I am an overwhelmed blogger! I admit it! The news comes at such a fast pace these days it is so hard to keep up with it all! I'm glad that I have a comprehensive sidebar listing of excellent blogs that cover a lot of the stories that I don't have time to research or write about.
Today, my plan was to do an in-depth analysis on two blog posts that I mentioned in the comment section here. The following is a copy of the comment:
Christinewjc said...
If readers want to get a jump start on one of my up and coming blog posts (for next week) go to Butterdezillion Blog Don't let the strange blog name prevent you from reading the introduction at link above, as well as the main subject matter found HERE - entitled "Red Flags in Hawaii"
I think that the author is correct when he writes:"Obama’s eligibility is and always has been about law enforcement, because our entire system of law enforcement of already-existing laws has utterly failed. This has nothing to do with politics."
Even Charles F. Kerchner - lead plaintiff in one of the Obama ineligibility cases states: "I Believe The Fix Was In for the 2008 Election and The Cover Up is Still Going Strong!The Perfect Storm for a Constitutional Crisis!"
My new blog post will include commentary, evaluation, and analysis of the two posts. [Note: any readers who would like to contribute to the future blog post (including additional links, commentary, analysis, thoughts, ideas for solutions etc.) please post them in the comment section here and mark FOR NEW BUTTERDEZILLION POST.]
Butterdezillion concludes at the first link above:"Seriously think about “The Dark Knight” – which gave my kids nightmares for weeks. Watch it again so you can clearly remember what lawlessness looks and feels like. If, like me, you would die before willingly handing your kids’ future over to lawlessness, then keep reading at Butterdezillion: Red Flags in Hawaii.
Serious stuff - folks! I don't know how ANYONE could not be alarmed and concerned about Obama's ineligibility cover-up after reading the Butterdezillion information!!
January 30, 2010 1:12:00 PM PST
Just reading through those links will keep you very busy! But I URGE YOU TO READ THEM! Read it all!!
Perhaps you don't need my analysis. If you are on Obama's side, nothing will convince you to turn against him or his policies. If you are against Obama and his policies, then what is shared in those points will most likely cement your opinions against his administration and the terrible direction he is taking America.
Instead of doing an analysis on those posts, I wanted to share a link to a heartfelt second letter to Glenn Beck written by the main plaintiff, CF Kerchner (Commander USNR (Retired), over at A Place to Ask Questions To Get the Right Answers: Glenn ... Are You Listening? Another Open Letter to Glenn Beck from Commander Kerchner.
My comment (currently in moderation) there:
Quite a while ago, I recall Glenn Beck saying something like this about the
birth certificate issue (notice - NOT the ineligibility issue) on his radio show [paraphrased here]:
What are we going to do if Obama's BC shows he wasn't born in America? Are we going to overturn an entire election?
It appeared to me, even way back then, that he wasn't willing to find out the
hard truth about this matter.
Also, I noticed that he didn't address the "natural born citizen" clause in the
chapter on the Constitution in his "Arguing with Idiots" book. Thought that
was strange. He could have at least mentioned the controversy, but chose not to do so.
Though what I am about to write may sound unrelated - maybe it could reveal a reason why he doesn't touch the issue? In Glenn's book, he wrote a list of "top ten bastards" of all time on page 222. Tiger Woods is listed as #2 - with this comment: "He's got a Swedish-supermodel wife, a gazillion dollars, and he plays golf for a living...bastard!"
When the Tiger Woods sexual addict womanizing scandal broke, Glenn admitted on his radio show that he and his researchers already knew about Wood's "double-life," but chose not to write it in the book. Why? For fear of being sued. Could THAT be the reason why he (and others) are reluctant to speak out against Obama's citizenship questions? Most of the high profile radio/t.v. talk show hosts are very rich. Could it all mainly be just about money?
Beck has also mentioned many times that he has had threats against him and his family on an ongoing basis. He has been forced to hire a tight security force for that reason. Could his reluctance to discuss this issue have a lot to do with the threats being hurled against him?
Next, I noticed that after becoming pals with Bill O'Reilly, a lot of his (Glenn's) anxiety over Obama's administration eased...a lot. Why? That's the question that I would like to have answered.
NO ONE in public media is willing to touch this subject in it's entirety. Most use their venue to ridicule the "birthers."
Glenn's unwillingness to address your letters, Mr. Kerchner, is strange and uncharacteristic; or so I used to think that way about him. He has been willing to tackle controversial subjects on his radio and T.V. shows. But this issue he adamantly chooses to avoid. I have switched over and now listen to Rush Limbaugh's radio show in the morning. At least he had the guts to talk about
Obama's birth certificate issue.
I agree with your conclusion in your added comment here. Some day the truth and the Constitution will win the day in the end. It is just very hard to be patient when we see Obama and his terrible, uncontrolled spending and awful policies destroying our economy and Constitutional Republic!
Hat Tip:
A Place to Ask Questions to Get The Right Answers
Posts
22 comments:
Thank you for your kind words and coverage of my writings. Truth and the Constitution will win the day in this battle in the end. We Oath Takers, with the help of an awakening American people, will make sure it happens.
Charles Kerchner
Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://www.protectourliberty.org
To all who care:
Indeed it is clear that Mr. Obama is not a Christian nor does he understand that this is, indeed, a Christian nation that was very much founded on Judeo-Christian principles.
Instead he is an Islamo-Communist that is a dictator wannabe. His mother (and her father) HATED this country and it is certain that the man who has never shown himself to be legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies ALSO hates the country and intends to destroy it. His mother lived almost all of her adult life as ax expatriate and only returned to the US to die.
To get a better grasp of the man and his (ahem) "principles", watch these two short videos. They start slowly but build in intensity and content with huge amounts of information - some of it a bit of fun.
In the second video there is a quote from a noted senator that is a "dead ringer" for BHO. This is true even though the senator was the Roman named Cicero speaking in 42 BC. His words still ring true today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsX5DzZHkIU Three Little Words
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNGG8tIJNMY Merry Christmas OmeriKa!!
Jayjay--what proof do you have that his mother and his grandfather 'hated America'? Living outside the country for a while isn't proof of that. Lots of people live all over the world for various periods--but that has nothing to do with hating this country.
And what type of communism do you see President Obama practicing? Do you see parallels to past Communist dictatorships?
You are certainly most welcome, Mr. Kerchner, sir! It is YOU that we all owe a huge debt of gratitude to for taking on the political machine of Obama & his evil cohorts! I commend you and your attorney, Mr. Apuzzo, for not giving up and continuing the fight against a well-oiled and financed fraudulent machine that is known to me as the "ObamaBORG." That may be a funny title, but I see them as very dangerous - just as the "BORG" in the Star Trek series is very dangerous to the survival of that world.
I have been following your case for months and cannot believe what Obama is getting away with!
I LOVE reading your words, which are filled with truthful, confident words!
Your statements ring so true and gives us much encouragement!
You wrote:
"Truth and the Constitution will win the day in this battle in the end. We Oath Takers, with the help of an awakening American people, will make sure it happens."
Even at this small blog, my stats show that people are researching the Obama ineligibility/BC controversy each and every day! They are finding out the truth of the matter - despite the fact that the Media of Mass Deception continues to mislead, condemn, mock and ridicule the legitimate concerns of the American patriots who have a right to question Obama's legitimacy for the office of POTUS.
God's Word guides me in this life. And I take to heart the truth of the Scriptures. The promises of God are manifest and tell us that the truth will one day be known:
Luk 8:17 For nothing is secret that will not be revealed, nor [anything] hidden that will not be known and come to light.
God bless you, the other plaintiffs, and Attorney Mario Apuzzo for all of your hard-fought efforts in this difficult endeavor. Millions of Americans are following your case and cheering you on! We are confident that one day the truth will come to light. It usually always does!
Sincerely,
Christine
Hello Jayjay. Thank you for providing those video links. I have seen the "Omerika" one, but will watch both videos right now.
I suspected way back in January of 2008 that Obama wasn't a Christian. Everything that I have learned about him since then has confirmed that he is not a Christian!
The man is the biggest liar and fraud that I have ever seen in the history of presidential elections.
I pray that Obama gets booted out of office before then, but the November, 2010 election cannot get here soon enough! There will be a huge overhaul of the House and the Senate. Obama will be a lame duck from then on. This fraud, masquerading as our president will lose power! WE THE PEOPLE will vote him out in 2012 and this nightmare will finally be over - for good!
Kevin,
"And what type of communism do you see President Obama practicing? Do you see parallels to past Communist dictatorships?"
I certainly see parallels in the amount of private business he is attempting to control, though from a strict definition that is more "fascism." Most any national health bill he has described will eventually swallow private sector medicine. That will put about one sixth of the private sector under government control, and when you consider how much people depend on health care, that gives the government a lot of control. The EPA is moving to control CO2 as a pollutant under the Obama administration, which will basically give them power to control most of the nation's energy.
Based on those two large ticket items, and smaller moves in manufacturing, I would have to say that yes, he does have dictatorial aspirations, especially when you consider his complete disregard for workable ideas that would improve the situation that do not involve government control.
Hi Gary,
As far as I understand it, creating an alternative to private health insurance companies that charge ridiculous amounts for very little will make the situation improve. That doesn't have to mean the government 'takes over' all health care. Providing an alternative leads to competition.
What alternative do you suggest to helping out the car industries? What could have been done differently?
And controlling the amount of CO2 will not force a takeover of private energy companies--all it will do is to force them to fix the amount of CO2 that they put into the air. There is a giant difference. It is the same with any regulation when you are talking about pollutants. For example, the government regulates the amount of lead put into paint. Do you think this is a takeover of the paint industry by the government? I see it as forcing them to do the right thing. Otherwise, children get sick. It also regulates the amount of lead in gasoline--this did not cause the government to take over the gasoline companies. It just forced the gasoline companies to do the right thing (unless someone thinks that lead in gasoline is a good thing).
Kevin,
"Providing an alternative leads to competition."
Not under the conditions that Congress is setting up. As of right now, there are approximately 1200 health insurance companies. The impact of one more for a total of 1201 provides very little additional choice. Also, there are specific conditions that must be met for an alternative to actually be "competition." For starters, it has to play by the same rules and meet the same requirements as its competitors. For example, it would have to be self sustaining. No government operated service is. The taxpayers inevitably become the slush fund that makes up any losses (as demonstrated with AMTRAK, the US Post Office, etc.) If the "Public Option" cannot fail, then it is basically immune to market forces and no one else will be able to compete, especially not with Congress acting as the regulators.
You should look at an example near and dear to your heart: Public education. What percentage of public schools that are failing their students and parents are closed? I think if you look at the record, you will usually find that they instead get more money.
Public education is comparable in another way as well. It was once the "Public Option" for education. But because the government took everyone's money anyway, the private schools rapidly dwindled. When there is no way to level the playing field, the other companies get out. And considering how honest prezbo has been to date about his policies, you will have a hard to impossible time convincing me that he does not have the same agenda in mind for health care, only it will be worse. There is a limit to how much education needs to be provided. There is virtually no limit to the amount of health services that may be demanded.
Continued:
"What alternative do you suggest to helping out the car industries? What could have been done differently?"
Very simple: Let them fail. The viable parts of the companies would have been bought up, the unprofitable ones disposed of. It would have been painful, but the companies in good shape would have survived and been ready to go ahead on sound business models. As it is, the government is dictating to business, and making a profit is not and should not be a government priority. That's why they should limit their intrusion into the market as much as possible.
"And controlling the amount of CO2 will not force a takeover of private energy companies"
I think you misunderstood my statement. I did not say that they would "take over" private energy companies. I said it would allow them to control most of the energy production. There is a difference.
You are correct that the government will limit the amount of CO2 that goes into the air. Depending on how low that limit is set, the government is limiting the maximum amount of energy that can economically be produced. As soon as the profit point is lost, production ceases. Along the way, the prices rise.
"I see it as forcing them to do the right thing."
That reasoning only holds if you accept that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant. The science is there for lead poising. There is no evidence to suggest that CO2 is anything of the kind, at least not at the levels we are anywhere near. Every time someone gets a hold of background paperwork from the global warming crowd, it shows a bunch of political hacks willing to sacrifice their integrity to force others to live under their idea of environmentalism.
Instead of lead, let's talk DDT. Did it do some damage? Darn straight. And the environmentalists banned its use, despite assertions from other scientists that it could be used in a limited manner safely. Doesn't make much difference to you and me, but to the multitude of Africans who die of malaria every year (I've heard estimates up to three million) it makes quite a difference.
Kevin,
Looking over your last comment set, it just occurred to me: You seem very comfortable with "forcing people to do the right thing." Sounds a lot like a dictatorship to me, particularly when your idea of "the right thing" is very subjective. And, going back to your comment set before that, I'm sure that Communist dictators were convinced they were only "forcing people to do the right thing as well."
You asked at the beginning how we can draw the comparison. Your words provide the answer.
Hi Gary,
Me being a dictator? Funny, I'm sure I have that in me somewhere, but luckily I am smart enough to regulate those feelings.
Sorry--I believe that there are bad people out there who are willing to harm people to make a buck. If a company makes lead paint and refuses to see that lead is dangerous, the government has a duty to go in a fix it. Either shut them down or make them reformulate paint. That isn't being a dictator--unless of course you don't mind your children getting sick from it.
To compare that to what a dictator does is kind of ridiculous (in my humble opinion)! I don't see the comparison at all. A dictator, by definition, is a person. He is like a bad company that only creates harm and gets a few people rich. A dictator needs to be gotten rid of (or taught how to govern correctly) just like a company that harms people.
I think we need governmental regulation on companies. Imagine what parts of this country would look like if the government did not regulate the mining industry. Maybe you don't mind living on slag heaps of toxic chemicals, but I do.
About the car companies (and we might as well throw the banks in here as well)--letting them fail is not a political or a good economic option. If Obama had let the car companies fail, there would have been howls from the Republicans (and some Democrats). Instead, money was pumped into them in hopes that at some point all those people who would have been dumped into the streets would have good jobs in the future. It is also hoped that the companies will become profitable again and then you will have two things: people with jobs and taxes being generated not only by the companies but also by the people who have jobs. By the way, did you see that unemployment actually dropped in January?
I won't get into the CO2 argument with you.
Kevin,
"Sorry--I believe that there are bad people out there who are willing to harm people to make a buck. If a company makes lead paint and refuses to see that lead is dangerous, the government has a duty to go in a fix it. Either shut them down or make them reformulate paint. That isn't being a dictator--unless of course you don't mind your children getting sick from it."
Believe it or not, I agree with your specific up there. I definitely believe that reasonable regulation to protect life, liberty, and property is a function of government. And regulation of lead in paint and gas was reasonable because:
a) substitutes were economically available.
b) there was never a question of a "right" to paint or gas of any particular type
c) all competitors were equally burdened, and
d) it could definitely be shown that lead in the environment was harmful to people.
The problem is that you are trying to extrapolate regulation to areas that are not appropriate for government and not reasonable. For example:
a) To the best of my knowledge, there are no facilities in the US that are expelling CO2 into the atmosphere such that people will be harmed.
b) No amount of technology will allow use of fossil fuels without production of CO2, therefore any regulation or limit, no matter how small, will give the government inescapable regulatory power even though no need for regulation has been demonstrated.
Absent any clear danger or need, Obama's desire to regulate CO2 as a pollutant is dictatorial.
"A dictator, by definition, is a person. He is like a bad company that only creates harm and gets a few people rich."
According to your definition and description if a dictator creates some good then he is not a dictator, which is BS. It is the exercise of power, or the desire for such, that makes the dictator. Obama desires to insuate his own control into energy, health care, the census bureau, and I'm sure any number of areas that I have not heard of. Right now I understand there is a trial balloon going through some offices that will force people to place part of their retirement savings for the purpose of "protecting" them, which is a tactful way of saying "you can't be trusted to make your own decisions, so I will force you." A benevolent dictator is still a dictator in the same way that a benevolent slave master is still a slave master.
You can justify yourself any way you want, but you are very supportive of a government that is trying to take away a great deal of personal and economic liberty from people, not because there is a definite danger but because you think the risk is too great (without the science to back it up in the case of CO2). I'm sorry, the fact that you consider Obama benevolent does not alter the fact that he is moving as a dictator would. Or, as they said in "The Black Hole," - "A wolf remains a wolf, even if he has not eaten your sheep."
Continued -
"Instead, money was pumped into them in hopes that at some point all those people who would have been dumped into the streets would have good jobs in the future."
If that was the case, the government would have allowed the companies to reorganize under existing law and dumped the toxic assets. Still hard, but it would have allowed them to renegotiate labor contracts and have a chance at competitive business again. Nothing that was done altered the fact that with union benefits America is still paying nearly twice the labor cost of Japan with liabilities for medical and pension that cannot be maintained. There is no way the companies can continue to succeed under those conditions.
Also, instead of allowing the people that had actually invested in the success of the company, the government handed over a large portion of GM to the unions whose demands made them uncompetitive.
Question: What happens to people who are thinking of investing in business when the government demonstrates that your stocks will not be honored and assets which by law should have gone to you will be given to political cronies? Are you going to line up to invest in business under those conditions? (Hmmm, overriding existing law to benefit a few supporters. Sounds like a dictator to me.)
"By the way, did you see that unemployment actually dropped in January?"
I saw that was what was announced. I am researching it. I sincerely hope that this signals a trend.
"I won't get into the CO2 argument with you."
I don't know why. I mean I realize you have no verifiable, relevant facts to support the liberal position, but that doesn't stop you on health care or unions or "I'm not really like a dictator I just want to be able to force everyone to do what I believe is good whether there is any law that supports it or not."
Hi Christine,
I must have been a bad day for blogspot (on Saturday)--I left a comment here as well. Anyway, I managed to save that one! Here it is (you can delete it if it comes up twice!):
Hi Gary--I should have typed: "A dictator, by definition, is a bad person" (the 'bad' definitely should have been added--of course, technically a dictator is a person, but that is beside the point). Dictators do not do good things.
"There is no way the companies can continue to succeed under those conditions." But that is definitely not true--the car companies were doing just fine until the economy started going down the tube during the Bush regime. They will recover with the growth of the economy and will continue to be productive again.
About the CO2 issue--this is a great dividing line. Your side believes the earth is just fine and that CO2 has nothing to do with problems. My side believes that it does. According to the EPA, " In 2005, global atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were 35% higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution." I'm not sure how you can explain that away. If it is natural, please explain to me what is happening in nature that caused this increase?
It also states "Carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the atmosphere increased from approximately 280 parts per million (ppm) in pre-industrial times to 382 ppm in 2006 according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Earth Systems Research Laboratory, a 36 percent increase. Almost all of the increase is due to human activities (IPCC, 2007). The current rate of increase in CO2 concentrations is about 1.9 ppmv/year. Present CO2 concentrations are higher than any time in at least the last 650,000 years (IPCC, 2007). See Figure 1 for a record of CO2 concentrations from about 420,000 years ago to present. For more information on the human and natural sources of CO2 emissions, see the Emissions section and for actions that can reduce these emissions, see the What You Can Do Section." I also recommend you read this:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html
That may not worry you because you don't believe the science, but it worries me. Now I know full well that there are periods on the earth that are colder and warmer, which are part of the normal cycle. But it is not part of the normal cycle of the earth to have 6 billion people spew millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.
So there are my 'verifiable, relevant facts to support the liberal position.' Where are your relevant facts to support your conservative position?
You said " I said it would allow them to control most of the energy production. There is a difference." So, does the government control most of the gasoline industry? Does it control most of the paint industry?
Kevin,
"A dictator, by definition, is a bad person, Dictators do not do good things. "
You could have, but it would have made your definition (loose as it was) factually incorrect. Stalin was a dictator, but some people think he was good. Hitler was a dictator, but some of the things that he did would be classified as good by today's liberals (e.g., forcing people to quit smoking). I think you are engaging in some rationalization. (Dictators are bad people. I am good, therefore I cannot be a dictator.) Doesn't wash. You are supporting a government that wants to have a dictatorial control over people's lives, therefore you are supporting a wanna-bee dictator.
"But that is definitely not true--the car companies were doing just fine until the economy started going down the tube during the Bush regime."
Bull. Example: Toyota and GM both sold almost the exact same number of cars in 2007 (just about 9.4 million. The actual difference in car sales was about 4000 cars. Very small significantly). Toyota made a profit of approximately $1900 per car. GM lost approximately $4000 per car. Sound like they were doing well?
The difference? GM had been forced by union contracts into an unsustainable business model. Their productivity was much lower. Even when things went south in the economy, they were paying people around %90 of salary to idle. Not everyone of course. Just members of the favored unions.
No, they were not doing fine. The fall was going to happen. The economic downturn just accelerated the process. Do you even bother to research the falsehoods you comment, or do you simply shoot from the hip? I have to wonder about your claim to be "fair" in religious discussions considering the low regard you have for fact in the arguments you make here.
I have dinner now, but I wanted to get a start on addressing the issues.
Kevin,
I am dubious about the claims that CO2 is the highest that it has been in several hundred thousand years, but that is not relevant to the discussion. For purposes of getting to the "meat" of the matter, I state that I freely accept that the levels are higher than they have been in any period of recent history (pick your favorite length of time). I also stipulate that this is due to human activity. These things are easy to verify objectively, based on sound science. No argument here.
Here are my problems:
1. As you stated above, warming and cooling cycles are normal. I've seen several in my lifetime. Given that, no one has the slightest idea how much, if any, CO2 concentration is contributing to climate change or in which direction.
2. Every investigation to check verifiable data related to climate change has revealed either sloppy science (e.g., temperature monitoring stations placed too close to heat sources), massaged data (e.g., cherry picking temperature readings from Russian weather stations that only show warming), fraud (adding fixed amounts to maintain the appearance of warming, destruction of the original data leaving only "adjusted" data behind), and flat out refusal to provide data to those deemed skeptical. There have also been calls to decertify meteorologists who are skeptical of man-made climate change. Given this, how can people who honestly disagree rely on the integrity of the people who are pushing the cause?
3. If we can't be certain that an affect is occurring, how can we realistically set any benchmarks for correction? Who decides what the global climate "should" be?
4. CO2 has no harmful affects on humans, animals, or plants until it reaches a level multiple times higher than we are observing today. Given that, the only basis for regulating CO2 as a pollutant is to prevent climate change that cannot be proven to occur. None of your relevant facts addressed that. The reason is that there are no verifiable relevant facts to back up the assertion.
5. Despite the fact that there is everything from sloppy science to downright fraud in on the "Pro-Climate Change" side of the argument, they are still pushing for legislation that will cost billions of dollars, rapidly ballooning to trillions of dollars. It will retard economic growth, increase poverty, and demand that governments take control of vast amounts of private sector resources.
Consider this: I believe that people who do not accept Christ will spend eternity in hell. To my way of thinking, that's a lot worse than spending perhaps a hundred years on a badly heated Earth. If I were to follow the liberal way of thinking, I would be justified in forcing you to accept my views and spend your earnings to convert people to Christianity for their own good. And in doing so, I would have just as much verifiable evidence as any pro-warmer has in their cause.
Continued:
"So, does the government control most of the gasoline industry? Does it control most of the paint industry?"
It breaks my heart to see a college educator either so slow on the uptake or so biased that he doesn't care...
No, the government does not control the gasoline or paint industries because what was done to regulate the gas and paint industries is only superficially related to what is attempting to be done to the energy industry.
There was hard science available to determine safe levels of lead for paint and gasoline. That meant that when the producers met the standard for lead, the government's part in that was done.
There is no science to support what a "safe" CO2 level because, as I discussed earlier, no one has shown any verifiable evidence that it causes any harm until it reaches multiples higher than it is now. That means that the required level will be arbitrary (as in what our dictator wanna-bee Prez) thinks it should be. Using that as a club, he can shut down or limit the operation of virtually any plant which relies on fossil fuels for energy production. And it gets worse: While Europe has signed on to the idiocy and America is seriously considering it, China has not. As they grow, it is likely that atmospheric levels will continue to rise despite anything that we do, giving the government justification to continue to require lower levels from domestic plants. If a plant can't emit, it can't operate. There is no CO2 free fuel waiting in the wings that can make up the loss, especially when Dems in CA and Mass refuse to allow either wind farms or solar farms in their pet areas.
The other big difference is that no one suggested a "Pb credit" system. There was no point. Lead could be eliminated. CO2 cannot. Not from power plants. Not from animals. Not from people. That means that this regulation is permanent. So the government wants to start charging for something that they say is required when emitted above whatever level they say is limiting with no scientific justification available.
I would call that a pretty blatant grab for control.
And it doesn't just affect energy plants. It affects any place that emits CO2, such as landfills, any number of production plants, transportation, etc. They will have legal grounds to insinuate themselves into just about anything.
I find that a lot more troubling than a case for climate change which is so weak that no one can demonstrate any real evidence at all.
Hi Gary,
Well, I provided my source of science (the EPA)--I don't see any links to your view of what is you believe is going on. You state a lot of things in your reply, but where are you getting your information? Or is it just your belief? You asked me for my source of science--now I am asking for yours (and I have asked before).
And please tell me where I can read about President Obama's plan to shut down the energy plants.
"CO2 has no harmful affects on humans, animals, or plants until it reaches a level multiple times higher than we are observing today." Totally false (or Bull in your language). Maybe you haven't heard about the dieback of the coral because water temperatures are heating up. And why are they heating up? More CO2 in the atmosphere. There is more CO2 in the atmosphere because humans are generating more. Once the coral goes, expect fish populations to drop.
I also suggest you look up a standard definition of dictator.
About GM and Toyota--did it ever occur to you that Toyota is much more efficient in terms of putting cars together and that is the real reason why they make more? You seem to believe that GM has never made a profit! Is that what you are saying? GM has never made a profit? You are so anti-union that you can't see past the fact that Bush brought down our economy and you need to blame that on anything else. The fact that people have lost their houses means that they don't have the money to buy new cars. Therefore the car companies suffer. It has little to do with unions and paying people a decent wage. There is no doubt that GM will make a profit in the future, once the economy picks up. I don't buy your argument that the union is the problem.
And you can keep wondering about how fair I am when I teach about religion. It doesn't make one bit of difference to me. I make sure that when I talk about how in some cases Muslims forced people to convert I then teach about how some Christians forced people to convert. I think that is pretty fair, no? I'm sure you will say no, so you don't need to waste your time doing it...
About your 'Consider this' section: I don't know what to say. If you are comparing your faith in your religion to my 'faith' (i.e. science) in climate warming, then this is a good reason why I stated in the beginning that I didn't want to discuss this. You haven't shown me any science to back up your views--only your beliefs. There is a big difference between the two.
Kevin,
"You asked me for my source of science--now I am asking for yours (and I have asked before). "
You gave a very good evidentiary argument for the proposition that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increasing. If that were the proposition of interest, I would acknowledge how correct you were and retire. That is not the proposition that is being debated.
The assertion of the Obama administration is that CO2 must be regulated either by Congress or by the EPA because it is contributing to global climate change. That is the assertion that is not only unproven, but all efforts to independently verify the data have been rebuffed outright, met with missing data, falsified data, or manipulated data.
"And why are they heating up? More CO2 in the atmosphere."
THAT is the unproven assertion. Show me some verifiable data that supports that conclusion.
The EPA and other regulatory agencies have cause and effect science for lead, carcinogens, poisons, etc. Show me what the unsafe level for atmospheric CO2 is. Show me how it can definitely be linked to warming, cooling, whatever. I trained as an environmental engineer, and I'm telling you the science isn't there. All you have is a bunch of dictator wanna-bee's out to regulate everything they can.
Dictator - (Courtesy of dictionary.com)
1. a person exercising absolute power, esp. a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.
2. (in ancient Rome) a person invested with supreme authority during a crisis, the regular magistracy being subordinated to him until the crisis was met.
3. a person who authoritatively prescribes conduct, usage, etc.: a dictator of fashion.
Considering that all people emit CO2, all fossil fuel plants, most forms of transportation (even if by only increasing human respiration) and a variety of other industries, I would say that an attempt to control emission of the gas quite a dictatorial move. Right now, the Obama administration is definitely qualified by Definition 3, and they are shooting for number 1.
Nowhere in the definition does it state that a dictator is a "bad" person. That's the standard liberal self justifying garbage. You are so self righteous that you are convinced that anything you do is justified when in fact you are just a bunch of petty tyrants. Not content with running industry, you want to prescribe what people can say (stupid hate crimes / hate speech garbage), what they can eat (the food and transfat Nazi's), what kind of car they can drive, who gets to go to what college, and every other aspect of life you can. You are not martyrs for a good cause. You are just someone who feels you know better how to run people's lives than they do and vote for like-minded people.
Kevin,
"About GM and Toyota--did it ever occur to you that Toyota is much more efficient in terms of putting cars together and that is the real reason why they make more?"
And why are they more efficient? Remember - they both sold the nearly the same number of cars. It's not the sales. It's the cost. GM's costs were much more per car. And why is that? Because the unions demanded wage and benefits averaging over $70 per hour while Toyota averages about $40 per hour. American car makers tried to restructure their plants and the unions had a fit. And it isn't just the auto unions. Right now, it takes approximately 8 longshoreman 8 hours to move the same amount of cargo in San Francisco that could be done with one person and an automated unloader. The union killed that to save jobs. What they don't realize is that when they drive up prices by mandating inefficiency that they kill who industries.
"You seem to believe that GM has never made a profit! Is that what you are saying? GM has never made a profit?"
You're going into a liberal tantrum, Kevin. If you look closely, you'll see I wrote no such thing. What I have said in concise form is that union contracts have pushed up labor costs so much in the auto industry that the only way that GM could move their cars at all is by taking a $4000 loss per car on average. Either show me where I am wrong, or stick it in your shop steward.
"The fact that people have lost their houses means that they don't have the money to buy new cars."
Two things on that: Remember for the year I mentioned (2007) GM sold over 9 million cars. Let me try again: It was not that people were not buying. It was that GM's labor costs were so high that they could not sell at a competitive price and still make a profit. Your argument is a diversion ignoring the facts because you cannot refute it on the merits.
Item #2 - If people really want to buy a house, they should go to Detroit. The unions did such a great job of destroying that town that the median house price is now $7000, and if you look you can get one for a thousand. Of course there are no services to speak of and crime is rampant and most of the former union workers are on relief, but the union bosses have moved on and are getting along just fine.
Kevin,
"And you can keep wondering about how fair I am when I teach about religion."
Considering the command of the facts that you display here, I don't think I have to wonder, though I do pity any person of integrity who thinks to challenge you.
"I think that is pretty fair, no?"
Context again. For example, did you happen to teach that forced conversions to Islam are very much a part of modern Muslim cultures, along with honor killings, marrying off girls as young as six to full grown men, wife beating, slave trade, etc? I'm sure you will say no, but unlike you I am actually willing to listen to others, so please say anythi
"You haven't shown me any science to back up your views--only your beliefs. There is a big difference between the two."
Indeed there is: While you've shown no more evidence that CO2 causes global warming than I have that Christ is the Son of the Living God, my faith isn't costing you anything. In fact, adherents to my faith are statistically much more generous than non-theists. And unlike you, we are not dictators. We don't try to use the government to force our beliefs.
I think this went rather well...
You should keep trying, Kevin. You have a reasonable intellect. If you ever got around to addressing the points that I'm actually making instead of what you want to hear (or read, I should say) you might be able to construct a decent argument. Of course, that would require factual support, and that is something that the global warming crowd doesn't have (which is why the keep throwing out buzzwords like "consensus" and "the debate is settled"), but for future discussions.
Post a Comment