures from satellite and land-temperature gauges have cooled (-0.14 F and -0.22 F, respectively). Ocean buoys have echoed that slight cooling since the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration deployed them in 2003.”
    • http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/32821
  • Myth: Carbon Dioxide is the most common greenhouse gas.
  • Fact: Carbon Dioxide actually makes up .038% of our atmosphere, that is less than four parts per million. In fact, Dudley J. Hughes, a retired geologist and author of A Geologic Reinterpretation of the Earth’s Atmospheric History, said this in a paper he wrote which was published in Environment and Climate News, May 2007:
    • “For centuries, bloodletting was an accepted medical procedure administered by physicians to treat patients for most illnesses. In today’s world, we find it almost inconceivable that such a practice was condoned by entire populations. Similarly, the claim that increased carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is causing “global warming” has been accepted as “fact” in many countries worldwide. This belief has no more scientific foundation than the bloodletting of past generations.”
    • http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/20952/Carbon_Dioxide_Levels_Are_a_Blessing_Not_a_Problem.html
  • Myth: The icecaps are melting!!
  • Fact: They are not melting, in fact it is reported that Antarctic Sea Ice has increased 41% since 1980.
    • “Yet that is what we have, and not just a little increase but a 43% increase since 1980! This is highly significant yet hardly anyone in the main stream media (MSM) is talking about it.

      Sea ice is much different than interior ice. Some of the models predicted increased ice over the interior of Antarctic. If you’ve ever lived in the extreme cold temperature regions you already understand this. When it gets very cold the air become drier and it snows less, as the temperature warms towards freezing it actually snows more. Since the Antarctic rarely even gets close to freezing its understandable that warming would cause more snow fall. Over time compacted snow would lead to more ice. But that is not what is happening here. We’re seeing a dramatic increase in “sea ice”; this ice is over the ocean. Sea ice is caused by colder temperatures, not by increased snow fall. An increase of 43% is highly significant, but we hear nothing from either the MSM or the scientific community. Especially compared to the out 6%-7% decrease at the arctic (this isn’t year over year, this is a 6% decline since 1980!).”

    • http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/comment.php?comment.news.109
    • http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/2009/04/30/antarctic-ice-increasing/
  • Myth: The United Nations produced a report stating that man-made carbon dioxide causes global warming.
  • Fact: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
    1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
    2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”

So you see, for every myth that the enviro-statists use, we can counter them with hard scientific data. Carbon Dioxide in the air is not a danger; it isn’t even prevalent in our atmosphere. How much carbon dioxide is in the air we breathe? To answer that, let’s turn to Dudley Hughes once again.

“Earth’s atmosphere is made up of several major gases. For simplicity, let us picture a football stadium with about 10,000 people in the stands. Assume each person represents a small volume of one type of gas. The approximate numbers of people representing the various types of gas are set out in the accompanying table.

Not included in the table is “water vapor,” the amount of which varies in the atmosphere but probably averages about 2 percent at any point in time. Water vapor is the principal greenhouse gas and has more impact on global temperature than all other greenhouse gases combined.

Carbon dioxide is represented as only about 4 parts in 10,000, the smallest volume of any major atmospheric gas.

Moreover, those who name CO2 as a pollutant are not concerned with the 4 parts, but only with 1 part–the portion added during the past 150 years by the burning of fossil fuels. This 1/10,000 increase is the target of the Kyoto Protocol.”

If the Earth’s Atmosphere Were a Football Stadium

Atmospheric Gas

Percentage in Atmosphere

People in the Stadium

Nitrogen (N2)

78%

7,800

Oxygen (02)

21%

2,100

Argon (A)

1%

100

Carbon Dioxide (C02)

0.038%

4

Jay Lehr, Ph.D. is science director of The Heartland Institute, and he says that warming periods PRECEED carbon dioxide increases. Hard scientific data supports this. He says, “A full 900,000 years of ice core temperature records and carbon dioxide content records show CO2 increases follow increases in Earth’s temperature instead of leading them. This makes sense because the oceans are the primary source of CO2, and they hold more CO2 when cool than when warm. Warming causes the oceans to release more CO2.” http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/article/25520/A_Primer_on_Global_Warming_Dispelling_CO2_Myths.html

With all this compelling data, one must ask why then is our government wanting to implement a “Cap and Trade” system that would regulate an element of our atmosphere that is not even ONE HALF OF ONE PERCENT of the air we breathe? Moreover, what will Cap and Trade lead to?

