Wednesday, July 29, 2009

What to do?

As Health Care "Reform" lurches forward here's some advice on what to do. Link has phone numbers to contact.

Be Nice, as tmi3rd sagely advises. If you give the signals that you'll vote for their opponents no matter what they do, well, they're not going to take you very seriously, are they? If you're a determined vote against them, they can't lose or win your vote.

On that point: Be wary of rhetoric and cant, which gives away a partisan. Words like "socialized," "tyranny," etc., mark you as ideologically opposed to them and ergo not even a possible vote for them. Put your objections in terms of the tangible, not the abstract.

Stuff that independents talk about: Higher taxes, rationed care, being forced into the equivalent of a government-run HMO, "co-ops" specifically intended to drive private insurers out of business, etc. Update: And, yeah, deficits forever. Why the hell are we taking on huge new spending obligations when we're already hemorrhaging money and in the midst of a great recession? Not sure if it's worth mentioning, but at least LBJ's Great Society spending was passed when the nation was prosperous and flush.

Remind them that 85% of the country is content with their health insurance and that it's unfair to ask you to do with less so that others might (maybe) have more.

Pressure and public displeasure can do more to stall this bill. And the longer it stalls the less damage it can do. Which of course is why Obama wanted to rush it through now.

And why he wants people to stop talking about the consequences of it.

Also Glen Reynolds notes that the Tea Party people keep trumping the pro-Obama protesters.

GRASSROOTS VERSUS ASTROTURF: Tea Party Overwhelms Obamacare Advocates in Fort Collins. This kind of thing just keeps happening . . . .

UPDATE: Protesting ObamaCare at Obama’s visit in Raleigh.

And that's good advice. Get involved, get organized. Obama's poll numbers are droping, the Stimulus has failed.


More information on the polls.

I am beginning to realize it is no accident that these polls -- which always previously told us the disapproval number as well -- keep hiding it.

They're doing it deliberately. To them, it doesn't matter how many people disapprove of Obama. The only thing that matters are the people who matter, and those are the 53%.

I cannot remember ever having to search for Bush's disapproval figure. But this is like the third poll in three weeks where I have to go to the crosstabs for the stat.

It's 40%, as if we care about those 40% of the public, in case you're curious. Which is certainly an all-time high for Obama in the NBC poll, and maybe something they should have mentioned. (Higher than Gallup's number by a point.)


And is the deal off?

House liberals have quickly rejected a healthcare compromise their leaders forged with centrist Blue Dogs, putting the deal on shaky ground only hours after it was announced.

"It's unacceptable," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. "We're not going to vote for anything that doesn't have a robust public plan."


And here's another post on the polls.

Remember. You are not alone. The media is doing its hardest to prop the President up and downplay every mistake he makes and marginalize anyone that quesitons him, but... the truth is getting out.

In the end, reality wins.

Why the Global Warming Fear-mongering is not science.

A scientist writes in and hits the nail on the head.

One of the problems many people, especially scientists, are starting to have with the AGW proponents is their use of shrill tone and authority of numbers to try to stifle debate. Science is not consensus, and though there can be a scientific consensus that doesn't constitute science either. Computer models predicting conditions 50 years from now in a system as complex as the earth aren't within spitting distance of science. To be science something has to be testable and falsifiable. It must produce a predicted data point, interaction or outcome that is unique to the theory and can be verified or falsified. Would you bet your future on the accuracy of day seven of a seven day weather forecast? That is essentially what we are being told by the AGW proponents we absolutely must do without delay. Of course I think the without delay part has more to do with "We must pass the stimulus without delay" or "We must pass healthcare without delay" considerations than any notion that waiting three or four years will actuall make any long term difference.

Emphasis added.

This is the core problem. Science works by having a hypothesis that can be proved wrong. Simply having a computer model is not sufficient. Anyone saying otherwise is trying to con you.

Is the Earth's climate changing? Yes of course it is.

Are we getting hotter or colder? Depends on the time scale. Over the last five or so years we've been cooler, over the last century we've been hotter.

Is humanity causing an impact? Yes.

How much impact? That's more difficult to determine. And only falsifiable experiments can determine that with any accuracy.

How much impact does the Sun have relative to humans? See previous. That other planets such as Mars expeirenc global warming shows that that giant nuclear furnace does do something...

Is it worth the economic and liberty costs to regulate our output? Again, depends on how much humanity can acutally do and if it's worth the destruction of de-development.

All this money for a a few degrees of change that may be caused by humans, why isn't there such funding and "push" for anti-asteroid measures? Isn't that another global threat? Good question.

More Horror.

Given that Obama's science Czar want to control the US population via compulsory drugs and mandatory abortions, it makes perfect sense that he wanted a massive "de-development" of the USA.
Nature is a many things, including beautiful. But it's a terrible beauty. Nothing at all like the benevolent ersatz god of hippies and hemp they imagine it to be.

But our "science" czar proposed de-industrializing and reducing our consumption in order to live lives closer to the way nature intended, to wit, nasty, brutish, and short.

Oh -- and, of course. While he was vigorously campaigning for the elimination of most of the Western World's wealth, he was simultaneously urging that what was left of it (by the Planetary Regime which would enforce such laws) be redistributed to those more deserving of nature's frugal bounty.

But don't worry. You can trust these guys with your healthcare and industry.

It's not like they'd use Health Care "Reform" and Cap and "Trade" to put in social controls that they've stated a desire for.

Look at the Stimulus. See how well that worked out?

Friday, July 10, 2009


Want to see how "great" the Obama admin is?

Look at Ecoscience

In 1977 John Holdren wrote a book advocating:

Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A "Planetary Regime" with the power of life and death over American citizens.

The tyrannical fantasies of a madman? Or merely the opinions of the person now in control of science policy in the United States? Or both?

These ideas (among many other equally horrifying recommendations) were put forth by John Holdren, whom Barack Obama has recently appointed Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology -- informally known as the United States' Science Czar. In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:

• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.

This is not a joke, this is real.

You want radicalism? Here. It. Is.

And doesn't this sound a bit... familiar?

Humanity cannot afford to muddle through the rest of the twentieth century; the risks are too great, and the stakes are too high. This may be the last opportunity to choose our own and our descendants' destiny. Failing to choose or making the wrong choices may lead to catastrophe. But it must never be forgotten that the right choices could lead to a much better world.

This is the final paragraph of the book, which I include here only to show how embarrassingly inaccurate his "scientific" projections were. In 1977, Holdren thought we were teetering on the brink of global catastrophe, and he proposed implementing fascistic rules and laws to stave off the impending disaster. Luckily, we ignored his warnings, yet the world managed to survive anyway without the need to punish ourselves with the oppressive society which Holdren proposed. Yes, there still is overpopulation, but the problems it causes are not as morally repugnant as the "solutions" which John Holdren wanted us to adopt.

Next time Obama blathers on about the importance of regulating -well- everything to fight global warming, remember his advisor's the views on combating another grave threat, overpopulation.

Thursday, July 2, 2009

What really happened in Honduras

Octavio Sánchez former presidential adviser (2002-05) and minister of culture (2005-06) of the Republic of Honduras explains what happened and why.

These are the facts: On June 26, President Zelaya issued a decree ordering all government employees to take part in the "Public Opinion Poll to convene a National Constitutional Assembly." In doing so, Zelaya triggered a constitutional provision that automatically removed him from office.

Constitutional assemblies are convened to write new constitutions. When Zelaya published that decree to initiate an "opinion poll" about the possibility of convening a national assembly, he contravened the unchangeable articles of the Constitution that deal with the prohibition of reelecting a president and of extending his term. His actions showed intent.

Our Constitution takes such intent seriously. According to Article 239: "No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis added], as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years."

Notice that the article speaks about intent and that it also says "immediately" – as in "instant," as in "no trial required," as in "no impeachment needed."

Continuismo – the tendency of heads of state to extend their rule indefinitely – has been the lifeblood of Latin America's authoritarian tradition. The Constitution's provision of instant sanction might sound draconian, but every Latin American democrat knows how much of a threat to our fragile democracies continuismo presents. In Latin America, chiefs of state have often been above the law. The instant sanction of the supreme law has successfully prevented the possibility of a new Honduran continuismo.

The Supreme Court and the attorney general ordered Zelaya's arrest for disobeying several court orders compelling him to obey the Constitution.

Rand Simberg has his own question: I’d like to see someone (Tapper?) ask the president why he thinks he’s a better expert on the Honduran constitution than the Honduran Supreme Court.

Funny that Obama was so afraid of meddeling in Iran, but jumped right in to weigh in on Honduras. Way to not look like an ignorant meddeling Yankee Mr President.

Wednesday, July 1, 2009


U.S. ambassador to UN won’t say Iranian regime is illegitimate
Why won’t she say it? Because, and I quote, “The political situation in Iran is for the Iranians to work out internally.” Now, based on that statement alone, what’s the painfully obvious follow-up question? Right: Why that principle doesn’t also apply to Honduras. Reliable O-bot Andrea Mitchell never asks, of course

Well at least the situation in Honduras is getting better? Right?

Maybe the OAS, and especially the Obama administration, should take a look at that statement and consider it awhile. Honduras had legitimate reason to remove Zelaya from office, even if arguably they used illegitimate means to do so. Zelaya repeatedly violated the constitution of Honduras, first by attempting to hold the referendum, and second by illegally firing the chief of the Army, who reports to both the president and the legislature in Honduras.

The idea of marching Zelaya back into Honduras flanked by the heads of state of two other nations is practically begging for war. The Honduran military will have no choice but to arrest Zelaya, which will give Argentina and Ecuador an excuse to send its military if the trio have guns drawn on them at the airport. And for what? In the service of an executive who abused power and flouted the law in an attempt to make himself Presidente-for-Life?

Barack Obama has enabled this nuttiness with his meddling on behalf of a Chavez wannabe. His State Department had better make it known that any attempt to fly Zelaya back into Honduras would be met with our displeasure, and that the issue rightly belongs with the Honduran legislature and courts. Otherwise, we’ll have a war breaking out in Latin America that we can ill afford at the moment.

Much more different than Iran. In Iran Obama didn't directly show support for the tryanical strongmen.

Hope and Change!