Thought provoking

I am posting his article in its entirety for the link opening impaired. I don’t agree with everything that CK says but this is spot on.

Put down the koolaid!!

Charles Krauthammer, winner of the 1987 Pulitzer Prize for distinguished commentary, writes a nationally syndicated column for The Washington Post Writers Group. Krauthammer, also winner of the 1984 National Magazine Award for essays, began writing the weekly column for The Washington Post in January 1985. It now appears in more than 150 newspapers.

The late Meg Greenfield, longtime editorial page editor of The Washington Post, called Charles Krauthammer’s column “independent and hard to peg politically. It’s a very tough column. There’s no ‘trendy’ in it. You never know what is going to happen next.”

Says Fred Hiatt, editorial page editor of The Washington Post: “Krauthammer’s weekly essays on the war on terrorism, bioethics, the Middle East and other complex and contentious issues cut through the cant and the muddy thinking in a way that many other columnists can only envy.”

A column, says Charles Krauthammer, is not just politics. “My beat is ideas, everything from the ethics of cloning to strategy in Iraq. I also do public service, like reading Stephen Hawking’s books and assuring my readers that ‘It is not you. They are entirely incomprehensible.'”

Krauthammer was born in New York City and raised in Montreal. Charles Krauthammer was educated at McGill University, majoring in political science and economics, Oxford University (Commonwealth Scholar in Politics) and Harvard (M.D. in 1975). Charles Krauthammer practiced medicine for three years as a resident and then chief resident in psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital.

In 1978, Krauthammer quit medical practice, came to Washington to direct planning in psychiatric research for the Carter administration, and began contributing articles to The New Republic. During the presidential campaign of 1980, Charles Krauthammer served as a speech writer to Vice President Walter Mondale. He joined The New Republic as a writer and editor in 1981. Charles Krauthammer writes regular essays for Time magazine and contributes to several other publications, including The Weekly Standard, The New Republic and The National Interest. Krauthammer has been honored by many organizations, from the Center for Security Policy (Mighty Pen Award) to People for the American Way (First Amendment Award). In 2003, he was a recipient of the first annual Bradley Prize. In 2004, he was honored by the American Enterprise Institute with the Irving Kristol Award.

Charles Krauthammer lives in suburban Washington with his wife Robyn, an artist. Their son is a student at Harvard.

Advertisements

44 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Kim
    Jan 27, 2012 @ 09:37:15

    Once upon a time, small ball was not Barack Obama’s game. Tuesday, it was the essence of his State of the Union address. The visionary of 2008 — purveyor of hope and change, healer of the earth, tamer of the rising seas — offered an hour of little things: tax-code tweaks to encourage this or that kind of behavior (manufacturing being the flavor of the day), little watchdog agencies to round up Wall Street miscreants and Chinese DVD pirates, even a presidential demand “that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn 18.” Under penalty of what? Jail? The self-proclaimed transformer of America is now playing truant officer?

    It sounded like the Clinton years with their presidentially proclaimed initiatives on midnight basketball and school uniforms. These are the marks of a shrunken presidency, thoroughly flummoxed by high unemployment, economic stagnation, crushing debt — and a glaring absence of ideas.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-president-plays-small-ball/2012/01/26/gIQAWo04TQ_story.html

    Reply

    • Kim
      Jan 27, 2012 @ 09:38:09

      Of course, this being Obama, there was a reach for grandeur. Hope and change are long gone. It’s now equality and fairness.

      That certainly is a large idea. Lenin and Mao went pretty far with it. As did Clement Attlee and his social-democratic counterparts in postwar Europe. Where does Obama take it? Back to the decade-old Democratic obsession with the Bush tax cuts, the crusade for a tax hike of all of 4.6 points for 2 percent of households — 10 years of which wouldn’t cover the cost of Obama’s 2009 stimulus alone.

      Which is why Obama introduced a shiny new twist — the Buffett Rule, a minimum 30 percent rate for millionaires. Sounds novel. But it’s a tired replay of the alternative minimum tax, originally created in 1969 to bring to heel all of 155 underpaying fat cats. Following the fate of other such do-goodism, the AMT then metastasized into a $40 billion monster that today entraps millions of middle-class taxpayers.

      Reply

      • Kim
        Jan 27, 2012 @ 09:38:50

        There isn’t even a pretense that the Buffett Rule will do anything for economic growth or job creation (other than provide lucrative work for the sharp tax lawyers who will be gaming the new system for the very same rich). Which should not surprise. Back in 2008, Obama was asked if he would still support raising the capital-gains tax rate (the intended effect of the Buffett Rule) if this would decrease government revenue.

