Back to Basics

Finally, California shows some sense. Lawmakers trashed an onerous, ill-timed, empty-gesture plastic bag ban pushed by radical greens this week:

California lawmakers have rejected a bill seeking to ban plastic shopping bags after a contentious debate over whether the state was going too far in trying to regulate personal choice.

The Democratic bill, which failed late Tuesday, would have been the first statewide ban, although a few California cities already prohibit their use.

…The bill, AB1998, called for the ban to take effect in supermarkets and large retail stores in 2012. It would have applied to smaller stores in 2013.

Republicans and some Democrats opposed it, saying it would add an extra burden on consumers and businesses at a time when many already are struggling financially.

…The Senate took final action at the very end of the legislative session, reflecting how difficult it had been to muster support. The bill received just 14 votes in the Senate, seven short of the majority it needed.

The inconvenient truth is that the eco-propaganda about plastic bag perils is so much hype. Don’t take it from me. Take it from environmental scientists themselves:

“The Government is irresponsible to jump on a bandwagon that has no base in scientific evidence,” said Lord Taverne, the chairman of Sense about Science. “This is one of many examples where you get bad science leading to bad decisions which are counter-productive. Attacking plastic bags makes people feel good but it doesn’t achieve anything.”

Campaigners say that plastic bags pollute coastlines and waterways, killing or injuring birds and livestock on land and, in the oceans, destroying vast numbers of seabirds, seals, turtles and whales. However, the Times has established that there is no scientific evidence to show that the bags pose any direct threat to marine mammals.

The angry sun

For months mounting fear has driven researchers to wring their hands over the approaching solar storms. Some have predicted devastating solar tsunamis that could wipe away our advanced technology, others voiced dire warnings that violent explosions on the surface of the sun could reach out to Earth, breach our magnetic field, and expose billions to high intensity X-rays and other deadly forms of cancer-causing radiation.

Now evidence has surfaced that something potentially more dangerous is happening deep within the hidden core of our life-giving star: never-before-seen particles—or some mysterious force—is being shot out from the sun and it’s hitting Earth.

Whatever it is, the evidence suggests it’s affecting all matter.

Strange and unknown

Alarmed physicists first became aware of this threat over the past several years. Initially dismissed as an anomaly, now frantic scientists are shooting e-mails back and forth to colleagues across the world attempting to grasp exactly what is happening to the sun.

Something impossible has happened. Yet the “impossible” has been proven to be true. Laboratories around the globe have confirmed that the rate of radioactive decay—once thought to be a constant and a bedrock of science—is no longer a constant. Something being emitted from the sun is interacting with matter in strange and unknown ways with the startling potential to dramatically change the nature of the very Earth itself.

WaPo water-carrier E.J. Dionne does Team Obama’s dirty work for them in his column today smearing DOJ whistleblower J. Christian Adams.

Read all about it from Quin Hilyer at the American Spectator here. An excerpt:

…the worst thing Dionne does is smear the whistle-blowing attorney Christian Adams without ever talking with Adams and without checking the record. He says Adams is not to be taken seriously because he is supposedly a “Republican activist.” Oh? Adams volunteered for Bush ballot security in 2004. Does that make him a perjurer not to be taken seriously? What about his long record of winning awards at DoJ? What about his work on behalf of black voting rights in a major case in South Carolina? What about the fact that just in April, the Obama-Holder Justice Department gave him a promotion, and that he has sterling performance reviews throughout his entire career at DoJ?

Then Dionne writes this passage that amounts to one big lie:

Now, Adams is accusing the Obama Justice Department of being “motivated by a lawless hostility toward equal enforcement of the law.” This is racially inflammatory, politically motivated nonsense — and it’s nonsense even if Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh talk about it 1,000 times a day. When an outlandish charge for which there is no evidence is treated as an on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand issue, the liars win.

Nonsense? No evidence? There is Adams’ sworn testimony naming names and at times dates; unless he perjured himself, that is evidence. There are the lengthy reports of the going-away speech by Adams’ colleague Chris Coates, a longtime civil rights activist who once was a lead lawyer for the ACLU. (The only reason Coates’ own testimony is not sworn is because DoJ refused to let him testify…

Adams’ latest exposé on the DOJ’s failure to protect military voting rights is here.

Who will wage the White House bully boys’ war on the whistleblowers next?

Well, this is pretty disturbing from the TARP Special Inspector General Neal M. Barofsky. The race and sex of the dealership owner apparently factored into determining whether dealerships would be closed down. First some background. GM and Chrysler were forced by the government to close 2,000 dealerships and putting 100,000 people out of their jobs during a recession. Now it turns out that these closing probably didn’t save the car companies any money and it may have even cost them money (p. 30, from the “Factors Affecting the Decisions of General Motors and Chrysler to Reduce their Dealership Networks,” July 10, 2010, Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program).