In a report on his testimony before Congress, Ben Lieberman, the Senior Policy Analyst for Energy and Environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation had this to say about H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (Waxman-Markey); otherwise known as Cap and Trade.

“It is clear that cap-and-trade is very expensive and amounts to nothing more than an energy tax in disguise. After all, when you sweep aside all the complexities of how cap and trade operates–and make no mistake, this is the most convoluted attempt at economic central planning this nation has ever attempted–the bottom line is that cap and trade works by raising the cost of energy high enough so that individuals and businesses are forced to use less of it. Inflicting economic pain is what this is all about. That is how the ever-tightening emissions targets will be met.”

When you consider that Obama wanted to be the President of Change we can believe in, why do you think he is pushing this so hard? This will be a tax on EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN who uses power in their everyday life. Last week the House of Representatives passed this monstrosity by a vote of 219 – 212. It only needed 218 to pass. This means that 8 Republicans voted FOR this bill. Before I go on to explain how this is going to affect our economy, let me list the Republicans who voted against the American public.

  • Mary Bono Mack – California – (202) 225-5330
  • Mike Castle – Delaware – (202) 225-4165
  • Mark Kirk – Illinois – (202) 225-4835
  • Frank LoBiondo – New Jersey – (202) 225-6572
  • Christopher Smith – New Jersey – 202-225-3765
  • Leonard Lance – New Jersey – (202) 225-5361
  • John McHugh – New York – (202) 225-4611
  • Dave Reichert – Washington – (202) 225-7761

We must do all we can to express our outrage at what these Republicans have done to us. This bill, if it makes it into law will wreck our economy. Our electricity rates will skyrocket, even Obama himself said this very thing. I urge all of my readers to reach out and contact the list of Republicans that voted for this, the largest tax hike in American history.

How will this affect the average American family? The higher energy costs kick in as soon as the bill’s provisions take effect in 2012. That means that for a household of four, energy costs go up $436 that year, and they eventually reach over $1,200 in 2035 and average $829 annually over that span. It gets worse.

  • Electricity costs go up 90 percent by 2035
  • Gasoline by 58 percent
  • Natural gas by 55 percent by 2035.
  • The cumulative higher energy costs for a family of four by then will be nearly $20,000.
  • Overall, gross domestic product will be reduced by an average of $393 billion annually between 2012 and 2035
  • Cumulatively by $9.4 trillion. In other words, the nation will be $9.4 trillion poorer with Cap and Trade than without it.
  • Farmers will average 57 percent LOWER profits through 2035.

It will also affect jobs. Job losses are estimated to be around 1.2 million at any given time between 2012 and 2035. It must be noted that these job loss figures are AFTER the much touted “Green Jobs” have been taken into account. This bill is a job killer, plain and simple. Some jobs will be eliminated entirely, but most will be relocated to China or India. Incidentally, both of those countries refuse to put restrictions like these into place because of the damage it would do to their economies.

To sum it up, Cap and Trade should be known as Tax and Kill because that is exactly what it will do. This is nothing short of a government re-engineering of our national economy. This will only put us on a wrongheaded path down a narrow trail of benefits with the costs vastly outweighing them. All we have to do is look to Great Britain. The average Great Britain family is paying around $1,300 a year in green taxes from carbon-cutting programs that have been in effect only a few years, says Britain’s Taxpayer Alliance. Is that what we want for America? We should lead the way, not follow other countries down a dangerous path.

America needs a good conservative leader.

The elections are over and the votes have been counted. Obama and the Democratic Party, under far-left rule have won. And they don’t hesitate to remind us of that with the passing of each and every day. As we conservatives turn towards the next round of elections and to the still distant 2012 Presidential elections, we are looking for a strong candidate to take the lead and don the mantle of conservatism. So that begs the question; just what would we look for in a conservative candidate?

Well, let’s see. First of all our candidate would need to be fiscally conservative, wanting to reign in the run away spending of the Obama administration and this Democratically controlled congress. He would need to look at tax cuts. Our candidate would show that the present rates not only check consumption but discourage investment and encourage…the avoidance of taxes rather than the production of goods. And that our present tax system…reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking.  Our candidate would know that a tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.

Our candidate should realize that the government does not owe each individual an education, or free health care, or even instant citizenship. No, our candidate will have to take on this entitlement mentality and put back into motion the idea that self reliance and hard work is the order of the day for every American. He should further state that our economy hinges on the work ethic of all Americans, so it is in everyone’s best interest that the entitlement mentality be excised from the American conscience.

On foreign policy, our candidate should make it known that America will vigorously defend herself to all enemies of the world. That America is a great and vital nation, not one among many, but a vast wealth of freedom, spirit and independence that can lead the world instead of trying to placate it. Totalitarianism in whatever form cannot be tolerated and our candidate will be vigilant in his effort to protect America from all her enemies. And in his foreign policy there needs to be a place for Israel so that our vitally important ally can know that we appreciate their position in this world. That we honor Israel’s determination and spirit, but that we do not forget our close ally’s peril, for no other nation in this world lives out its days in an atmosphere of such constant tension and fear. Israel needs to know we realize that no other nation in this world is surrounded on every side by such violent hate and prejudice.

Lastly, our candidate will need to truly be a uniter, and not a divider; for although that is easily said, it is hard to come by. Our candidate must seek not the Republican or Democratic answer, but the correct answer and in doing so our candidate must not place blame, but he must accept responsibility for our future. It is easy to spout catchy phrases and sound bites that the media will lap up and repeat over and over. What is truly hard to do, but well worth the effort is to reach across that aisle and work with congress in its entirety, not just with one party.

I know that many of my liberal readers will be saying that this message is nothing new, just the same old right wing rhetoric being rehashed and repackaged again. But I think it might be worth mentioning that on all my major points, I was working from a previous source. See, what I did was to go back and do a bit of studying of a former President. This President was known to be fiscally conservative, expansive on the military, at times a hard liner on foreign policy, he never apologized for America, instead he spot lighted her greatness. This man I speak of knew the importance of working with our allies, not placating our enemies, for only through strength can peace be achieved. This man knew that in order to stimulate the economy of America, you needed to cut back on taxes and also on the size and scope of government. This man knew that it was better to show a man how to do something, rather than have the government provide it for him.

The President I speak of is not a Republican. He is a Democrat and his name was John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Funny isn’t it how what he represented more closely resembles what a conservative stands for, rather than what a liberal is? Yet JFK is often thought of as the poster boy, if you will, for liberalism. I have taken great care to include in my narrative some of JFK’s quotes. I did not cite them for obvious reasons, but do want it known that I used them in part or in whole to illustrate the point I was trying to make.

So now my liberal readers I ask you; how hard is it to admit that what I have laid out here today could be the bridge we need to stop this petty bickering and unproductive division in our country? If I, a conservative can admire a great man who just happened to be a Democrat, why cannot we all see that the change we have so recently been promised comes not from one side of the aisle only, but from both sides?

Memorial Day – Freedom Isn’t Free

As we mark Memorial Day this year, let us reflect on why we set aside one day to show our gratitude to the brave men and women who have sacrificed so much to preserve our freedoms and the American way of life. United States soldiers have gone into battle in each and every corner of the world to meet the call and pay the price for freedom. Every since our great country was founded, we have enjoyed a unique place in the world. For our country is markedly different in that we are, as Ronald Reagan in his first Inaugural Address in 1981 said, “….a nation that has a government—not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth.” This is not to be taken lightly and many times in our nation’s history we have sent our young men and women into harm’s way in order to preserve our place in the world. At other times, our military has gone to face the evils of the world to liberate others. And when natural disasters strike, no matter where in the world, the United States always responds with humanitarian efforts, often delivered by our military.

One must stop and think, that but not for the strength, resolve, compassion and courage of the United States military Europe would be vastly different than it is today. Not only would the lines on the maps quite probably be changed but many, many more lives would have been lost to the evils that plagued our world during WWII. Again, to point to Ronald Reagan, ours is a “shining city on a hill,” and on this day, let us take the time to thank our military personnel for their service to this great country. I know that I will, for my family knows what it means to have loved ones go off to battle. My father served in WWII and my younger brother served during the first Iraq war. Thankfully they both came home to us. Not all families are that fortunate, so let us not also forget that the soldiers are not the only ones to feel the sacrifice that comes with service to our country So as we go about grilling our hamburgers and getting a cold drink from the cooler, let’s take the time to show our gratitude to our service personnel. Thank a vet. Offer a friendly word to the family of a soldier. The next time you are in line at the grocery store or post office and you see one of our military people, let them know how much they mean to us. Let them know that we thank them from the bottom of our hearts, because freedom isn’t free and they, more than anyone else know just how true that is.