        Obama said yes. In the name of fairness.

        This is redistribution for its own sake — the cost be damned. It took Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels about 30 seconds of his State of the Union rebuttal to demolish that idea. To get the rich to contribute more, explained Daniels, you don’t raise tax rates. This ultimately retards economic growth for all. You (a) eliminate loopholes from which the rich benefit disproportionately (tax reform) and (b) means-test entitlements so that the benefits go to those most in need.

        Tax reform and entitlement reform are the really big ideas. The first produces social equity plus economic efficiency; the second produces social equity plus debt reduction. And yet these are precisely what Obama has for three years steadfastly refused to address. He prefers the easy demagoguery of “tax the rich.”

        After all, what’s he got? Can’t run on his record. Barely even mentioned Obamacare or the stimulus, his major legislative achievements, on Tuesday night. Too unpopular. His platform is fairness, wrapped around a plethora of little things, one mini-industrial policy after another — the conceit nicely encapsulated by his proclamation that “I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or to Germany.” As if he can command these industries into existence. As if Washington funding a thousand Solyndras will make solar economically viable.

        Soviet central planners mandated quotas for steel production, regardless of demand. Obama’s industrial policy is a bit more subtle. Tax breaks for manufacturing — but double tax breaks for high-tech manufacturing, which for some reason is considered more virtuous, despite the fact that high tech is less likely to create blue-collar jobs. Its main job creation will be for legions of lawyers and linguists testifying before some new adjudicating bureaucracy that the Acme Umbrella Factory meets its exquisitely drawn criteria for “high tech.”

        What Obama offered the nation Tuesday night was a pudding without a theme: a jumble of disconnected initiatives, a gaggle of intrusive new agencies and a whole new generation of loopholes to further corrupt a tax code that screams out for reform.

        If the Republicans can’t beat that in November, they should try another line of work.

  2. Kim
    Jan 27, 2012 @ 09:51:27

    Reply

    • Sherry
      Jan 27, 2012 @ 11:04:04

      Oh, for crying out loud~lets not get past the era of racism long gone over with except by those who love the victimhood sympathies they get when crying “Racism”! I noticed she was an older black woman who probably adores the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who make their living off of keeping blacks down in poverty and joblessness.

      Reply

  3. Kim
    Jan 27, 2012 @ 10:17:21

    President Obama’s third year in office elicited some of the most polarized job approval ratings ever, as the differences between Republican and Democratic views of the president stood at near-record highs, a new survey shows.

    In 2011, 80 percent of Democrats approved of Obama’s job performance, compared to only 12 percent of Republicans, according to Gallup.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72071.html

    Reply

  4. Kim
    Jan 27, 2012 @ 10:21:16

    While it’s true that the country has been headed in this direction for many years — with the explosion in entitlements since the 1960s and the aging of the population — Obama has, in fact, greatly accelerated the trend.

    http://news.investors.com/Article/598993/201201260805/entitlements-soar-under-president-obama.htm

    Reply

  5. Kim
    Jan 27, 2012 @ 10:34:21

    Two AT writers attended yesterday’s hearing in Georgia over President Obama’s eligibility for the presidential ballot. Cindy Simpson writes:

    President Obama has a habit of turning his back and walking away from those with whom he disagrees, as recently discovered by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. Professor John Lott, in an interview with Teri O’Brien, recalled similar experiences with Obama while at the University of Chicago.

    Ms. O’Brien commented to Professor Lott: “Gods don’t debate. They just issue decrees.”

    And apparently they also tend to place themselves above the law.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/georgia_ballot_challenge_obama_walks_on_by.html

    Reply

    • Kim
      Jan 27, 2012 @ 10:39:50

      Alan P. Halbert also attended the hearing and writes:

      Obama Declares he is Above Georgia’s Election Laws

      Several back-to-back hearings were held on Thursday the 26th of January 2012 on the status of whether President Obama is Constitutionally eligible under Article II Sec 1 requirements as a “Natural Born Citizen” and appear on the Georgia primary presidential ballot. This came about by several Citizens filing challenges to Obama being placed on primary ballot with the Georgia Secretary of State Mr. Brian P. Kemp in accordance with Georgia election law. Obama had been given an Order to appear along with the production of documents by the presiding Administrative Law Judge assigned to hear the matter, the Honorable Michael Malihi. Obama and his Attorney chose not to comply with the Court’s Order, provide the documents, present a defense or attend the hearing. Obama’s attorney Mr. Jablonski chose instead to send a letter to Mr. Kemp requesting that the hearing be dismissed, as they claimed the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter and that they would not attend if it was held as scheduled. Mr. Kemp responded with his regrets that they decided to forgo the Hearing and warned them “they did so at their own peril” if they failed to offer evidence disputing the allegation of the Citizens complaints.

      The election of a President is done through the compilation and aggregation of the individual State Election returns which have the responsibility under the Constitution to conduct Elections. It most assuredly is a Citizen’s Right to inquire into the Constitutional qualification of any Candidate to hold any elected office in Georgia whether it is a State or Federal Office which includes the office of President. This is also the case with the other forty nine States as well which have similar Statutes.

      The evidence that was presented was varied and ran the gamut of the factual legal arguments to evidence of a personal nature attributed personally to Obama. Mr. Van Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation presented the facts of Minor V. Happersett and portrayed it front and center as to the definition of a “Natural Born Citizen” and as definitive from a unanimous ruling by SCOTUS in 1875 — the legal heart of the matter. An Amicus Brief was filed in the case by Leo Donofrio Esq. and would be considered an authoritative discussion of the natural born citizen issue and its common law lineage. Each attorney (three in all) in due course presented their cases then rested as the next one presented the case; it appeared well coordinated among all attorneys.

      Most all of the testimony was given by expert witnesses, except for the foundation testimony of the citizens that brought the actions; document experts on the authenticity of Obama’s Birth Certificate, the Social Security number he uses (used on tax returns) and his and his mother’s passport records. A private investigator testified that his Social Security Number (SSN) was originally issued to a deceased individual born in 1890, and was issued from Connecticut a State he is never been known to inhabit.

      Orly Taitz, the last attorney to present her case, has been the subject of considerable criticism of her character by various persons during her four year ordeal stretching back to 2008 when she started down this road with Obama. She drew considerable ire and vitriol from Mr. Jablonski, in his letter to Mr. Kemp requesting the dismissal of the hearing. Her case was developed with credible skill however lacked the polish of an experienced litigator. Though appeared solid in evidentiary value and her presentation of the facts were damning. It was probably for the personal nature of her inquiry of Obama and his credentials which drew such criticism from others along the way and Obama’s attorney in particular.

      She presented through direct testimony the opinions of several document experts that declared the Birth Certificate presented by Obama last April as having the hallmarks of an assembled or false document, as it was layered similar to what would be produced with modern computer software, and not a simple copy of an official record from 1961. He also discussed anomalies of certain character spacing which would not have been present or possible with the typewriters of the 1960’s. This layering issue was further verified by another expert witness for document scanning technology and his conclusion was that his long form birth certificate appeared to be falsified as well by certain abnormal patterns appearing in his Birth Certificate.

      The compilation of this information was then verified by another expert witness, a retired Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) investigator. He testified that the anomalies seen on Obama’s records, Social Security Number and birth certificate which had different Registrars for similar certificates that were issued within days of one another was difficult to explain. The out of Sequence birth certificate issuance numbers which were lower than Obama’s, though issued several days after his birth, was difficult to explain as these numbers are issued sequentially. There were issues with the official embossed seal that were not accurate for similar records issued during this time period in Hawaii, his birthplace. He testified that these anomalies rose to the level that would require further investigation, possible arrest and prosecution for documents that had the cumulative defects that Obama’s exhibited in similar investigation of false documents.

      However, what I find most baffling was the decision of Obama and his Attorney choosing to be absent from the proceedings. However, Judge Malihi conducted the hearing in a manner of decorum and was an honest presentation of the facts. Though was hard to guard against the bias of the parties without Obama and his Council being present.

      Many people who are unfamiliar with the Legal System do not know that the hearing or trial level is known as the “trier of the facts”. Only matters of Law can be appealed, not the facts that are developed, presented or testified to in any hearing or trial. Only when there is overwhelming evidence of malfeasance, gross perjury or the denial of the admissibility of probative evidence is a new trial or hearing ordered when a mistake of law has been found on appeal. As a practical matter appellate courts rarely order such remedy, when ordered it is believed that the defendant did not have his constitutional right to face his accusers at the trier of the facts level!

