UK Scientist: 'Case for climate fears is blown to smithereens...whole theory should be destroyed and discarded and UN conference should be closed'

The Mind-set of Malcontents

Every Obama speech seems to be constructed with one objective in mind, to reinforce the mind-set of the malcontent. Whether the venue is foreign or domestic he portrays an image of a world filled with injustice, populated with hapless inhabitants biding their time until some evil force devours them, with their only salvation being some international bureaucrat or government program that will fulfill their basic needs and change the course of an unjust human history selflessly guiding it toward some far off unreachable utopia.

Obama subscribes to the zero sum philosophy, or at least that’s what he preaches, this is the theory that an individual or a nation can only advance their own interest or add to their wealth by denying those things to another. On the domestic level this philosophy suggests that if a corporation or employer is allowed to keep more of its earnings through low taxation somehow the employee’s wages suffer. Or that one individual’s economic hardship is the direct result of another individual’s success, in other words he presents an image of an ever shrinking communal pie. Promising the malcontent a bigger piece in return for a vote or support of some liberty stealing legislation that will level the playing field and foster a better “equality” among citizens.

Globally the same concept applies. One nation’s prosperity impedes the ability of another to achieve the same. Obama advanced this theory in his speech to the U.N. then repeated it during his recent Shanghai town hall, he proclaimed “power in the 21st century is no longer a zero-sum game; one country's success need not come at the expense of another.” Obama’s idea to correct this perceived injustice is the same as his answer to domestic issues, global wealth redistribution and intergovernmental regulations tasked with insuring economic balance.

Power or economic success has never been a zero sum game. The idea is absurd, power goes hand in hand with a strong economy, economic success depends on many factors, navigable waterways and geography, political stability, government policies, cultural factors, human beings in general have the same basic potentials but a nation’s success can never be guaranteed. It is also important to realize that countries like China and India have grown economically after pulling back their governments involvement in the marketplace, Obama suggests just the opposite, while global wealth redistribution has proven as much of a failure as its domestic cousin. Look at Africa, GDP has decreased as economic aid to the continent has reached unprecedented levels. Finally the industrial revolution did not just benefit the U.S. it advanced nearly all of civilization, the nations that lag behind did so as a result of cultural barriers and political instability, the industrial revolution was not the cause of those instabilities.

In reality Obama seeks the same globally as he does domestically a population of victimized serfs in permanent economic stagnation dependent on an elite political class that holds out the carrot of unattainable utopia in exchange for individual liberty.

Anthony D Dolpies

Hating Sarah

The mainstream media and liberal establishment is absolutely frightened by Sarah Palin, here is the latest offering

So according to Tina Brown, whoever that is, the reason why thousands of people are camping out overnight in freezing temperatures to see Sarah Palin and buy her book, the reason why people seem to feel so closely connected and supportive of the former governor is because the American people are dumb, and we have finally found a politician who is as stupid as we are.

The real reason why the media is scared of Palin is because she is self made. People weren't lined up for blocks to get a glimpse of Barack Obama when he published his two autobiographies, nobody really knew who Obama was until the media latched onto him during the 2008 campaign and began carrying the water for him.

Obama is a creation of the media, an empty suit propped up by glamorous and supportive coverage. The mainstream media credibility is directly linked to Obama's success or failure and they can't afford his failure. Now that the American people are seeing the real Barack Obama and the disaster that his Presidency they are rejecting him.

Sarah Palin is the complete opposite, the media did not create Palin, therefore they cannot destroy her, no matter how hard they try.

Anthony D Dolpies

________________________________________________________________

Obama wasn't done with his bow to the Japanese Emperor, he went on to China and bowed before the Chinese premier Wen Jiabao

Is Medicare the Real Target of ‘Health Care Reform?’

by Dr. Jane Orient

Warmist Death Star has been destroyed? 'The Death Blow to Climate Science': Climatologist says scandal reveals 'deliberate fraud'

UK Telegraph: Climategate: How the MSM reported the greatest scandal in modern science

Fox News: Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' Evidence of Collusion Among Climatologists and Manipulation of Data'

WSJ: Skeptics 'see blood in the water' -- Files reveal scientists apparently making references to things like 'hiding the decline' in temps

Yesterday I posted a video of Senator Lindsay Graham grilling attorney General Eric Holder on his decision to try enemy combatants in civilian courts, Graham asked Mr. Holder if Osama Bin Ladin where captured would he be given the constitutional protections that american citizens enjoy, such as miranda warnings and an attorney before having to submit to questioning, Holder was perplexed by this question and really did not know how to answer it.

Here are a couple of our illustrious legislators answering the same question.








So Nancy Pelosi doesn't want to think about answering such a question, after all the speaker views the rule of law as such a secondary thing. Senator Leahy, believes we have so much evidence against Bin laden that miranda or interrogation is unnecessary. This is more or less the same argument Holder tried to mount yesterday. This is absolutely absurd, first are we to assume that regardless of guilt an interrogation of Bin Laden is unnecessary, Senator Leahy or the Attorney General is not the least bit curious about information Bin laden may have regarding additional terror cells, plans for future terror attacks, the details of the terror networks finances, connections to countries like Iran. That's just the tip of the Ice berg. But these government officials are also missing the real problem with this fiasco, we will now be setting precedent that the courts or the government can arbitrarily decide who deserves constitutional protections. The constitution was structured to protect the individual from a government that would conduct such a kangaroo court.

Anthony D Dolpies

A Leviathan of Land: Perspective on the

Size of the US Gov’t In Pictures

• Posted November 19th, 2009 at 3.50pm in First Principles.

With the takeover of health care and frenzied government growth front and center, many are wondering when we will - if we haven’t already - reached a tipping point that fundamentally alters America. Much of what’s been done is described as a temporary fix. However, as President Reagan noted, “There is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program.”

With this reinvigorated discussion of how big is too big, it is worthwhile to remind Americans of just how massive the Federal government already was before our current woes began. There are few more striking measures of the government’s size than the land mass of the Federal estate. The vast majority of federal lands fall within one of four agencies: the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Agriculture’s US Forest Service. At over 258 million acres, the Bureau of Land Management alone is bigger than France and Germany combined. When combined with the other aforementioned agencies, the land area is equal that of ten European nations as shown in the accompanying graph (click it to see a larger version).

The $100 Million Health Care Vote?

The health care bill includes a $100 million section for increasing medicaid subsidies to the state of Louisiana.

Countdown to More Debt: Dems Considering "More Expensive" Plans for Next 'Stimulus'
Nov 17, 2009 - Washington Democrats are marking the nine-month anniversary of the trillion-dollar ‘stimulus’ by acknowledging it isn’t working and preparing another ‘stimulus’ of more spending and more debt to be piled on our kids and grandkids. The Obama Administration pledged the trillion-dollar ‘stimulus’ woul... More

Graham get's one right for a change,

Perspective Of A Russian Immigrant (No. 3)

By SVETLANA KUNINPosted 11/17/2009 07:27 PM ET

This is the third article to appear on these pages from an IBD subscriber who lived in the Soviet Union until 1980. Click here to read the previous two articles.

Whenever I speak about my experiences living in the USSR, my American friends respond that such things can never happen in a democracy like the United States.

They don't understand why I am repulsed when I hear the president talk about "sacrificing for the collective good," which sounds so compassionate, as opposed to greedy capitalism.

"Sacrifice for the collective good" is one of the founding principles of socialism, where the collective, not the individual, is the basis of society.

Revolutionaries in Russia did not go around boasting about destruction; they made inspiring speeches about fairness, equality, justice and the greater good. After securing power and their own access to material goods, government officials decided what to give and take from the masses, according to their definition of what is good.

When party leaders talk about the "collective good," what they are really talking about is their right to determine what is good for the collective. Government bureaucrats decide what level of sacrifice is needed and who needs to sacrifice. They replace voluntary charity with the forceful redistribution of other people's private property.

Why do people born into a free society accept a failed 100-year-old ideology? It seems Americans are simply unaware of modern history. They don't know the theory behind slogans such as "fairness and equality" and "sacrifice for the collective good," much less how it works when implemented. They buy into old utopian slogans masquerading as new progressive ideals for "Hope and Change."

In the USA, people move up and down the economic ladder all the time. In Western Europe, a milder form of a socialist-democratic political system resulted in higher unemployment, less innovation and less social mobility compared with the U.S. European youth face a continuing decline in their standard of living, as they are burdened with an unsustainable welfare state.

In the USSR, China, North Korea and Cuba, a much harsher form of socialism led to mass murder and mass misery under the banner of "sacrificing for the collective good," "fairness and equality" and service to the state.

The USSR provides numerous examples of what an oppressive centralized government can lead to:

Millions of talented artists, writers and scientists were sent to prison because they did not conform to government standards. Government control of agriculture led to constant shortages of food in one of the largest and most resource-rich lands in the world.

Americans think they are protected. The Constitution is a uniquely American document that specifically limits the power of the government and protects individual liberties. But if all branches of government will ignore this unique document, and people will allow them to do so, there will be nothing different about America.

Americans are not different from people in Russia, Germany, China, Korea or anywhere else. It is human nature to seek power and control, just as it is human nature to seek profit. Deny profit and you destroy any incentive for people to produce and innovate. Give up enough of your liberty to any centralized power and the result is entirely predictable.

Compare North Korea to South Korea, East Germany to West Germany before the fall of the wall — these are examples of the same people living under two different systems: socialism vs. capitalism.

Laws are necessary in a civil society, and this includes laws that regulate the free market. But a government takeover of the economy will result in the transformation of the land of opportunity into a land of apathy and stagnation, a land in which individuals become cogs moving and turning according to government regulations.

In the USSR, they taught us in school that socialism is good and capitalism is bad. That they now teach the same in American schools I find strange.

EXCLUSIVE: Jobs 'Saved or Created' in Congressional Districts That Don't Exist

So let me see if I have this right, According to The Speaker if one person does not have insurance they are preventing someone else from getting it, or they are adding to the overall costs because apparently all these people are deadbeats and don't pay the ensuing medical bill that accompanies the treatment, and therefore they must be imprisoned where they will then become an actual burden to the tax payer. The Speaker then mentions the insurance subsidies, those insurance welfare payments are going to come from tax increases, in essence creating the situation where one person receives a benefit and then passes on the cost to someone else. Didn't Pelosi just describe this as a criminal act?

Of course what is always missing is the question about how government adds to the cost of everything, from toothbrushes to surgery, with administrative and other regulatory fees, this cost of compliance is far higher than any other factor.

Anthony D Dolpies

President Oba Mao Heads to China

China is gearing up for Barack Obama’s upcoming visit.

As pictures from Wen Xue City show, the T-shirt vendors are already warmed up, Mr President!

(While in Ireland this summer, people referred to the US President as O’Bama, as in O’Brien.)

My question: Will Obama meet with his half-brother Mark Ndesandjo who lives in Shenzhen?

This is Senator Daniel Akaka trying to explain where congress gets the authority to force Americans to buy health insurance.

This is absolutely frightening. If I understand the Senator correctly, he is basically saying that the constitution, in his opinion is meaningless, that the only thing that really matters when it comes to making law is if that law has good intentions. Therefore there are no limits to the governments power as long as it's intentions are supposedly benign. He also argues that these penalties are for the benefit of those who do not have access to insurance. This is a ridiculous argument, one individual is not responsible for another not having health insurance.

This is the concept that some individuals have more rites than others or that one individuals liberty can be legitimately sacrificed for the benefit of whatever group congress determines. This logic is completely foreign to the countries founding principles and will only place this nation on a path of tyranny and outright oppression.

Anthony D Dolpies

Check out this video of Rachael Maddow tying herself in pretzel knots to make the argument that the Fort Hood shooting was not terrorism.

This would be funny if it were not so sad

An Affinity for Tyranny

An Affinity for Tyranny

President Obama has an affinity for the advance of tyranny, how else can you explain the various statements and policy decisions that often coincide with anniversaries that mark such events. For example, over the summer, on the anniversary of the soviet invasion of Poland the President officially scraped the eastern European missile defense shield, leaving the polls and some of the other former soviet satellite nations who had lobbied extensively for the missile shield out to dry. Coincidently, an ever more belligerent Russia simulated the use of nuclear weapons during aggressive military exercises along the polish border that same day. He then celebrated the fall of the Berlin wall by declining an invitation to attend the ceremonies and basically phoned in some remarks. It would seem that flying off to Copenhagen to lobby for the Olympics, is higher on Obama’s list of priorities than marking one of the seminal events in the advancement of Human liberty.

On November 4, the 33rd anniversary of the siege of the U.S. embassy in Tehran by Islamic fundamentalist which resulted a 444-day hostage crisis, Obama issued an absolutely sophomoric press release regarding Iran. In the statement the President describes the hostage crisis as an event “that set the U.S. and Iran on the path of sustained suspicion.” But the Islamic revolution was built on fundamentalist Muslim rejection of western culture. The hostage crisis was not the start of those hostilities but an end result. Glaringly absent was any reference to the American hostages whom Iran has had in captivity for four months.

The President Declared America’s willingness to develop relations with “The Islamic Republic of Iran based on mutual interest and respect,” He noted that his administration has condemned acts of terrorism on Iranian soil. He was referencing a suicide bombing on Iran’s revolutionary guard by Sunni militants. Now if only the president can begin to actually recognize a terror attack on our soil, maybe we’d have something. He also made it a point to mention that his administration will not interfere in Iran’s internal affairs, not interfering with another nations internal affairs may be all well and good, but in this instance it is a rebuke of the Iranian people who have marched in the streets of Iran in rejection of the fundamentalist regime and gives credibility to an illegitimate government that is hostile to it’s people. How can we establish mutual interest and respect with a nation whose government is illegitimate in the eyes of its people? Obama did make a passing reference to the continuing uprising in Iran, “The world continues to bear witness to their powerful calls for justice.” This is the moral equivalent of saying your routinely a witness to the mugging of little old ladies, eventually you cease to be a bystander and become an accomplice. What mutual respect could we possibly share with a regime who would gun down its citizens in the streets for exercising their fundamental rites in the quest for a more representative government, not to mention its militant stance against other nations in the region. Should we seek relations with such a government just for the sake of relations, and if those relations are sought at the risk of alienating longtime allies what exactly have we gained?

The President also made reference to his willingness to negotiate in regards to Iran’s nuclear program, his acceptance of an IAEA proposal in which Iran would import low enriched uranium for peaceful purposes. Iran has rejected this proposal, and it is becoming painfully obvious that Iran is only using these negotiations as a stall tactic, as they continue to advance their weapon’s program. And what of the diplomatic assistance we assumed from Russia in reciprocity for caving on the eastern European missile shield? That assistance has yet to develop, and don’t hold your breath, Russia is in no hurry for IAEA inspectors to find their fingerprints allover the Iranian nuke program, besides, a nuclear Iran serves Russian interest. A nuked up Iran is a threat not only to Israel, the Saudi’s and other Arab nations are extremely squeamish with the idea, these nations will have to negotiate through Russia, their economic and military influence with the radical regime in Iran will elevate them to the position of number one power player in the region. Russia could also use Iran to instigate conflict within the region, which would drive up oil prices, benefitting Russia economically.

When you throw in the Honduran debacle where Obama threw all of the United States diplomatic weight behind Zelaya the Chavez wannabe who sought to undermine his countries constitution, you begin to see the disturbing pattern of a U.S. President who is quite comfortable with the spread of oppression around the globe.

Anthony D Dolpies

BREAKING: ACORN’s New Orleans Office Raided by Louisiana Attorney General’s Office

Committee Confirms: Comply With Pelosi-Care Or Go To Jail

Congressional House Call

Jobless rate tops 10 pct. for first time since '83 - AP
The unemployment rate has hit double digits for the first time since 1983 -- and is likely to go higher. The 10.2 percent jobless rate for October shows how weak the economy remains even though it is growing.

_________________________________________________________________

The Congressional House Call

We have much to be inspired about, this crowd was amassed in very short notice. Whether Pelosi passes this bill in the House tomorrow or not, The message we have sent is quite clear, We are organized, we are motivated and we will move against any politician who denies the will of the people and we will vote you out. Take heed folks we must stay active, there are more of us than their are of them.

ELEMENTARY EPIDEMIC: 11 Uncovered Videos Show School Children Performing Praises to Obama

AP

GOP sweep: Big governor victories in Virginia, NJ

AP – 1 hr 33 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Independents who swept Barack Obama to a historic 2008 victory broke big for Republicans on Tuesday as the GOP wrested political control from Democrats in Virginia and New Jersey, a troubling sign for the president and his party heading into an important midterm election year.

Dejection fills Maine ballroom after marriage vote

AP – 38 mins ago

AP

PORTLAND, Maine - Cecelia Burnett and Ann Swanson had already set their wedding date. When they joined about 1,000 other gay marriage supporters for an election night party in a Holiday Inn ballroom, they hoped to celebrate the vote that would make it possible. Full Story »

The Big Tent Theory

The congressional election in NY, where liberal Republican, DeDe Scozzafava was forced to bow out to conservative candidate Doug Hoffman, has prompted political pundits, mostly on the left, too once again advance the big tent theory.

What exactly is the big tent theory? It is the notion usually advanced by Democrats and John McCain types that Republicans must forsake their conservative foundational principles, and embrace far left progressive candidates in order to be a viable party. And of course establishment beltway Republicans like Michael Steele buy into this argument hook, line and sinker. Steele constantly feels the need to play down the conservative base as they begin to define the direction of the party and assure the liberal media that Republicans embrace diversity, he allows his opponents to set the terms of the debate.

But what does it mean to be a diverse party? Does it mean that in the interest of said “diversity” Republicans should nominate candidates who would go to Washington and join the opposition on important legislation? What is the sense of even existing as a political party if you have such lax requirements regarding first principles? How would you ever differentiate yourself from the opposition? None expects to agree on everything, the role of government has been debated in this country since the founding, but if Republicans want to hold themselves up as a truly viable party then they must not be afraid to heartily embrace some basic principles. Namely individual liberties as defined in the bill of rights, limited representative government, property rights, low taxation, sound money, sound borders, equal opportunity through hard work and self determination and of course free market principles. These are not just conservative principles, they are America’s founding principles, there is no bigger tent! When properly articulated these principles are a proven strategy for electoral victory. Those who would try to reinvent the wheel or seek to embrace progressive policies have only thrown in the towel, and accepted the idea of diminishing liberty and the ever expanding administrative state.

While it is true that voters who refer to themselves as Republicans is at a low point, those voters however are not flocking to the Democrats, If that where they case why would democrats have to fight so hard in these elections? The fact of the matter is that Americans are rejecting the modern pressure group framework of progressive politics, The American people will no longer accept having to choose between the lesser of two evils, The American people have awoken to the fact that there can be no choice between liberty and the incremental destruction of that liberty as offered by so-called moderates who would compromise first principles for political expediency.

Anthony D Dolpies

Go out and Vote!!

Don't let unions and special interest groups determine our elections.

Politics favor those who participate.

School nurses give swine flu vaccine to kids w/o parents' OK

School nurses mistakenly gave the H1N1 vaccine to two students who didn't sign up for it -including a girl with epilepsy who wound up in the hospital.

Read more:http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/education/index.html#ixzz0Vijc2IOj

CIT Files Its Bankruptcy Plan

CIT filed for bankruptcy in a high-stakes restructuring intended to keep the doors open at one of the U.S.'s largest small-business lenders.

'Fake' snow covers Beijing

Government seeded clouds in an effort to combat a lingering drought