In fact, when asked by SIGTARP what GM will save by closing any particular dealership, one GM official stated the answer is usually “not one damn cent.”

Furthermore, a GM official stated that removing a dealership from the network does not save money for GM—it might even cost GM money—and that savings cannot be attributed or assigned to any one dealership. According to one GM official, it was a “math exercise” to assign a savings amount to one dealership; it was difficult to estimate savings for a particular dealership because the savings are expected to be achieved when the entire dealership network plan is accomplished.

The report concluded (pp. 28-29, see also pages 11-12):

One, although there was broad consensus that GM and Chrysler generally needed to decrease the number of their dealerships, there was disagreement over where, and how quickly, the cuts should have been made. Some experts that SIGTARP spoke to in connection with this audit questioned whether it was appropriate to apply the foreign model to the U.S. automakers, particularly in small markets in which the U.S. companies currently have a competitive advantage, a concern apparently not substantially considered by the Auto Team when they adopted this theory. The conclusion that the manufacturers should close dealerships more rapidly than originally planned was also criticized as being potentially counterproductive; one expert opined, for example, that closing dealerships in an environment already disrupted by the recession could result in an even greater crisis in sales.

So how did GM determine who to shutdown? (pp. 17-18)

GM determined that dealerships with a DPS Score of 100 were average performers; those below 70 were considered poor performers and would not be retained. SIGTARP noted, however, that GM did not uniformly apply the phase one criteria to the entire network. For example, our analysis found that two of the wind-down dealers did not meet either criterion. Furthermore, we found that, of the dealerships that met only one of the two criteria:
• GM retained 355 (or approximately 41 percent) of the 858 dealerships that had a DPS score below 70.16
• GM retained 9 of the 394 dealerships that sold fewer than 50 new vehicles in 2008.17
GM officials attributed these inconsistencies primarily to a desire to maintain coverage in certain rural areas where they have a competitive advantage over import auto companies that are not typically located in rural areas, although ultimately close to half of all of the GM dealerships identified for termination were in rural areas. Other dealerships were retained because they were recently appointed, were key wholesale parts dealers, or were minority- or woman-owned dealerships.

More than half of the GM dealerships that were identified to be closed were in rural areas (p. 24). Yet, as noted above, this were probably not the best places to shutdown dealerships.

Note that last year that the Obama administration denied that dealerships were being closed based on the political affiliation of the owner.

The White House denied Thursday charges by conservative bloggers that President Obama’s Auto Task Force, which is overseeing the restructuring of the U.S. auto industry, targeted for closure Chrysler dealers who have contributed to Republicans.

“We don’t make those decisions. Ok?,” said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. “Chrysler makes those decisions. So I am sure you can send Chrysler the address of the blog that you refer to. … We’re not involved in making those decisions I would think your question would be appropriately dealt with by the company that is.” . . .

I said last year that I didn’t believe that there was evidence to support this claim.

John R. Lott, the professor best known for his books, “More guns, less crime: The bias against gun rights” and “Freedomnomics,” called earlier this week to talk about the possibility of partisan political considerations in the Obama administration’s closing of nearly 800 Chrysler dealerships.
“I just don’t see the evidence for partisanship,” said Lott, who is a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland. He’s prevously held professorships at the Wharton School, University of Chicago and Yale. When this guy has an opinion about an issue that is subject to data-driven analysis, I listen. . . .

My commentary on the lies about bisphenol A (BPA) that have led to several states banning it without a shred of scientific evidence generated a lot of feedback; enough to revisit the topic because it symbolizes the way Americans and others around the world are under assault from the environmental and consumer groups that exist to further their own agendas.

BPA is a chemical used in the epoxy liners of many canned foods, as well as some plastic food containers. BPA improves public health by greatly decreasing the risk of food borne illness in canned foods and making them easier to manufacture. At the heart of the campaign to ban BPA is the larger issue of plastic itself, a byproduct of petroleum. I suspect that a lot of people do not know that plastic starts life as crude oil.

Oil is so essential to modern life that most people are astonished to discover that, after a portion of a 42-gallon barrel of oil is turned into 19.4 gallons of gasoline, more than half of what remains becomes an element of more than 6,000 other products from floor wax to vitamin capsules, cortisone to insect repellent, perfumes to house paint.

I doubt that it has passed your notice that oil has been the number one enemy of environmental groups for decades. This is most evident in the effort by the White House to shut down new drilling in the Gulf of Mexico based on a single accident on a single rig. As this is written, Friends of the Earth is trying to stop the building of a pipeline to give the U.S. easier access to Canadian oil.

So, when you connect the use of oil and plastic, you get two utterly essential facets of modern life that Greens are working to thwart any way they can. The primarily instrument, other than the fashioning of legislation for sympathetic politicians, is a continuous tidal wave of propaganda rooted in junk science.

A reader pointed me to an interesting blog called JunkScienceMom.com. It is the work of a mother of three and she is a contributor to BigJournalism.com and FightNanny.com. Among her fans are Fox News’ John Stossell and the American Council on Science and Health which lauded her website as “well-sourced and cogent.”

In late June, she conducted an interview with Julie E. Goodman, principal scientist at Gradient, an environmental consulting firm in Cambridge, Massachusetts where she also teaches at the Harvard School of Public Health. She is an expert in toxicology and epidemiology.

To many political observers, it probably appeared that the Tea Party movement came out of the woodwork or even thin air. But the roots of the movement go back before then.

The Tea Party is sometimes considered to be a reactionary response to Obama’s presidency, and has therefore been vilified with false innuendos and inaccurate labels. Early last year the movement was deemed to be a group of fringe, angry crackpots, who were fit to be scorned and laughed at.

As the movement gained momentum, the laughter stopped, and it became necessary to depict the movement in derogatory terms. Accusations of racism and hatred began to tag along with the Tea Party. Just recently the NAACP has called on the Tea Party to purge the racist elements within its ranks. Of course such insinuation already presupposes such elements exist and can be readily identified. But let’s face it, virtually every organization has its bad apples mingled in with the good fruit.

If that wasn’t enough, in April, an Oregon activist announced a plan to infiltrate Tea Party protests, and deliberately misrepresent the movement by encouraging confederates to attend and carry inflammatory placards. How would you tell genuine participants from impostors?

If one asks the rhetorical question, “When did you stop beating your wife,” it is assumed that wife beating occurred in the past. The burden is on the one making the accusation to offer evidence for his assertion. What is missing is the evidence, but making the charge creates a beneficial distraction.

Presently, character assassination is the new American pastime du jour. We all recognize that racism is a serious offence, but few are as careful and keen to observe that false accusations of such a vice are equally egregious. One must then ask about the general motives behind such accusations. I think the answer becomes obvious: nobody likes to be accused of bigotry in any form, and claims of such motives or illicit conduct cause the one being accused to abandon his arguments or agenda and focus on defending himself from the allegations. It’s a strategy of desperate distraction, hopefully to stall the momentum of a movement that has been politically effective.

The way they are connecting the Tea Party with racism is to assume that any opposition to the president’s policies are de facto evidence of impropriety. It seems dissent was only patriotic during the prior administration.

Watching this video gets you started with the truth.  But it does not delve into the facts like it needs to. The second video does just that.  But it is 35 min long.  I urge you to watch this video and then contact your senator and insist that they vote NO on the American Power Act bill.  America cannot afford this right now, or next year or the year after that.

Oil Bama

Ok we heard Obama’s Oval office speech on the BP oil spill, ohhh scary!  Yes it is actually.  So what is Obama doing to us now?  Why is he going to further cripple the US economy with his punitive tax on carbon? Perhaps Cloward and Piven can answer that for us.  With the over whelming evidence that climate change is NOT man made I can only find one other answer.  Wealth redistribution.  Obama is going to take the Gulf of Mexico Transocean BP oil spill and further politicize it to push his “Green Agenda”.

A green agenda that has already been proven to create mass unemployment.  But then again taking this country down a few notches has also been part of the presidents agenda.  He has in fact apologized to the leader and people of almost every country he has visited.

An excellent presentation disputing man-made global warming using nothing but pure science and statistics by Professor Bob Carter (Australian geologist). It would be very difficult to dispute his facts. In this video he pretty much proves that over 10,000 years the earth has been cooling.

Those of us with our heads into facts and data, the ones not snooping around Chris Matthews legs looking for more evidence of tingles, are finding out the real facts about climate change and what is in store for us.  It is in fact just like it was stated in the first video.  It will cost tremendously.  It will devastate the economy and roll back the prosperity for untold generations.  Don’t believe me.  Listen to what Carl Pope, the current Executive Director for the Sierra Club had to say about it.  Pope states, “by the time I die, America will no longer be the greatest economic power on the earth, perhaps 3rd or 4th.”

Carl Pope is right about the economy crashing.  So buckle up consumers.  Grab your popcorn and some KY Jelly.  Its going to get interesting here in the states these next 2 years as our economy continues to get Greeced to it can move into another crash.  A crash that only a dictator Obama can save us from.

Under Obama’s Climate Change bill Cap and Trade bill American Power Act the cost of power would necessarily skyrocket.  Yes not just go up but SKYROCKET.  So that is money that you no longer have to spend on groceries or clothing or school supplies.  The end result is as Pope predicts.  America would fall rapidly to the 3rd or 4th largest economy in the world.  That is a significant downgrade when you consider that one of largest economies in the world now is California.

Obama’s Ego ‘Green Energy Agenda’ is to big to fail America!, “We the People” may have to bail it us out, yet again!

I cannot think of any other subject in recent American history that has been so mired in controversy, so factually misrepresented, mischaracterized and so misunderstood than the matter of the eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA II to hold the office of President of the United States. Despite its importance, the topic has been summarily dismissed as fodder for conspiracy theorists by many, while others insist that the question of OBAMA’s citizenship has been “asked and answered.” But has it really been answered, and if not, why not?

In consideration of the controversy that continues to plague Barack Hussein OBAMA over his citizenship status and his well documented sustained pattern of refusal to provide authenticated documentation of his birth records and numerous other pertinent records, I’ve conducted an in-depth investigation into the matter in an effort to separate fact from fiction, myth from reality. My approach was the same I’ve used as an investigator over the last 25 years on behalf of Fortune 100 companies in their selection of corporate executives, conducting due diligence background investigations. In this case, however, I was not afforded direct and unfettered access to the “applicant’s”, or in this case, OBAMA’s original records. Nonetheless, I conducted inquiries and a lengthy investigation researching the information directly or indirectly disclosed by OBAMA, as well as collections of documents, court records, official federal and state documents, verbal statements, utterances and other documents determined to be of authentic provenance.

At issue is whether Barack Hussein OBAMA or any of his representatives have furnished sufficient documentation to prove his eligibility for the office of President of the United States under Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution that states:

“No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”

Presently, OBAMA occupies the White House as the Chief Executive Officer of the United States of America. As president, he is the commander-in-chief of our armed forces and ultimately responsible for the security of the United States. Any person of reasonable sensibilities would logically believe that his eligibility status has long been established by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) or those in positions of oversight for such matters. But has it?

In order to be as comprehensive as possible, my investigative findings include important background information into the legal definition of a “natural born citizen” as applicable to Article II of the U.S. Constitution. This background information is provided to clear up many common misconceptions about the eligibility controversy, and to explain why so many people are confused and easily mislead over this issue. After thoroughly investigating this matter, I have found demonstrable evidence that this confusion is a deliberate and highly effective tactic used to divert attention from a constitutional issue and thus, the rule of law, to the detriment of American citizens.

This report will also provide insight into the reasons for the largely ignored yet unprecedented legal fight by Barack Hussein OBAMA II, his representatives and assigns, against any release of the authenticated copy of his long form birth certificate and a multitude of other relevant historical documents.

Eyewitness Report on Columbia Trial
CITIZENS GRAND JURY RETURNS GUILTY VERDICT ON MAY 18, 2010 by Neil Turner

Rev. James David Manning held a citizens’ grand jury May 14-19 at his church in Harlem, NY to hear evidence regarding Obama’s history, particularly whether or not he ever attended Columbia University as he has claimed.

(May 23, 2010) — I have just returned from the Trial of the Centuries, wherein the Jury returned the Verdict of the Centuries against the perpetrators of the greatest Crimes of the Centuries:  GUILTY on all counts (including Election Fraud, Obstruction of Justice, Disclosure of State Secrets, and Sedition), against a former Columbia University President and its Board of Trustees, and Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro.

The Report:

• Late in 2009, Pastor James David Manning of the ATLAH World Missionary Church, became fully aware that the key to the absolute proof of Obama’s ineligibility for the Office of President and Commander-in-Chief was Columbia University.
• That evidence that Obama was never a student at Columbia was provided by testimonies of and evidence from the following:

-ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos, Science Major/Political Science, Columbia University class of 1982 “never heard of or knew of Obama”;

- The Wall Street Journal (September 11, 2008) reported the secrecy surrounding Obama’s supposed years at Columbia University;

-Fox News Channel’s Bill Hemmer, in a lengthy news report wherein their investigators interviewed over 400 Columbia graduates from the class of 1983, to which The Wall Street Journal refers in its article – none of whom ever heard of or knew of Obama;

-Wayne Allyn Root (the Libertarian Party’s 2008 vice presidential nominee, who also attended Columbia at the same time as Barack Obama allegedly did), said “I don’t know a single person at Columbia that knows him, and they all know me. I don’t have a classmate who ever knew Barack Obama at Columbia”;

-Two investigators researched the Columbia University yearbooks (1981-1985), and found the following: