A NATION WITHOUT BORDERS IS NOT A NATION

On Thursday night the President defied the Constitution, the Rule of Law, the American people and the Country. This was an historic event, one I never believed could happen in this country. By his own admission, this man took authority the Constitution does not give him. http://insider.foxnews.com/2014/11/19/caught- camera-obama-called-exec-immigration-action-illegal-25-times

The purpose of immigration is to benefit the country, not illegal aliens. We have 93 million Americans who have stopped looking for work. How does legalizing five million (or more) illegal aliens, who can now compete with Americans who are working, benefit America or Americans? How does legalizing millions of mostly poor, uneducated people benefit America? In a struggling economy, why would we legalize more people than jobs created since 2009? We don’t have jobs for legal citizens.

We have a President who put illegal alien lawbreakers above the citizens of this country. He spoke at length about the hardships illegal aliens face but not once did he mention the hardships illegal immigration has imposed on American citizens, especially Black American citizens. He never mentioned the jobs Americans have lost to illegal aliens or the lower wages. Or the burden they impose on law enforcement, on our schools, on our healthcare system, on our culture or, most importantly, on the taxpayers. Illegal immigration costs California taxpayers $25 billion (with a B) a year and has turned a red state blue. Think what we could do with that $25 billion a year for our own children.

Obama pulled out every heart-wrenching, guilt provoking reason he could conjure up to justify his actions. He even quoted the Bible. I love when Liberals use the Bible to back up their socialist agenda. In an attempt to reassure people, he said he would direct more resources to the border. What does that mean? It can mean anything, but what it doesn’t mean is that a double fence will be built. And why would he need to do that when he has told us the same thing as 60,000 children and families crossed it this summer–the border is secure.

Obama keeps saying he had to do this because the House wouldn’t pass the Comprehensive Immigration bill passed by the Senate. Did I miss something? Does the Constitution require the House to pass a bill because the Senate passed it? Or that they must pass a bill the President wants? Aren’t the members of Congress supposed to represent their voters? Isn’t that how a republic works?

Let’s examine why the House wouldn’t pass the bill. They heard from their constituents. You know, “We the People. ” Aren’t they supposed to govern with the consent of the governed? The people don’t want a “Comprehensive Immigration Bill”. We don’t want any huge, two thousand page bills. We want the border secured FIRST. Period. If the President really had the illegal aliens’ best interests in mind, if he was truly driven by compassion for “people who just came here for a better life,” he would have agreed to securing the border long ago. But he won’t agree to securing the border outside of a huge “comprehensive” bill.

The House and the American people want immigration dealt with one piece at a time. We want the border secured FIRST and nothing else until it is. Why is it so “radical” to want to stop this from happening again? If you had been robbed would you leave your door open or lock it? It’s common sense. Have we lost all common sense?

This administration argues, on one hand, the border is more secure than it ever has been (as if that means anything). But, on the other hand, he claims that it isn’t secure because the House won’t pass “Comprehensive Immigration Reform”. Why does that stop us from securing the border? Congress (both houses) passed a border fence bill in 2006 that required 700 miles of double fence. I believe only 36 miles have been built and construction stopped. Why?
Americans were fooled (as was President Reagan) in 1986 into believing the amnesty bill would be “one time and one time only” and would secure the border so that it never happened again. The border was never secured, nor did we have the infrastructure in place to do background checks, teach the new citizens English or any of the other provisions of the bill. The1986 bill brought us three million new citizens but it also brought us 20 million more illegal aliens. We might have been fooled in 1986, but we can’t be fooled again. We have made it clear to our representatives that we want the border secured to OUR satisfaction before having any discussion about what to do with the aliens.

When the talking heads tell us the newly legalized aliens will get background checks, pay back taxes and fines, learn English, etc. ask them how? Ask them how many people have been hired to do it. And ask them how they can verify any of that information. Many have numerous identities. If they have been living here for any length of time, they have false or stolen ID’s. There is an entire cottage industry supplying forged documents. Just go down to McArthur Park in Los Angeles and you can get a drivers license or social security card in fifteen minutes. The talking heads are trying to provide enough arguments to get us to agree to “Comprehensive Immigration Reform”, knowing the only thing that will happen is amnesty. Remember these are the same people who repeated over and over, “If you like your doctor/plan you can keep it. PERIOD, ” and “It was a spontaneous protest over a video,” and “there isn’t a scintilla of evidence the IRS did anything wrong.”

We are in a Constitutional crisis. Professor Jonathan Turley, who supported this President, has warned us that he is doing what our founders tried to protect us from. http://jonathanturley.org/2014/05/21/a-question-of-power-the-imperial- presidency/ We can’t allow this to happen. Do people not understand if this President can take power he doesn’t have, even if you support what he does with it, another President you don’t agree with can do the same. This President has demonstrated he doesn’t care what law says, he doesn’t care what limitations the Constitution places on him, he isn’t interested in working with Congress and he certainly doesn’t care what the people of this country want. Just weeks ago we made our position clear. We voted against his policies. He doesn’t care.

This was a sad and frightening day for America.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | 7 Comments

ANOTHER DAY IN THE SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SANTA MONICA

It was another day in the Soviet Socialist Republic of Santa Monica. Another day for the city to steal money from its citizens and another way to control their lives.

“Drop everything! A Forum on Water and Climate Change” was sponsored and organized by a group called “Climate Action Santa Monica”. As we entered the auditorium, we were handed a booklet authored by National Geographic and NPR. On the cover it said “The scientific evidence is clear: Surface temperatures on Earth are warming at a pace that signals a decisive shift in the global climate, one expected to last for centuries. Human activity is the main cause.” As a bonus, they gave out free low-flow showerheads. The event had not even started, and my head was already exploding.

Before the speakers were introduced, a woman named Katie explained that “Climate Action Santa Monica” was a group formed by the Ocean Park Church. She described the church as “inter-faith, diverse, and dedicated to social justice”. This is the third forum they have organized to educate the citizens on the dangers and consequences of “climate change”.

The host of the forum was an odd bird named Professor William Selby. He teaches Geography and Earth Science at Santa Monica College. He’s a tall, skinny man with a bad haircut, wearing cargo pants, tennis shoes, and a Cliff Huxtable sweater. As a casting director, if I was looking for a “science geek” he would fit the part. His opening statement was that while he rode his bike to the event, he was thinking “what is the popular media talking about? A celebrity’s new hair style?” But he was thinking about important things, like air, water, food. He said “We all know climate is changing.” He said we need to think about where we came from, what our purpose is, and where we are going. He mentioned the climate agreement Obama had just made with China. The audience applauded. They were applauding the complete collapse of the American economy because that is what that agreement would mean. Do they really want that? (http://conservativebyte.com/2014/11/obama-takes-1st-step-handcuffing- successor/)

Professor Selby gave us a weather update. On a large projection of a satellite view of the west coast, he pointed out an “Omega High” system off our coast. He explained how it could cause rain if it didn’t dissipate before it came to land. He got into the weeds of what causes weather, and repeated several times that, really, no one knew. I couldn’t help thinking that if they can’t predict a coastal system would bring rain, how can anyone believe they can predict temperature or climate 30 years from now?

Selby then introduced Robert Lempert, senior scientist at the RAND Corporation, lead author and contributor of the IPCC report on climate change, and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. (Another contributor to the IPCC report who claims HE won the Noble Prize.) Lempert is a member of Santa Monica’s “Task Force on the Environment”. He is very short, bald, and wears glasses. He spoke very enthusiastically, and very authoritatively, about “climate change” effects on the water supply. From the moment he opened his mouth, I felt from the moment he opened his mouth we were being “Grubered” (Jonathan Gruber has become a verb for all mass deception).

Lempert explained that California had built a system of water management designed for more than we needed, but that we are now using more water than we have. There was no discussion of the impact of illegal aliens on our resources, nor the fact that the government has severely limited where we can get water. Or that the current drought they all spoke about is caused more by government intervention than any climate variable. California has always had limited rainfall. We are famous for having a mild and sunny climate. In the spring of 1980, it rained so much, my apartment flooded, but, for the most part, California is a desert, and we have never had much rain. In fact, as Mr. Lempert spoke about how we are “destroying the planet”, he commented that we were in a dark auditorium, instead of outside in the fresh air, on such a beautiful day.

Mr. Lempert explained that they had tested resource management on almost 4,000 different combinations of future climate systems. They had to do that many, because it’s impossible to predict the climate in the future. Hello!! That’s completely contradictory to the IPCC telling us what future temperatures will be! Isn’t the IPCC pride itself predicting future climate? Lempert said the past was no longer a predictor of the future. He talked about how governments were going to have to work together to get citizens to be “more responsible consumers of water”. (Translation: the government will be rationing our resources.)

The next speaker was Debra Man, Assistant General Manager and Chief Operating Officer of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. She is an attractive woman, clearly qualified for her job. She said nothing controversial, but simply told us the history of the water supply, what the water sources are, how water is transported, and how we can conserve what we have. I wondered why there was no discussion of increasing the water supply by desalination. We live next to the largest body of water in the world. All our military ships desalinate water, why don’t we do it for civilian populations as well? Isn’t it government’s job to make sure we have the resources we need not restrict our access to them?

