It’s been a rough few weeks for the “eco-progressive” fringe.
Static jet streams induced near-record high temperatures in parts of the United States and Russia, but extreme cold pummeled Seattle, England and much of the Southern Hemisphere. Perhaps Al Gore, Michael Mann and Rajendra Pachauri can turn this hodgepodge into “catastrophic climate change,” but most folks understand it as Mother Nature and weather.
Polls and news accounts find more Americans, Europeans and other people becoming weary and skeptical of “manmade global warming disaster” claims, convinced that natural forces are the primary cause of recurrent climate change, and unwilling to accept soaring energy prices and reduced living standards in the name of stabilizing Earth’s unpredictable climate.
Few Americans place any value on EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s meaningless statement – that “climate change is happening and humans are contributing to it” – to justify the draconian regimes the agency is trying to impose. The issue is whether our emissions of plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide is causing catastrophic climate change, and there is no credible evidence of that.
The House-passed energy and climate bill remains moribund in the Senate. EPA is trying to regulate carbon dioxide in the absence of congressional action – based on its assertion that automotive, power plant and factory CO2 emissions “endanger human health and welfare.” However, Texas refuses to knuckle under, other states may likewise balk, and the next Congress could overturn the “endangerment” finding and bar EPA from rewriting the Clean Air Act and implementing its job-killing rules.
“Avatar” director James Cameron double-dared global warming disaster skeptics to debate him – then morphed into a chicken and cackled off when they accepted his increasingly ludicrous debate terms, calling his critics “swine” as he headed for the hills.
Having read too many Gore, Pachauri, Quinn and other Deep Ecology treatises, LunaBomber James Lee held Discovery Channel employees hostage and denounced the TV station for its support of “parasitic human infants,” before being shot by police. His website and actions underscore how demented some Earth Liberation and global warming fanatics have become.
As their economies have deteriorated, Germany, Italy, Spain and other countries have pulled the plug on unsustainable wind and solar subsidies, eliminating thousands of “green” jobs and putting hundreds of “clean energy” companies on the verge of bankruptcy.
Glen Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally on the National Mall drew 300,000 people. Meanwhile, “CarnivOil” events in Wisconsin drew more yawns than people, as desperate Big Environment groups struggled to regain their momentum, by ranting about global warming, the Gulf oil spill, and “evil” oil companies.
Americans increasingly understand that even sending US carbon dioxide emissions back to 1870 levels, as congressional climate bills would do, will not reduce global atmospheric CO2 levels, because emissions from China, India and other nations will rapidly offset our painful reductions. Those countries have made it clear that they will not sacrifice improved living standards for assertions that we can stabilize global temperatures by keeping atmospheric CO2 levels below 0.035-0.045% (350-450 ppm).
Readers will recall that I covered the GOP primary debate in the spring. Carly Fiorina is hot on the issues and totally polished. She doesn’t get flustered at all. Barbara Boxer agreed to one debate previously, and according to George Skelton, she came up short and she’s balking at another round. See, “Fiorina Comes Out Ahead on TV“:
Boxer, bidding for a fourth term, has never been confronted by an opponent quite like Fiorina. The only one who could match Fiorina’s communication skills was conservative TV commentator Bruce Herschensohn in Boxer’s first Senate election in 1992.
But that was “the year of the woman,” an aggressive organizing effort by Democrats and a ticket led by Bill Clinton. This year, two women are running, Democrats seem unorganized, and Jerry Brown is no Clinton. Voters are cranky and it’s the year of the non-incumbent.
This probably will be Boxer’s toughest race ever. Currently it’s considered a tossup despite the state’s Democratic tilt.
Let’s face it, patriots. The tone and tenor of the debate over the Ground Zero mosque has been irretrievably poisoned ever since Christian poser President Obama came out in favor of said erection, whilst Mormon Harry Reid disagreed with his favorite light-skinned president “with no Negro dialect.”
This Mega- war among Hypocrites has spread across our nation with a vengeance, and threatens to become a major issue in the mid-term elections, just 11 weeks from now.
In fact, Mosque Mania may overtake jobs and the putrid Recovery Summer as wedge issues in November.
Hmmmm, odd that.
Whom do you suppose might have a vested interest in displacing voter focus on unemployment and the wretched economy, and replacing same with coast-to-coast, fiery debate about a non-existent mosque?
Incidentally, until recently most Americans thought that mosques were used to provide temporary housing for unemployed mosquitoes. Turns out that the insects that occupy mosques are far more dangerous.
Ever since September 11, 2001, American scholars, political scientists, historians, educators, clergy, and pundits have been engaged in a ferocious, but to date futile, search for a “Moderate Muslim.”
After a decade of relentless searching, the inescapable conclusion is: The term Moderate Muslim is the Mother of all Oxymorons!
Which brings us to one Feisal Abdul Rauf , the main imam behind the nutty idea building a mosque within a stones throw of the Twin Towers, which graced the New York skyline until 19 moderate Muslims brought it down ten years ago.
Rauf fails (woefully) the “moderate” test based in part on the following tirade as reported, in part, by Human Events at Reference 1:
“New audio has surfaced of the imam behind the controversial mosque near Ground Zero allegedly telling an audience overseas that the United States has been far more deadly than al-Qaeda.
“We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non Muslims,” Feisal Abdul Rauf said at a 2005 lecture sponsored by the University of South Australia. After discussing the U.S.-led sanctions against Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Rauf went on to argue that America is to blame for its testy relationship with Islamic countries.”
By the way, this is the same “moderate” who is using your taxpayer money (at least $16,000.) in an outreach program to Muslim nations.
The bloke is working for the U.S. State Department, which he also did when George W. Bush was the head Muslim pacifier in the White House!
Feisal Abdul Rauf and other “Moderate” Muslims who favor building a mosque at Ground Zero should ponder this question:
What say ye about a Monument in Mecca to Celebrate May 14, 1948 , the Date on Which Israel Became a Nation?
In a recent letter to the editor of my local newspaper, Valley Scene columnist (a liberal arts and entertainment tabloid) Mr.N, a prominent local atheist, castigated historian Dr. Jake Jacobs for his expose of Lifest speaker Jim Wallis.
For readers unfamiliar with this event, it is an annual Christian music festival, held in Oshkosh Wisconsin, which features contemporary Christian music and acclaimed Christian speakers. Jim Wallis was invited to speak by Life Promotions president Bob Lenz, the promoter of Lifest, to the consternation of certain local Christian clergy and laity. The concern is because Wallis preaches a doctrine of “social justice” which promotes the idea of wealth distribution through government coercion, rather than exclusively through charitable volunteerism.
Some also cite research into Wallis’ past that link him to support of revolutionary socialist movements, as well as claiming Wallis holds unorthodox views on certain basic Christian doctrines. Obviously, all this is of great importance since the festival is attended primarily by highly impressionable teenagers and young adults.
A peripheral issue, but one equally important, is the bewilderment over why Mr. Lenz would invite such a controversial figure considering the composition of the Lifest audience. Mr. Lenz has had a sterling reputation for his interaction with youth, so the invitations to Wallis and other controversial presenters, leave some people who know Lenz, scratching their collective heads. The 64 million dollar question is whether this establishes a trend for future Lifest events, or whether Mr. Lenz will seek the advice of discerning critics before repeating similar decisions.
Mr. N and others, aren’t always clear whether they deny Jim Wallis’ past controversial connections, or if they acknowledge them, but claim they are somehow consistent with Christian biblical orthodoxy. As I have dialogued with a handful of Wallis apologists, many of whom are non-Christians, or at best, nominal Christians, I have noticed they often use a few boilerplate scriptural passages in support of their polemic. Most of them are outright non-sequiturs, making implausible leaps of logic to support their conclusions about biblical economics.
N’s piece for instance, was quite ironic. Not long ago in his postings, he was articulating the theme of the “schizophrenic Jesus”(scriptures that refer to the judgment of Jesus, as well as those that refer to His affinity for peace and love),” which he recycles frequently in his numerous editorials. Now, in making his own point about economics, he wields Jesus’ sayings as authoritative. Mr. N is an artisan of sophistry, and as such, engages masterfully in the gambit of “special pleading.” Mr. N holds a very low view of Christian scripture, but never hesitates to quote it in order to embarrass or manipulate the thinking of people who do take it seriously.
One can only wonder then if he holds in esteem biblical warnings to unbelievers as well?
His piece is a complete non-starter. How does one jump from biblical warnings against the unfaithful wealthy of the day, to a mandate whereby contemporary government ought to coercively redistribute wealth?
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has written an impassioned essay about religious tolerance and freedom as it concerns the debate over the construction of a mosque near Ground Zero in Manhattan.
My assumption that Bloomberg’s “across-the-board religious tolerance” sermon wouldn’t be nearly as passionate if the Westboro Baptist freakazoids wanted to build a church in Greenwich Village notwithstanding, I got to thinking about what Bloomberg would vehemently oppose being erected near Ground Zero.
Any of the following proposals for the site would without a doubt have Bloomberg wetting his William Fioravanti trousers:
Want to present Michael Bloomberg with the ultimatedilemma? Tell him this is the design for the proposed mosque:
Meg Whitman is running for governor of California. Which, considering the state of that state, means she is either a glutton for punishment, or delusional, or both.
Whitman runs under the R brand against Democrat Jerry Brown who was elected governor 35 years ago, who was Mayor of Oakland for eight years, and who currently “serves” as California’s Attorney General.