      Since Obama and his attorney chose not to be present a defense and dispute the evidence that was presented, this can be taken as an admission that all of the evidence admitted were indeed facts and may not be disputed at a later time on appeal! The irony of this course is that Obama is declaring that the court has no Jurisdiction in this matter and will appeal as a matter of law though these damning facts may very well stand! It also gives the impression that he considers himself above the law — Georgia’s. We have a plethora of data points on the sequestering of all of Obama’s records and bona fides which he has spent millions of dollars to keep out the public’s hands for the last four years. After this hearing we may eventually know why.

      _______________________________________________________________________

      Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/georgia_ballot_challenge_obama_walks_on_by.html#ixzz1kg4GC8bN

      Reply

      • Kim
        Jan 27, 2012 @ 10:40:55

        Below is a summary list of the physical evidence introduced in yesterday’s hearing in GA.

        P2. Affidavit of Senior Deportation Officer with the Department of Homeland Security John Sampson, showing that Obama is using Connecticut SSN 042-68-4425

        p3. Affidavit of Adobe Illustrator expert Felicito Papa, showing Obama’s alleged true and correct copy of his birth certificate to be a computer generated forgery

        P4. Affidavit of witness Linda Jordan, attesting to the fact, that SSN 042-68-4425, used by Obama, does not pass E-Verify

        p6. Selective service certificate showing Obama using SSN 042-68-4425 and official printout from Social Security Number Verification Services, showing that 042-68-4425 was never issued to Barack Obama, attached e-mail from Colonel Gregory Hollister

        p7. Affidavit of Adobe Illustrator expert Felicito Papa, showing that Obama is using CT SSN 042-68-4425 on his 2009 tax returns

        p9. Hawaiian birth certificate 61-00637 of Susan Nordyke, born a few hours after Obama in Kapiolani Hospital, looks completely different from alleged copy of birth certificate of Obama

        p10. Passport records of Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, mother of Barack Obama, showing Obama listed in her passport under the name Barack Obama Soebarkah, attached affidavit by Chris Strunk, recipient of Obama’s passport records under FOIA

        p11. Barack Obama’s Indonesian school registration card #203, date accepted January 1, 1968, released by the Associated Press in Indonesia, showing him using last name Soetoro and listing citizenship -Indonesia….

        Amicus Brief. Mr. Leo Donofrio, Esq.

        Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/georgia_ballot_challenge_obama_walks_on_by.html#ixzz1kg4XvxTX

      • Sherry
        Jan 27, 2012 @ 11:35:36

        This has caused a domino effect as now other states are doing the same. It is interesting to note that Obama petitioned the Georgia Secretary of State to stop the proceedings. Secretaries of State are in charge of the election processes for their states. Now, the other day a former WH staffer was caught using the ID of Iowa’s Secretary of State in order to besmirch his reputation and hopefully, if the plan would have played out, a Democrat would be seated in his place. Keeping this in mind, remember that ACORN was doing its level best to make sure all states had Democrats in the Secretary of State’s offices. Could it be so that IF the day should come that ol’ Barry would need a backscratch he would get it in the form of dismissing all claims that he is ineligible for the position of POTUS? I think so.

      • Kim
        Jan 27, 2012 @ 11:39:16

        It will be difficult to seat Democrats in all states, I think – and a tad obvious but that doesn’t seem to phase this regime

  6. Kim
    Jan 27, 2012 @ 11:02:52

    On Twitter, Campion1581 nailed it:

    “First of all, it’s not worth getting angry about.” Breathtaking. In a just world, this would finish Mitt’s candidacy.

    http://www.punditandpundette.com/2012/01/not-worth-getting-angry-about.html

    Reply

    • Kim
      Jan 27, 2012 @ 11:04:23

      George Neumayr on Romney:

      Romney continues to appear as a more handsome and taller GOP version of Michael Dukakis — the bloodless and visionless technocrat who, as Newt suggests, just wants to “manage the decay” in Washington, D.C. [. . .]

      The Republican establishment has been working overtime to hoodwink GOP voters into overlooking the ideological differences between Romney and Newt, trotting out Big Tenters with zero expertise on conservatism to claim that Newt is not “conservative.” Against an immutable standard of conservatism, he is not, but next to Romney he looks like Edmund Burke.

      The establishment never fails to choose the more liberal of two leading candidates. The boys from the yacht club have once again decided to lose with a semi-reformed RINO.

      Reply

    • Sherry
      Jan 27, 2012 @ 11:42:30

      Oooh. I think Blitzer was getting nervous about Mitt’s Healthcare debauchle being exposed. Libs like Romney because of it.