The last speaker was Dean Kubani, the Director of Santa Monica’s Office of Sustainability and the Environment. (Translation: Agenda 21.) He spoke about Santa Monica setting an example for other cities. He explained that Santa Monica has used mostly its own ground water in the past, but had to resort to buying water when contamination from underground oil storage was discovered. Since then, the city has built a reverse osmosis plant (isn’t that how water is desalinated?) and is back to using mostly its own ground water. He projects that they will be 100% self-sufficient in the next few years. But even with those rosy projections, the Santa Monica City Council has imposed a mandatory 20% reduction of water use on every family in Santa Monica! They want people to get rid of their lawns, and replace them with “California friendly” plants. They want people to replace their toilets and washing machines. Residents are being given a water allotment, and, if they use more, they have to pay penalties. The Santa Monica City Council must stay up nights, thinking of new ways to take more of your money!

Mr. Kubani bragged that Santa Monica has reduced its carbon emissions by 14% already, and is aiming for 80% by 2030. This received thunderous applause. I wondered if they would mandate their citizens to exhale on odd or even days. Kubani explained that multi-family buildings were being “required” (forced) to replace shower heads, toilets, and washing machines. I’m familiar with their lovely new washing machines. They stink, and you constantly have to clean out disgusting, slimy gunk from under the rubber seal. Kubani also talked about replacing “turf” with “California-friendly” plants, and shutting off fountains.

The Santa Monica City Council has trying to reduce parking by 75% for several years (and I’m sure they won’t stop trying). This would allow grocery stores ten spaces, and apartments would get half a space per unit. They are building new apartments that have no parking spaces at all! If they get their way, everyone will ride a bike, like Professor Selby.

I’m all for recycling and using brackish water for toilets and plants. I have no problem with sensible conservation methods, but I am very much opposed to governments creating a crisis they use to regulate more of our lives.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

WHAT TO DO ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

Although there is more ice at the poles than in decades, no warming in more than eighteen years, none of the climate model predictions have come true, and polar bears are thriving, let’s pretend, for the sake of argument, that man is causing “global warming” aka “Climate Change”.

What can we do about it?

According to Al Gore, the President, and the Secretary of State, “global warming” is such a crisis that we must act immediately, or life as we know it will end. They are right about that. If we do what they suggest, life, as we know it, will most certainly end. We will have no cars, we’ll be cramped into tiny city apartments, and there will be less than one billion of us on the entire planet. But I digress.

If, in fact, man is causing “global warming”, it isn’t just an American crisis, it’s a world crisis. And wouldn’t a world crisis require a Global Governance to solve it? Wouldn’t it require all the countries to abide by the same laws and restrictions? America is not the problem. We have the largest number of environmental regulations, and we have the cleanest air and water in the world. There may be areas of the country that aren’t as clean as we’d like, but, overall, we are a clean country, as are the rest of the Western nations. Wealthy countries can afford to keep their environment clean. Just compare them to poor countries. The wealthier the nation, the cleaner.

A parent recently reported that their child was being taught in school that by the age of two an American child has a carbon footprint larger than a Tanzanian adult has their entire life. I don’t doubt that is true, but let’s examine why. An American child is most likely born in a hospital, and taken home in a car, to a house with running water, electricity, heat, air conditioning, and a comfy bed. A Tanzanian is most likely born with the help of a midwife, and lives in a mud hut that is heated by burning dung. A Tanzanian’s life expectancy is 48 years. What does that suggest? That we should live like Tanzanians? How much are you willing to do without?

If, in fact, man is causing “global warming”, then shouldn’t our President and Secretary of State be talking about shutting down China and India’s coal plants, rather than American coal plants? According to http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/nov/20/coal-plants-world-resources- institute

China is building about one coal plant every ten days, and India nearly as many. China has a coal mine and plant that is larger than all of Los Angeles! (http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/theres-a-coal-base-in-china-the-size-of-la)

As we shut down coal plants that provide 44% of our energy, putting thousands out of work, and bankrupting entire towns, 35 other countries are building coal plants faster than we shut ours down. If “global warming” were the crisis our President tells us it is, shouldn’t his priority be to stop these 35 countries from building more coal plants? Shouldn’t his priority be to advance clean coal plants? Coal is a seemingly inexhaustible source of cheap energy, and much more reliable than expensive, unreliable alternative fuels.
The President gave a speech in which he admonished America for using 25% of the world’s energy resources. As though that’s an evil thing! His implication was that our use of energy somehow magically prevents other nations from using their own energy resources.

Why does America use “so much” energy? Well, not only do we live in houses with running water and electricity, we also manufacture things. We invent things. We explore space (or used to, anyway). All that takes energy. Would you prefer we don’t do any of those things? Would you prefer we still lived in the horse-and-buggy and candlelight age? Would you prefer not having a computer in your pocket? Would you prefer not having indoor plumbing?

It is the nature of man to explore, to invent, to question, to push himself beyond his limits. If we were to listen to the President, we would have to completely deny all our natural instincts. We would have to regress, de-industrialize, and do without. How much are you willing to do without? Will you give up your car? Do you want to bring your holiday groceries home on a bus? Could you do half the things you do on a daily basis if you had no car? What about your private property? Would you prefer to live in a house with a yard, or a tiny apartment? Have you noticed nearly every new building is a multi-use building with commercial first floor and apartments above?

If “global warming” were the crisis our government insists it is, the only solution would be Global Governance, where all the countries shut down all fossil fuel energy plants immediately. But it’s only Western countries that are shutting things down. We are being de-industrialized through taxes and regulations. Our government is driving our industries away, to countries whose regulations and taxes are not so punitive, where they can compete on a level playing field. The life’s blood of Western nations is cheap, abundant energy. Restricting its production restricts our economy. Australia has realized this and reversed its position on “global warming” policies. Someone whined to me about the “thuggish” new Prime Minister of Australia repealing Cap-and-Trade. As if the Australian people didn’t elect him to do exactly that! It was the will of the people that repealed that law, not a “thuggish” Prime Minister!

We all need to understand what took place at the last Climate Summit. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) said its goal is to reduce CO2 by 100% in the next 35 years. ONE HUNDRED percent? Seriously? Are you prepared to hold your breath forever? CO2 is what living things exhale. Reducing it by 100% would certainly eliminate all fossil fuels, but it would also eliminate all plants, animals, and humans. 100%, that’s what they want us to agree to. How can they accomplish that without Global Governance? How is it even possible with 35 countries building new coal plants.

Lets be clear, we all want clean air and water. We all want a clean environment. But CO2 is about 0.03% of “greenhouse” gases, and man only contributes about 2% of that. That is so insignificant as to be negligible. Hence, even if man is contributing to “global warming”, it’s something we could adapt to. But what we are being asked to do is completely turn our economy and way of life upside down. It’s like going after a fly with a shotgun!

Of course we all want a clean environment. But it’s only the Western countries that are restricting their use of energy. I would ask all my “Progressive” friends, what are they willing to do without? Isn’t Global Governance the only way to get other countries to comply? Is that what they are after??

Here is a link that shows how temperature records have been changed to support the “global warming” theory. It includes news articles from the warmest times that back up the true temperatures: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/05/13/hansen-the-climate-chiropractor/

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

TEACHING ISLAM

A few days ago, I read an article on Breitbart.com about a family in Manhattan Beach, California, who are taking their son out of middle school because the school is teaching Islam. According to the article, the school wasn’t teaching the history of islam, it was teaching its tenets. (Link to article: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-California/2014/10/31/Parents-Pull-Son- From-Class-Because-School-Is-Teaching-Islam)

I don’t like to make a judgment until I hear from the source, so I decided to go to their school board meeting to find out exactly what their position was. I expected there to be a lot of interest in this, possibly, even, a standing-room-only crowd, and was very surprised that was not the case. There were only about 30 people at the meeting.

I read the agenda, which said if you wanted to speak, you just needed to go to the microphone. Apparently, that’s not quite how it’s done in reality. You have to sign up to speak, and, not knowing that, I wasn’t able to speak. However, several others spoke quite eloquently, and said most of what I had intended to say.

I looked at the members of the school board as they took their seats. They looked like average Americans. They were pleasant people of varying ages, warmly greeting each other, not at all radical-looking.
The meeting started with the Pledge of Allegiance, followed by what the choir director called a “multi-cultural choir” singing the national anthem. I found it particularly odd that he called it a “multi-cultural” choir. I wonder why it’s necessary to point that out. I’m sure we are capable of recognizing the different races in the group. Besides, aren’t we all Americans, no matter where we come from? They were a choir from one of the district schools, and, normally, they would be introduced as such. I wondered if the “multi-cultural” thing was a district policy, or something the choir director chose to do.

The meeting began on a pleasant note. A science teacher from the middle school, Maggie Mabery, had been chosen as one of California’s five “Teacher of the Year” candidates. She will go to Washington DC to be considered for the top “Teacher of the Year” award. Various people spoke about her, and why she had been chosen. She was given an orchid lei and a bouquet of flowers. She spoke about how honored and excited she was to be considered. It was not hard to see why she’d be a favorite teacher. She was very bubbly and enthusiastic. I wondered if, as a science teacher, she was teaching anthropogenic global warming. There was a break in the proceedings, so everyone could have coffee and cake in honor of Mrs. Mabery.

When the meeting was called back to order, a young woman, Allison Arvin, spoke about the activities and events at the elementary schools and the high school. She was followed by another young woman, Rebecca Rawson, who spoke about the activities and events happening at the middle school. This was followed by the public comments section.

First to speak was a gentleman named Gary, who said he came to voice his concern about Islam being taught to the students in the middle school. He read the article that appeared on Breitbart.com, and told them he believed them to be reasonable
people, and wanted them to explain their position on this. One of the members said he would answer Gary’s question through an email. I was puzzled why they couldn’t answer his question immediately. Surely, they knew about the KTLA interview with the father of the boy taken out of their middle school, and the article in Breitbart. They must have expected some questions about it.

After Gary spoke, the member of the board who said he would reply via email spoke to Gary privately. Next, a husband and wife voiced their objection to Islam being taught at all. They pointed out that Sharia law is part of Islam, and urged the board to read the Qur’an. They said the Qur’an says unbelievers must convert or die. They brought materials they passed out to the board members. I watched the board’s reaction to what they were saying. Some were less than attentive, but a few looked interested. Gary left the meeting after the couple spoke. I followed him out, and gave him my card. I asked if he would forward me the email from the board member, and wondered what the board member had said to him privately. Gary said the board member told him the lessons on Islam were part of a comparative religion course. I have a feeling that will be the board’s official position. Of the approximately thirty people inattendance, about ten were there to object to the teaching of Islam. Many of them were from ACT.

My concern is that teaching Islam as a “comparative religion” implies it is
 the morally equivalent to other religions. They aren’t teaching Islam in context. Islam isn’t just a religion, it is a political philosophy, and a set of laws. Sharia is the law of Islam, and it can’t be separated from the religious part. The definition of an Islamic state (Arabic: الدولةالسلمية al-dawlah al-islamīyah) is a government which is based in Islamic religious law (Sharia).

Islam is the only religion that says non-believers must convert or die. This is not a misinterpretation of Islamic scripture, it is what the Qur’an says. There is no “New Testament” to the Qur’an, where Mohamed returns, and tells his followers to love their neighbors. Qur’an 9:123 says “Murder those of the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you.” Qur’an 2:191 says “Kill them wherever you find them and drive them out from wherever they drove you out.” Qur’an 2:193 says “Fight them on until there is no more tumult and religion becomes that of Allah.”

What also concerns me is that the people serving on the school board aren’t ignorant. They know Islam is behind every terrorist act in the United States in the last 20 years. I would expect at least a few of them to be concerned about teaching Islam as the moral equivalent of other religions, not including Sharia law, or explaining that it is a theocracy. Actually, I would expect ALL of them to be concerned.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | 2 Comments

DARWIN’S INFLUENCE

There are times in our lives when we have moments of clarity about something we didn’t previously understand. Last night, I had one of those moments.
American Freedom Alliance’s Avi Davis presented another informative and insightful Literary Café event, “Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany”. The book discussed was “From Darwin to Hitler” by Richard Weikart.

The evening started with a short film by John West: “The Biology of the Second Reich (the Social Darwinist Origins of the First World War)”. This was followed by a Skype chat with Mr. West himself. His film is based on Richard Weikart’s book, which is about the influence Darwin’s Theory of Evolution had on Germany’s leaders and society. Before World War I, Germany had a very sophisticated society. Its educational system was second to none, and its scholarly and scientific output was admired worldwide. The intelligentsia, in their arrogance, fell prey to Darwin’s theory.

Darwinism undermines the Judeo-Christian ethic and the sanctity of life. I have never understood how an intelligent, sophisticated society could go from being so civilized, to exterminating entire races of people. I wondered why there was little to no outcry from the general population. But, if you believe man is the result of “natural selection”, and life is about “survival of the fittest”, then it isn’t such a leap to accept that extermination of an inferior race is a necessary part of the evolutionary process ~ no matter how distasteful such a necessary part might be.

Germans believed they were a superior race. Many saw war as a biological, even moral, necessity in the progression toward natural selection. Evolutionary ethics promoted eugenics as a way of keeping the race superior. The only way to do that was to eliminate “inferior” people. The conflict was who would decide which people were inferior.

Darwinism spawned many movements that denied the sanctity of life. I think that’s what I had not previously realized, that Darwinism had influenced so many biologists, philosophers, and scholars during late 1800’s and early 1900’s. People like Margaret Sanger, who founded Planned Parenthood to eliminate the black race. And Peter Singer, who believed humans are not superior to animals. He coined the term “speciesism”, which is the “prejudice” of human superiority to animals.

Darwinists believed morality was not fixed, that it “evolved” as times changed. They believed anything that improved the superior race was moral, and anything that degraded the superior race was immoral. Therefore it was moral to eliminate inferior, weaker people.

Professor Weikart’s book examines Darwinism’s influence on Hitler and German scholars. He explores moral relativism, evolutionary ethics, devaluing the sanctity of life, de-humanizing the disabled, and eugenics. He doesn’t suggest that Darwinism caused Nazism, only that it was an influence. Hitler embraced evolution’s survival of the fittest and claimed it was a moral imperative. In “MeinKampf”, he says “preservation of culture is tied to the iron law of necessity and the right of victory of the best and strongest … Whoever wants to live, must struggle, and whoever will not fight in this world of eternal struggle, does not deserve to live. Even if this is harsh, it is simply the way it is”. Hitler considered the Jews dishonest, greedy, and immoral, and, therefore, inferior. Eliminating them was moral, according to evolutionary principles.

Richard Weikart’s book is well researched and extensively footnoted. Dr. Weikart is a professor of history at Cal State, Stanislaus.
I had never realized the depth of influence Darwin had on scholars of that era, and I wonder how much he prejudiced their studies. Were they able to be objective, or did they look for how evolution fit their worldview? I can see how Darwinism was so readily embraced by the authors and founders of every political movement responsible for the moral decline of recent history.
Fabian Socialist George Bernard Shaw believed that people should have to justify their existence, or not be allowed to live. I can’t help but compare that to what is happening today.

Our schools are teaching evolution as fact, although it is still only a theory. If schools insist on teaching it as fact, they should, then, accept its “natural selection” and “survival of the fittest” precepts. They should reject the sanctity of life. According to evolution, if a life can’t survive on its own, it shouldn’t. Superior races should reproduce, and inferior ones should be allowed to die out. That would require us to stop vaccinating people, stop using life-saving methods, stop transplanting organs, and stop supporting the poor. Wouldn’t that be the natural evolution of Darwin’s theory?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

TOWNHALL 2014

My honorary daughter, Sue, gave me front-row center tickets to this year’s Townhall for my birthday. The speakers were Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, Ben Shapiro, Hugh Hewitt, and Katie Pavlich. We met them all at the VIP party before the event… And had pictures taken with our favorites!

Elisha Krauss and Brian Whitman, who are on the Morning Answer with Ben Shapiro, were the moderators. As an aside, I can never understand how Brian Whitman could listen to all the rational, reasonable arguments Ben, Elisha, and all the panelists at Townhall made, and still be a lefty. I was pleasantly surprised that the theme of the discussion seemed to be that we aren’t having a war between Republican and Democrat parties. Rather, we are having a cultural war, which is, as Ben Shapiro pointed out, a war between good and evil.

Most of the panel agreed that gay marriage is not a fight for “gay rights”. The left understands that they can use the “gay rights” issue to undermine our religious liberty. Years ago, several conservative pundits warned that churches would be forced to perform gay marriages, and the leftists mocked and ridiculed them, saying that would never happen. But now it is happening. Just this week, two ministers are facing prison if they don’t perform a gay marriage. Ben Shapiro warned against being relieved that the Hobby Lobby case was won; he said the left will come after it again. Katie Pavlich pointed out that the left thought Roe vs. Wade would end the abortion discussion, but in the decades since that decision, people have become more pro-life, not less. Katie suggested that even though it may appear that the gay marriage issue has been won by the left, as the consequences of their agenda set in, the repercussions will be similar to Roe vs. Wade.

Dennis Prager gave another insight into gay marriage. He said, no matter what position you take on the issue, what should concern us all is that it hasn’t been decided by the people (every time states have voted on traditional marriage, it has won by large majorities), it has been decided by leftist activist courts. That is not what our Constitution intends. This is a representative government that is supposed to reflect the Will of the People. The courts have said, the Will of the People doesn’t matter, and the Supreme Court lets that stand. Dennis asked the younger members of the panel what percentage of their families, friends, and co-workers agreed with them on gay marriage. It ranged from 20% to 40%.

Michael Medved said something that didn’t sit well with the audience. In a slightly mocking tone, he said he very much disagrees with people who call him to say Obama is trying to destroy the country. He said Obama is nothing more than a leftist politician who believes his utopian ideas are good for America. Katie Pavlich took issue with him (to wild applause!) She pointed out that Obama explicitly promised to “fundamentally transform America”, and that he believes America should be no better or richer than any other country. Michael Medved then followed up with another unpopular position. He said if the Republicans take the Senate in November, one of the first things they should do is put an immigration bill on Obama’s desk. He and Hugh Hewitt believe the illegals should be given “legal status” (which is, somehow, not citizenship). How either of them can believe, for one second, that the border would be secured once illegals had legal status is a mystery to me! Michael is an historian, he knows the 1986 Immigration bill promised to secure the border and enforce employment laws, but nothing but amnesty was enforced. Why, on earth, would highly intelligent men like Michael and Hugh believe that the same thing wouldn’t happen this time? For some reason, they also believe the “legal status” would hold. In reality, five minutes after illegals were awarded legal status, the leftists would rise up and start screaming “civil rights” about the millions of people living in this country without the right to vote. I’m mystified at how any conservative can support rewarding law breaking (everyone knows that anything you reward, you get more of!) and actually believe the border would ever be secured under that scenario.