Jerry Brown has been, and continues to be, an over-the-hill public menace that needs to be retired, either voluntarily, or by voters come November.
Unfortunately, Meg Whitman’s views on the crucial issue of illegal aliens are indistinguishable from those of moon beam Brown.
“What has bothered Latinos for too long is the harsh rhetoric around the immigration debate. Too often, the debate has-been tinge with hurtful words or worse signaling intolerance to many Latinos.”
The Inconvenient Truth:
The “harsh rhetoric” that Whitman laments is not directed at legal immigration.
Rather, it is the result of the American people reaching the breaking point with the invasion of America by penniless, uneducated, unskilled, non-English speaking aliens from south of our borders.
The debate is about homeland security, American sovereignty, the rule of law, economic and social stability, and good old fashioned common sense.
The debate is about our nation spending $113 billion a year on millions of aliens who have no business being here, at a time when the national debt is soaring out of control and our nation is broke.
The debate is about the cost of educating illegal aliens, a cost that significantly impedes the ability of educators to provide a quality education for citizens.
The debate is about California spending $20 billion a year on illegal aliens while the state slithers towards bankruptcy.
The debate is about elected officials who refuse to enforce the law.
We Californians are indeed “intolerant”—when it comes to those who refuse to honor and enforce our borders and laws. We the people have every right to demand that government secure the borders, enforce the laws, and remove illegal aliens through deportation, as provided for in existing law.
If that makes us “intolerant,” then so be it!
She said, in part:
“Former governor Brown seems to share many of my positions on immigration. He is also against Proposition 187 and is opposed to the new Arizona immigration law. It is clear when we examine our positions on immigration, there is little in what Jerry Brown and I are in disagreement.”
The Inconvenient Truth:
Being of the same persuasion as Jerry Brown on any issue should automatically disqualify any alleged Republican from seeking elective office.
Fact is Whitman’s opposition to California’s Proposition 187 is nothing more than hypocritical trolling for votes, a hideous practice most often associated with Democrats.
For the record Prop. 187 was approved by voters with nearly a 2-1 margin.
Get ready. Here it comes. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid revealed today that he has a draft cap-and-tax monstrosity in the works. The Dems are gearing up for debate this month.
Or rather, “debate.” Remember what Democrat Max Baucus said about his own colleagues — they don’t know “what the heck” they are doing as they ram through “message” bills and amendments instead of actual legislation.
And remember: Just because Reid has a draft bill doesn’t mean we’ll ever get to read it before they try to shove it down our throats.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced Tuesday he had assembled a “rough draft” of an energy bill and would aim to bring the legislation to the Senate floor the week of July 26.
Reid (D-Nev.) said the bill would include provisions aimed at cleaning up the Gulf of Mexico and preventing further offshore drilling disasters, along with alternative energy and conservation incentives. The package is part of a broader effort by Democrats to promote initiatives with job-creation potential, as members of Congress head out on the 2010 campaign trail.
Pay attention:
The Senate bill may target emissions from power plants, Reid said. “We’re looking at a way of making sure that when we talk about pollution, that we’re focused just on the utility section,” he told reporters Tuesday.
When pressed to specify whether the Senate would seek a “cap on utility carbon emissions,” Reid responded, “Those words are not in my vocabulary….we’re going to work on pollution.”
What does he mean by pollution? “It means there’s bad stuff in the air,” Reid responded, declining to provide further details.
As we head into Independence Day weekend, my column today reflects on the other “A” word missing from the immigration debate: Assimilation.
***
Assimilation and the Founding Fathers
by Michelle Malkin Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2010
In his immigration speech on Thursday, President Obama heralded America as a “nation of immigrants” defined not by blood or birth, but by “fidelity to the shared values that we all hold so dear.” If only it were so. Left-wing academics and activists spurned assimilation as a common goal long ago. Their fidelity lies with bilingualism (a euphemism for native language maintenance over English-first instruction), identity politics, ethnic militancy and a borderless continent.
Obama blames “politics” for the intractable immigration debate. Whose politics? The amnesty mob has taken to ambushing congressional offices this week to scream at lawmakers to choose “reform” (giving a blanket path to citizenship to millions of illegal aliens) or “racism” (their description of any and every legislative measure to stiffen sanctions for and deter the acts of border-jumping, visa-overstaying and deportation-evading).
Is there no middle ground for all sides to agree that clearing naturalization application backlogs should take priority over expanding illegal alien benefits, or that tracking and deporting violent illegal alien criminals should take precedence over handing out driver’s licenses to illegal aliens, or that streamlining the employee citizenship verification process for businesses (E-verify) and fixing outdated visa tracking databases should come before indiscriminately expanding temporary visa and guest worker programs?
Must every response to even the most modest of immigration enforcement measures be “RAAAAACIST”?
Further, as I’ve noted many times over the years when debating both Democrats and Republicans who fall back on empty phrases to justify putting the amnesty cart before the enforcement horse, we are not a “nation of immigrants.” This is both a factual error and a warm-and-fuzzy non sequitur. Eighty-five percent of the residents currently in the United States were born here. Yes, we are almost all descendants of immigrants. But we are not a “nation of immigrants.” (And the politically correct president certainly wouldn’t argue that Native American Indians, Native Alaskans, Native Hawaiians and descendants of black slaves “immigrated” here in any common sense of the word, would he?)
Even if we were a “nation of immigrants,” it does not explain why we should be against sensible immigration control. The Founding Fathers were emphatically insistent on protecting the country against indiscriminate mass immigration. They insisted on assimilation as a pre-condition, not an afterthought. Historian John Fonte assembled their wisdom, and it bears repeating this Independence Day weekend:
George Washington, in a letter to John Adams, stated that immigrants should be absorbed into American life so that “by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, laws: in a word soon become one people.”
In a 1790 speech to Congress on the naturalization of immigrants, James Madison stated that America should welcome the immigrant who could assimilate, but exclude the immigrant who could not readily “incorporate himself into our society.”
Alexander Hamilton wrote in 1802: “The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family.”
Hamilton further warned that “The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils.
When former Vice President Al Gore said the science was settled on the issue of global warming before Congress in 2007, he might have meant it was settled as far as people that he would allow to work for him.
In fact, Al Gore’s first act as Vice President was to insist that William Happer be fired as the Chief Scientist at the Department of Energy. Now, why was that? Well, that’s because William Harper had uttered words indicating that he was open minded to the issue of global warming. So off with his head. They didn’t want someone who was open minded. They wanted someone who was going to provide grants based on people who would verify this man-made global warming theory. Now, that was 1993 when Mr. Happer was relieved, the first year of the Clinton-Gore administration. So for over a decade, all we got was a drumbeat of one-sided research, setting the stage for the false claim that there is a scientific consensus about whether or not man-made global warming is real.
SOURCE : Rrohrabacher.house.gov
Dr. William Happer, currently a professor of Physics at Princeton University, was once fired by Gore at the Department of Energy in 1993 for disagreeing with the vice president on the effects of ozone to humans and plant life, also disagrees with Gore’s claim that manmade carbon dioxide (CO2) increases the temperature of the earth and is a threat to mankind. Happer appeared before the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee on Feb. 25 and explained CO2 is in short-supply in relative terms of the history of the planet.
Cuccinelli, a vocal skeptic of global warming who is suing the Environmental Protection Agency over the issue, has said he is investigating whether Mann committed fraud by knowingly skewing data as he sought publicly funded grants for his research. Mann left U-Va. in 2005 and now works at Penn State.
SOURCE : climaterealists.com
“Many people don’t realize that over geological time, we’re really in a CO2 famine now. Almost never has CO2 levels been as low as it has been in the Holocene [geologic epoch] – 280 [parts per million (ppm)] – that’s unheard of,” Happer said. “Most of the time, it’s at least 1,000 [ppm] and it’s been quite higher than that.”
Happer said that when CO2 levels were higher – much higher than they are now, the laws of nature still managed to function as we understand them today.
“The earth was just fine in those times,” Happer said. “You know, we evolved as a species in those times, when CO2 levels were three or four times what they are now. And, the oceans were fine, plants grew, animals grew fine.
Tim Adams, the former senior elections clerk for Honolulu, says President Obama was "definitely" not born in Hawaii, and a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Obama does not exist in the state.
Video: Hawaii Election Clerk story grows on YouTube
Posted by Patrick on June 14, 2010 – Western Journalism
The Hawaii Election Clerk story has now broken in on YouTube, where thousands are beginning to watch.
Last week a former Hawaiian election official named Tim Adams, who now teaches in Kentucky, electrified the eligibility debate by claiming that it is an open secret in Honolulu that Obama was not born there. In addition, Adams was informed by his boss that they have no birth record for Obama.
In a further update today, Adams is now confirming that he is (willing to testify)… about these facts. Watch the video below and forward this page to anyone you know to get the word out. We will not let the media and the Obama administration cover this up.
The Hawaii Election Clerk story has now broken in on YouTube, where thousands are beginning to watch. Last week a former Hawaiian election official named Tim Adams, who now teaches in Kentucky, electrified the eligibility debate by claiming that it is an open secret in Honolulu that Obama was not born there. In addition, Adams was informed by his boss that they have no birth record for Obama. In a further update today, Adams is now confirming that he is (willing to testify)… about these facts. Watch the video below and forward this page to anyone you know to get the word out. We will not let the media and the Obama administration cover this up.
It’s been a rough few weeks for the “eco-progressive” fringe. 
Meg Whitman is running for governor of California. Which, considering the state of that state, means she is either a glutton for punishment, or delusional, or both. 