      Reply

  7. Kim
    Jan 27, 2012 @ 11:21:18

    Never mind that people are dropping out of the workforce like flies; if there is a bipartisan energy plan that does anything besides shell out taxpayer money to fund solar panels and high-tech batteries, Obama and the Democrats think it is a waste. Even 20,000 instant American jobs are viewed as irrelevant.

    “Chicago Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky (Ill.) drew fire from Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.) on Wednesday when she dismissed the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline, suggesting the 20,000 jobs it could create were relatively insignificant in the scheme of the greater economy.

    “Twenty thousand jobs is really not that many jobs, and investing in green technologies will produce that and more,” she said on Chicago’s WLS Radio Don Wade and Roma Show on Wednesday morning. “But I’ll tell you what, you know it seems to me that the Republicans would rather have an issue than a pipeline.”

    http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/rightchange_how_democrats_view_jobs

    Reply

    • Sherry
      Jan 27, 2012 @ 11:44:44

      They do the same thing with cutting spending-“What’s a million dollars cut? It hardly makes a dent of difference.” They ignore the old adage, A penny saved is a penny earned.

      Reply

      • Kim
        Jan 27, 2012 @ 11:49:08

        20,000 is only the actual pipeline jobs – it speaks nothing to the peripheral jobs that would be created.

  8. Kim
    Jan 27, 2012 @ 11:23:20

    First Solyndra. Then Beacon Power. A slew of others. Now Ener1. Obama’s green energy bankruptcies just keep on coming. This latest bankruptcy announcement comes on the heel of the release of Obama’s latest blueprint for America. Ironically, it’s entitled: “An America Built to Last.”

    In this blueprint, he calls for America to be the world’s leading manufacturer in high-tech batteries:

    “Create clean energy jobs in the United States: The President called on Congress to build on our success in positioning America to be the world’s leading manufacturer in high-tech batteries and reiterated his call for action on clean energy tax credits and a national goal of moving toward clean sources of electricity by setting a standard for utility companies, so that by 2035, 80% of the nation’s electricity will come from clean sources, including renewable energy sources like wind, solar, biomass, hydropower, nuclear power, efficient natural gas, and clean coal. Because Congress has not yet acted on this and other key steps to achieve a clean energy economy, the President announced that the Department of the Navy will make the largest renewable energy purchase in history – one gigawatt. In addition, the President is directing the Department of Interior to permit 10 gigawatts of renewables projects by the end of the year, enough to power three million homes.”

    What kind of high-tech batteries you ask? The kind that recently bankrupted Ener1 produces. Or should we say, produced:

    http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/rightchange_obamas_energy_companies_built_to_fail

    Reply

    • Kim
      Jan 27, 2012 @ 11:24:55

      Ener1 is asking a federal bankruptcy court in New York to approve a plan to restructure the company’s debt and infuse $81 million in equity funding.”

      In his recent STOTU, Mr. Obama said taxpayer funded energy projects like this have already been a success:

      “In three years, our partnership with the private sector has already positioned America to be the world’s leading manufacturer of high-tech batteries,” he said.”

      Uh…not quite, Mr. President. When an energy company like Ener1 goes bankrupt, it ends up costing taxpayers money and jobs. It is a lose-lose economic situation. These DOE loans are a risky government investment and we cannot afford to keep letting them go on. Unfortunately for us, these aren’t the only risky programs going bankrupt.

      Reply

  9. Kim
    Jan 27, 2012 @ 11:23:51

    Come on, Theou. I am really interested in your explanation for all these things

    Reply

  10. Kim
    Jan 27, 2012 @ 11:28:01

    And few economists are expecting the Obama Recovery to take off anytime soon. The IMF predicts just 1.8 percent growth for 2012 (and that’s assuming no EU sovereign debt meltdown). And the Federal Reserve sees growth in the 2.2 percent to 2.7 percent range with unemployment around 8.2 percent to 8.5 percent. Ugh!

    The WSJ offers two explanations for the anemic rebound:

    Economists say the nature of the recession helps explain the slow recovery. Aftershocks from the financial crisis have left banks reluctant to lend, making it hard for companies, and especially start-ups, to get access to capital. The housing market, which has historically helped lead the economy out of recession, remains deeply depressed.

    Many business leaders say they are also being held back by policy-related uncertainty, everything from the threat of new regulations and higher taxes to the fear that political gridlock could hamper the government’s ability to respond to a new crisis. Recent economic research has given some weight to those complaints. A study by a trio of academic economists found that policy uncertainty has risen in recent years, and that periods of uncertainty have in the past corresponded with rising unemployment and slowing growth.

    Whichever explanation holds more weight with voters may go a long way toward deciding who’ll be America’s next president.

    http://blog.american.com/2012/01/romneys-economic-case-against-obama-all-in-one-chart/

    Reply

  11. Sherry
    Jan 27, 2012 @ 12:25:15

    I’m no fan of this guy but he did an interesting street survey of Obama backers and its veeery interesting what the responses were to the questions asked. Pay attention to what is being asked~

    Reply

  12. Kim
    Jan 27, 2012 @ 12:25:33

    Employing the arrogance and stupidity that is the hallmark of the Obama regime, Jablonski the attorney submitted a last minute libelous letter to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp which completely misrepresents the entire case history of the challenges to Obama’s constitutional eligibility to hold the office he now occupies. Contrary to this so-called lawyer’s assertions, no court has even considered the facts of the case, preferring to arbitrarily rule that plaintiffs have ‘no standing’.

    http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/obamas-libelous-punt-fails/

    Reply

  13. Kim
    Jan 27, 2012 @ 12:39:05

    Bismarck’s bribery was the model that altered the nature of politics. Politicians loved buying votes, and the populations loved the bribery myth. After generations of propagandizing Statism, the goodness of government, intervention as a necessary means to equity and prosperity, and the need to invade and manage virtually every aspect of our lives, a majority of voters believe the myth. Liberals (Progressives as they now like to be called) in the US, despite deliberate distortion of the Founders’ original intent, used the “general welfare” clause in the preamble to the US Constitution as justification for a social welfare state.

    http://floppingaces.net/2012/01/26/socialism-bribery-welfare-state-reader-post/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FloppingAces+%28Flopping+Aces%29

    Reply

    • Kim
      Jan 27, 2012 @ 12:40:01

      As Margaret Thatcher said, “The trouble with Socialism is, sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”

      Socialism, and the welfare state, depends upon voters believing these three myths:

      Prosperity is available without effort
      Government creates prosperity
      Government will take care of its people

      Reply

  14. Kim
    Jan 27, 2012 @ 12:43:44

    (I assume some amount of clapping until Tinkerbell comes back to life will also be involved, but the author doesn’t specify.)

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/27/sad-eyed-greens-bemoan-obama-energy-remarks/

    Reply

  15. Kim
    Jan 27, 2012 @ 12:46:43

    The WSJ publishes an open letter from sixteen scientists urging politicians and others to cool it on global warming:

    http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2012/01/global-warming-calmism.html

    Reply

    • Kim
      Jan 27, 2012 @ 12:47:46

      A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about “global warming.” Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?mod=opinion_newsreel

      Reply

      • Kim
        Jan 27, 2012 @ 12:50:24

        In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: “I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’ In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?”

      • Kim
        Jan 27, 2012 @ 12:56:17

        Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

        The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

        The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere’s life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere

  16. Kim
    Jan 27, 2012 @ 13:34:50

    Remember this?

    The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil’s state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil’s Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. Brazil’s planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.

    The U.S. Export-Import Bank tells us it has issued a “preliminary commitment” letter to Petrobras in the amount of $2 billion and has discussed with Brazil the possibility of increasing that amount. Ex-I’m Bank says it has not decided whether the money will come in the form of a direct loan or loan guarantees. Either way, this corporate foreign aid may strike some readers as odd, given that the U.S. Treasury seems desperate for cash and Petrobras is one of the largest corporations in the Americas.

    And this?

    “We want to work with you. We want to help with technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely, and, when you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers.”

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/27/obamas-2-billion-to-brazil-ends-up-helping-send-oil-to-china/

    Reply

  17. Kim
    Jan 27, 2012 @ 13:37:22

    Come on, Theou – I am waiting for your brilliant explanations for these

    Reply

  18. Kim
    Jan 27, 2012 @ 14:00:14

    Islamic Cleric explains why no Muslim can ever be your friend

    QUR’AN 5:51 “Believers, take not Jews and Christians for your friends.”

    “Hanging out with non-Muslims is dangerous because they don’t fear Allah. And they engage in disgusting behavior and customs.“

    http://barenakedislam.com/

    Reply

  19. Kim
    Jan 27, 2012 @ 15:20:43

    First lady Michelle Obama was in town Thursday afternoon at a private lunch reception in a Sarasota home to promote President Barack Obama’s campaign and speak about his accomplishments and what is yet to come.

    http://weaselzippers.us/2012/01/27/mooch-dines-with-planned-parenthood-executive/

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: