“They work at the five yard line from either the left or the right and they do see the other end of the field as evil, as awful. Not just disagreeable but evil. And they use that language, when they talk about the other side, isn’t that part of the problem?” ~ Chris Matthews ~ NewsBusters
BLANKLEY: Well, if the last 240 years is any indication. But let me make a point here. Because in fact, it is on all sides. You talked about Sarah Palin’s gun site stuff. I’ve seen a democratic national committee posting, where in 2004, they had gun sites. They had it called “behind enemy lines,” the same phrase that you were quoting in the previous segment. I quoted Pelosi, calling people who’ve opposed Obama-care Nazis, et cetera.
[….]
BLANKLEY: The fact is that Speaker Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Senator Reid, all used the words “Nazis,” “dissenters,” “un-Americans” to describe their opponents. This is part of the American politics. We all know that this is an ugly.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHULTZ: Harry Reid’s used the term Nazi?
PRESS: Again, show me when.
BLANKLEY: No Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid used to call people who were opposed to him, evil. That’s the word. And I have it from a column that I wrote late last year. This is a reality. We all know that this is an ugly part of American politics and it always has been. I hope it changes — I hope it changes but I don’t think that it’s going to.
Article 33 of the Geneva Convention is the prohibit of pillage.
All military invasions with armed forces into a foreign country are war crimes in the Geneva Convention articles of 1949.
The Iraq and Afghanistan war of 2010 is a military invasion with armed forces into a foreign country.
Therefore, Iraq and Afghanistan war of 2010 is a war crime from the Geneva Convention articles of 1949.
Ouch! For the thoughts of war.
Lindgren also discovered Loughner rejected free market economic principles. Loughner posted support for:
“the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care.”
On July 7, 2010, Loughner posted his assertion that the war(s) in Iraq and Afghanistan “is a war crime from the Geneva Convention articles of 1949”:
There was help with cleaning the uranium from the Iran and Iraq war in the 1980’s?
Article 33 of the Geneva Convention is the prohibit of pillage.
All military invasions with armed forces into a foreign country are war crimes in the Geneva Convention articles of 1949.
The Iraq and Afghanistan war of 2010 is a military invasion with armed forces into a foreign country.
Therefore, Iraq and Afghanistan war of 2010 is a war crime from the Geneva Convention articles of 1949.
Ouch! For the thoughts of war.
In a thread on unemployment, Loughner quotes with seeming approval, portions of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserting “the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity” and “the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care.”
And then there are his frequent attacks on religion and Christianity, e.g.:
Crap on God!
Crap on God!
Crap on God!
Indeed, Loughner was so inspired by the (“overwhelmingly” right-wing) “climate of hate” that he didn’t vote in 2010, and is a registered independent.
Andrew Marcus over at BigGovernment has some excellent ideas for investigations in toning down rhetoric that Democrats are calling for:
….we think that Progressive Democrats are 100% correct when they call for action against factors leading to our toxic political climate…
…We are therefore openly calling for public hearings to look into the actions of political agitators in this nation.
Democrats have made it clear that they want to investigate and restrict Fox News, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Andrew Breitbart, and others to be sure. In fact, there are so many conservatives to investigate, we need to come up with a strategy to tackle the work.
We propose that any investigation begin with events that led to criminal behavior, like say the WTO riots in Seattle. Or the RNC riots in St. Paul. Or the angry mob protests that have taken place at the home of Bank of America executives. Or the Kenneth Gladney beating. That should provide a good start.
When would the Progressive Democrats like to schedule these hearings?
We even have a handy list of 5 easy steps the Government can take right away, steps which will have an immediate effect on the toxicity of our body politic:
Representative Lynn Woolsey (Democrat 6th District – CA) spoke on the floor about the Afghan war. Prager talks about the vacuous nature of any moral compass on the left.
For more clear thinking like this from Dennis Prager… I invite you to join Pragertopia: dennisprager.com/
In classical Athens, public life became dominated by clever and smart-sounding sophists. These mellifluous “really wise guys” made money and gained influence by their rhetorical boasts to “prove” the most amazing “thinkery” that belied common sense.
We are living in a new age of sophism — but without a modern equivalent of Socrates to remind the public just how silly our highly credentialed and privileged new rhetoricians can often sound.
Take California, which is struggling with a near-record wet and snowy winter. Flooding spreads in the lowlands; snow piles up in the Sierras.
In February 2009, Nobel Laureate and Energy Secretary Steven Chu pontificated without evidence that California farms would dry up and blow away, inasmuch as 90 percent of the annual Sierra snowpack would disappear. Yet long-term studies of the central Sierra snowpack show average snow levels unchanged over the last 90 years. Many California farms are drying up — but from government’s, not nature’s, irrigation cutoffs.
England is freezing and snowy. But that’s odd, since global warming experts assured that the end of English snow was on the horizon. Australia is now flooding — despite predictions that its impending new droughts meant it could not sustain its present population. The New York Times just published an op-ed assuring the public that the current record cold and snow are proof of global warming. In theory, they could be, but one wonders: what, then, would record winter heat and drought prove?
In response to these unexpected symptoms of blizzards and deluges, climate physicians offer changing diagnoses. “Global change” has superseded “global warming.” After these radically cold winters, the next replacement appears to be “climate chaos.” Yet if next December is neither too hot nor too cold, expect to hear about the doldrum dangers of “climate calm.”
In 2009, brilliant economists in the Obama administration — Peter Orszag, Larry Summers and Christina Romer — assured us that record trillion-plus budget defects were critical to prevent stalled growth and 10 percent unemployment. For nearly two years we have experienced both, but now with an addition $3 trillion in national debt. All three have quietly either returned to academia or Wall Street.
There is also a new generation of young, sophistic bloggers who offer their wisdom from the New York-Washington corridor. They are usually graduates of America’s elite colleges and navigate in an upscale urban landscape. One, the Washington Post’s 26-year-old Ezra Klein, recently scoffed to his readers that a bothersome U.S. Constitution was “100 years old” and had “no binding power on anything.”
On his MSNBC show this evening, Schultz asserted that corporations donate 1000 times more money to political campaigns than unions do. Or as Ed said, in his inimitably muddled manner,: “unions contribute 1/10th of 1% of their money that corporations put into campaigns. Now think about that: 1/10th of 1%. You got the corporate money over here you’ve got the organized labor money over here.”
How off is Ed? The National Review’s Rich Lowry has documented that in the last election cycle, three unions alone kicked in $170 million to Dem coffers. So corporations would have had to contribute . . . $170 BILLION to match Ed’s alleged 1000:1 pace just for those contributions, ignoring the donations that all other unions made!
“During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age.”
For at least 114 years, climate “scientists” have been claiming that the climate was going to kill us…but they have kept switching whether it was a coming ice age, or global warming.
1902 – “Disappearing Glaciers…deteriorating slowly, with a persistency that means their final annihilation…scientific fact…surely disappearing.” – Los Angeles Times
1923 – “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada” – Professor Gregory of Yale University, American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress, – Chicago Tribune
1923 – “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age” – Washington Post
1933 – “…wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather…Is our climate changing?” – Federal Weather Bureau “Monthly Weather Review.”
1938 – Global warming, caused by man heating the planet with carbon dioxide, “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.”– Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
1938 – “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise…Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities thuout the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades” – Chicago Tribune
1939 – “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer” – Washington Post
1954 – “…winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing” – U.S. News and World Report
1954 – Climate – the Heat May Be Off – Fortune Magazine
1959 – “Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures” – New York Times
1969 – “…the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two” – New York Times, February 20th, 1969
1969 – “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000″ — Paul Ehrlich (while he now predicts doom from global warming, this quote only gets honorable mention, as he was talking about his crazy fear of overpopulation)
1970 – “…get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come…there’s no relief in sight” – Washington Post
1974 – Global cooling for the past forty years – Time Magazine
1974 – “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age” – Washington Post
1974 – “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed” – Fortune magazine, who won a Science Writing Award from the American Institute of Physics for its analysis of the danger
1974 – “…the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure…mass deaths by starvation, and probably anarchy and violence” – New York Times
1975 – Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable – New York Times, May 21st, 1975
1975 – “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind” Nigel Calder, editor, New Scientist magazine, in an article in International Wildlife Magazine
1976 – “Even U.S. farms may be hit by cooling trend” – U.S. News and World Report
1981 – Global Warming – “of an almost unprecedented magnitude” – New York Times
1988 – I would like to draw three main conclusions. Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements. Number two, the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect. And number three, our computer climate simulations indicate that thegreenhouse effect is already large enough to begin to effect the probability of extreme events such as summer heat waves. – Jim Hansen, June 1988 testimony before Congress, see His later quote and His superior’s objection for context
1989 -”On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” – Stephen Schneider, lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Discover magazine, October 1989
1990 – “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing – in terms of economic policy and environmental policy” – Senator Timothy Wirth
1993 – “Global climate change may alter temperature and rainfall patterns, many scientists fear, with uncertain consequences for agriculture.” – U.S. News and World Report
1998 – No matter if the science [of global warming] is all phony . . . climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” —Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment, Calgary Herald, 1998
2001 – “Scientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible.” – Time Magazine, Monday, Apr. 09, 2001
2003 – Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as “synfuels,” shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration” – Jim Hansen, NASA Global Warming activist, Can we defuse The Global Warming Time Bomb?, 2003
2006 – “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” — Al Gore, Grist magazine, May 2006
Now: The global mean temperature has fallen for four years in a row, which is why you stopped hearing details about the actual global temperature, even while they carry on about taxing you to deal with it…how long before they start predicting an ice age?
California regulators Thursday are expected to adopt the nation’s most comprehensive carbon trading regime, creating a market-based way to lower greenhouse gas emissions at a time when similar efforts have stalled in Congress.
The program is the centerpiece of the state’s 2006 global warming law, which aims to slash carbon dioxide and other planet-heating pollution to 1990 levels by 2020. That would amount to a 15% cut from today’s level.
The cap-and-trade system “will help drive innovation, create more green jobs and clean up our air and environment,” said California Air Resources Board Chairwoman Mary D. Nichols, adding that it “provides flexibility” to industry and takes “into consideration the current economic climate.”
LA TIMES
The ambitious program would cap most of the state’s greenhouse gases, including those from more than 600 power plants, refineries, cement plants and other big factories. It would allow companies to buy and sell emission allowances among themselves to reach an overall goal of cutting planet-warming pollutants 15% below today’s levels by 2020.
Well, states are the laboratories of democracy. An imposition of cap-and-trade would allow the rest of the country to see how well it works to lower carbon emissions, and just how much it “drives innovation” and “provides flexibility.” The only innovation this will likely produce will be the relocation of energy producers to neighboring states. Los Angeles, for instance, buys a significant amount of its power from Arizona, a trend that will likely intensify as the cost disparity for producers grows as a result of regulatory growth and mandated caps on production. Welcome back to rolling blackouts when energy production fails to grow with demand.
Nor will that be the only impact on California’s economy. The costs of cap-and-trade will get passed to consumers in the form of higher energy bills. As has been repeatedly shown, that will have a deeply regressive impact on California’s poor and working class. They will either have to spend more of their smaller discretionary funds on energy or cut back, forcing them to spend less on energy-consuming products and damaging the retail economy in California even more. Those who can move will relocate to other states, mainly the middle class, which will accelerate a trend already seen in California.
CO2 Insanity explains how this new regulatory increase in California that effects us all, especially the poor.
Sure it’s pretty but people and businesses are already moving out and it will get worse when this kicks in and everyone’s wallets start getting drained more than they already are. You can go here and read up on it if you want to.
Want a clue on how bad it already is? According to The Tax Foundation…..
California’s business climate ranks 49th out of 50 states (57 if you’re President Obama)(Soon to be 50!)
California’s top income tax rate is 4th highest in the nation (Soon to be #1)
California’s sales tax rate is the highest in the nation (See? We’re already #1)
As far as the Feds go we give up $1.00 and get 78 cents back, meaning we support other ‘vampire’ states. (THAT’S what that donor thing on my driver’s license means!)
Federal OSHA isn’t good enough, we get to support a redundant Cal-OSHA
Federal EPA isn’t good enough either, we get to support the California Air Resources Board giving us the ‘privilege’ of paying more redundancy. (They’re the ones that employ people with mail-order PhD’s and overestimate diesel pollution by 340% so they can screw us more than they already are)
Now thanks to the likes of Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bill Gates, James Cameron and other eco-loons, we failed to get enough voters with brains to reign in AB32 (actually, based on the last election, having enough voters with brains in California appears to be a statistical impossibility).
[….]
In a very short time everything you buy will suddenly cost more because just about everything and anything you buy uses power generated by fuel or electricity to be manufactured or delivered.
Your gas and electric bills will be rising because the gas and electric companies will now have to buy permits from the state and/or reduce their pollution. Think PG & E or Edison are going to eat this? If you do you’re dumber than a rock. And don’t give me that BS about the wind turbines and solar panels being subsidized because it’s your money (called taxes bonehead) that’s subsidizing it. Absent that no one would be installing them because they’re either unprofitable or they’d have to charge you $10,000 a month to turn the lights on in your home to pay for them.
Those higher power charges will result in ALL businesses in California having to raise the price of what they sell. Grocery stores, car dealers, restaurants, motels, hotels, movies, hospitals, doctors, lawyers, Indian Chiefs and everyone else in the state will have to either eat the rate increases or charge YOU more to make up for it. Guess which one’s going to happen?
Everything you buy is delivered by trains, planes, trucks, or steamships. They all run on diesel, gas or aviation fuel. Think they’re going to eat it? Nope! They’ll apply a fuel surcharge to everything including your airplane tickets to make up for the additional charges from the refineries so they can pay for their permits to pollute or invest more money to reduce their pollution. That money doesn’t grow on trees greentards! YOU get to pay for it.
Want a new house? Well wait until the price of lumber, nails, screws, roofing, stucco, cement, tile and everything else used in construction goes through the roof. That house that was a million last year will soon be a lot more.
Retired? I’d suggest you move to another state as soon as possible before a) you run out of money b) you can’t find anyone to buy your house because they’re all broke and c) the price to move out will be out of site because your mover spends 5 fortunes a year on diesel fuel for his trucks.
Think about it, even your crab will cost more once this starts because those boats run on diesel engines, they don’t row out to the Farallon Islands anymore folks. You can watch the price of your cable TV, cell phones, auto repairs, furniture, clothing, appliances and EVERYTHING go up.