The panel was asked about the 2016 election, and who they thought could beat Hillary Clinton. Ben Shapiro said “any Republican with a bucket of water”. All the members of the panel thought we had many who would be able to beat Hillary. Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, Mike Pence, Ted Cruz (the GOP establishment hates him, but he is a man of the people, and wins all the straw polls), Ben Carson (this got big applause), Susanna Martinez, Paul Ryan, and a few others. Someone said Mitt Romney. The candidates they thought couldn’t win were Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and Rand Paul. Michael Medved said he believed Mitt Romney would be the candidate. They asked everyone in support of Mitt Romney to stand up, and, surprisingly, about half the audience got to its feet.
 Katie was taken back by that response, as was I.

The panel also discussed what the Republican party needed to do to win in 2016. All agreed that the GOP is abysmal at messaging. We ALL know that, so why doesn’t the RNC hire some competent PR people??? Dennis said if Hillary is the candidate, she will run on the “war on women”, and we need to ask, what war on women? To believe there is a war on women, you’d have to believe that men treat them badly all the time. What an insult to men who adore the women in their lives! What an insult to all the successful women who actually make more money than the average man! What an insult to women who own businesses. Are all women incapable of taking care of themselves without government intervention? Katie pointed out the left’s obvious disrespect for women in “The Life of Julia” video. After all, they didn’t follow that up with “The Life of John”.

We live in dangerous times. Now is not the time to stay home and not vote. We can’t afford for Obama to appoint another Supreme Court Justice. If he does that, it won’t matter who is in the White House. VOTE EARLY and VOTE OFTEN! Just kidding ~ only the left does that.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 1 Comment

OUR MAN, MICHAEL MANN

Last night I went to the Hammer Museum to hear Michael Mann of the IPCC and Brenda Ekwurzel of the Union of Concerned Scientists speak about global warming. I call Michael Mann and his colleague Phil Jones the Godfathers of global warming. Their computer models are the basis of the global warming claims. Michael Mann is the author of the “hockey stick” theory, which has been disproven by McIntyre and McKitrick , http://climateaudit.org/multiproxy-pdfs/ but Mr. Mann soldiers on.

I arrived early and was given a seat in the front row. Some ushers came around and passed out index cards to write questions for Q&A. I was disappointed as I intended to ask Mr. Mann why he fraudulently claimed he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. We were also told there were no pictures of video’s allowed to be taken.

The theater filled, interestingly, with an abundance of what I’d call hippies……a lot of Birkenstocks, beards, long hair, leather vests over t-shirts. A tall, wild haired man in tennis shoes, shorts and baseball t-shirt sat in the seat next to me. He greeted me warmly, holding out his hand for me to shake and said his name was Mark….and asked my name. I told him my name as he slouched down in the seat, folding his hands on his chest and stretching his feet out in front of him. He asked what brought me there. I told him I came to hear Michael Mann. He asked what my interest in him was. I told him I would probably disagree with everything he had to say. With that he sat straight up and turned his back to me to talk to the people on the other side of him. When the program started he got out a clip board to take notes. It had sign up sheets on it that said, “Citizens Climate Lobby”.

The moderator, Ian Masters, gave a rather long speech saying there was no doubt that there was global warming (he didn’t use “climate change”) and that man was causing it with his use of fossil fuels. He spoke about the insanity of the deniers. He said how Australia had been the pioneer nation that had embraced the reduction of CO2 but recently a “thuggish” PM Tony Abbott reverse their Cap and Trade laws. I had to put my hands on either side of my face to keep my head from exploding.

Michael Mann is a pudgy, bald man in a rumpled suit, but his vanity is revealed by the fact his shoes had two inch heals and lifts. His power point presentation began with these words, “the science is straightforward”. He said last year CO2 passed the 400 parts per million (to which I wanted to shout out, “the more CO2 the greener the planet”), he said we are warming and will continue warming. He said we have warmed a little less than one degree Celsius but if we don’t change course we will warm 4 or 5 degrees Celsius in the near future. He said the ocean was warming, the poles were melting and the sea levels were rising:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/29/antarctica-sets-new-record-for-sea-ice-area/

A picture of a polar bear appeared on the screen and he said they picked the polar bear to be the poster child of global warming to garner sympathy, but that the melting poles would eliminate their habitat. He showed a picture of flooding in Florida. He said their seasonal high tides have caused flooding in the past but the rising seas will cause it to be a permanent problem. To his credit he said hurricane Sandy was not caused by global warming, but that it was made worse by it. Someone needs to tell George Clooney that because George said he couldn’t understand after Sandy how anyone could deny global warming.

Michael Mann showed graphs and charts we’ve all seen before. He said he was thrust into the center of this debate because of his hockey stick chart. He said dozens of studies have supported his theory (neglecting to mention the empirical data has proven him wrong). He showed a picture of one Republican Congressman who agreed with him.

The next slide said, “Why No Action”. The first slide after, “Why No Action” was a picture of Senator James Inhofe. Mr. Mann thinks the Senator is standing in the way of green energy and the solutions to this global problem. This is the portion I thought was revealing. Mr. Mann said there has been no action because BIG oil, the Republican party (lead by Senator Inhofe) and the evil Koch brothers have poured lots of money in opposing the solutions (translation: don’t vote Republican). He must have mentioned the Koch brothers five or six times during his talk.

Next to speak was Brenda Ekwurzel, Ph.D. with the Union of Concerned Scientists, whose stated purpose is education aimed at increasing support for strong climate legislation (again, don’t vote Republican). She started by saying there has been an unprecedented increase in CO2 not seen in 800,000 years. Really? http://www.biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_Geological_Timescale.html

She spoke of being at the artic in 2011 and there was open water for miles due to the melting poles. She said the ice at the poles has decreased 52%. She spoke of how forest fires are worse because the warming is causing them to dry out (she fails to mention the Federal government not allowing forests to be logged, maintained or cleaned out). She showed pictures of dead crops in the San Joaquin valley as a sign of draught being caused by global warming (again failing to mention the Federal government turning off the water to the valley: http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204731804574384731898375624

It’s this sort of misrepresentation that makes their argument so obviously fraudulent.

Ian Masters then took over the Q&A portion of the program. He started by saying “scientists don’t make things up”. Michael Mann elaborated by saying he couldn’t make things up because other scientists would challenge him (he forgot to mention the emails between him and Phil Jones discussing how they intimidated Scientific Journals not to publish negative peer reviews, by threatening not to allow them to publish their work…..and they were the Godfathers after all). Noted here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-men-bahaving-badly-a-short-summary-for-laymen/

“We hold each other accountable”, was his answer. But then he calls those who hold him accountable, “deniers”. He said deniers say he is paid by the government to support their policies. He said yes, they get government grants but that money doesn’t go into their pockets, it’s for their research.
These are some of the scientists holding him accountable: http://www.petitionproject.org
And some of his own colleagues: 650 current and former IPCC scientists speak out against global warming to Senate Committee:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072E-802A-23AD-45F0-274616DB87E6

Even though I couldn’t ask my question out loud, I did write it on an index card and passed it to the usher. I had put a star on the back of the card so I could tell when Mr. Masters read my card. He made a face as if he ate something sour and put my card on the table. Someone asked why we didn’t just have all cars run on batteries. The reply was “limited funding”. Another question was why we didn’t burn CO2 as fuel. Ms. Ekwurzel said it was too expensive to capture once in the atmosphere. She said CO2 would remain in the atmosphere for centuries. Neither of the speakers mentioned the effect of cloud cover and movement or the Sun on climate.

Someone had pointed out the empirical evidence showed 18 years of no warming and asked how they explained that. Ms. Ekwurzel said some of the techniques they used to collect the data were flawed and when corrected show that wasn’t true. Mr. Mann said many environmentalists think nuclear is a good alternative to fossil fuels but, although he admitted nuclear energy was not his area of expertise, he didn’t think it was a viable choice.

Several people asked about a revenue neutral carbon tax. One asked, “How can Capitalism be destroyed to save the environment”. About ten people applauded enthusiastically. To her credit, Ms. Ekwurzel didn’t think that was necessary but some combination of free markets and regulations was the solution. But she emphasized how critical the situation was. She said we are seeing the artic sheets disappearing even faster than we believed.

Mr. Mann again slammed the Republicans. He said the House Science Committee denies global warming. He said we don’t presently have a carbon tax because the evil Exxon Oil Company was funding disinformation. He said Grover Norquist even supported a carbon tax for a minute until “the brothers from Kansas” got to him.

After the program Mr. Mann signed his book in the lobby. I stood in line with his book. When I reached him I didn’t hand him the book to sign. I opened it and pointed to where it states he won the Nobel Peace Prize and asked him why he made that fraudulent claim. He looked as if I had hit him. A woman standing near said I was rude. I put the book back on the table and left.

I thought the most important and revealing statement made by Mr. Mann was the closing statement he made in response to what “people” could do. He said because this threat has been so politicized the citizens around the world needed to band together “under one flag” to solve the problem globally.

Wall Street Journal on global warming: http://on.wsj.com/wKtz8Y

Forbes on Climategate: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/03/15/who-released-the-climategate-emails-and-why/

Climategate Begins http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970204452104577059830626002226

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment