CO2 Causes Warming, NOT “Climate Change”

Because the world has not warmed for 17 years, econuts and warmunists have taken to calling the condition whereby man burns CO2 and affects the weather “Climate Change.” Don’t let them do it.

CO2 Can Only Warm

The only effect that CO2 can have on our atmosphere is to warm it.  CO2 does not cause any other atmospheric disturbance.  Therefore, when people claim that CO2 and other greenhouse gasses (GHGs) cause “Climate Change,” correct them.  Don’t let them bait and switch the conversation.  Climate always changes, and research had not proven yet that some “radical state change” in the climate at the end of the 20th century, or pending in the 21st century, has in any way affected the overall climate on the planet.

Climate Deniers

Do we (being humans) affect the climate?  Yes.  It’s hard to change overall land use on the massive scales that we have without affecting the climate.  We’ve added massive amounts of humidity to the American Southwest.  We’ve changed dense forests to farmland.  We’ve built huge metropolises that no longer have the same warming and cooling characteristics as the forest and plains they replaced.  It’s called adaptation.  We change our environment to suit us – kinda what makes us human, you know?  Nobody with any sense at all denies man has an influence on the climate.  For good or for bad, climate changes and we change with it and sometimes change it.

“Climate Deniers” is a term invented by warming alarmists, however, to set up a straw man.  It’s summarizing opposition as being in “denial,” like Holocaust deniers.  Don’t let them do that either.  It’s simplistic, and is a tactic used by the weak of mind.

Climate Models Don’t Predict

No matter how hard they try, 97% of all climate models are WRONG.  They’ve completely missed the “pause” in global warming.  Does that mean they’re completely wrong?  No.  They are useful models for teaching us what we know, and more importantly, what we don’t know about climate.  But I wouldn’t wager $10 on any one of their 10 year “simulation” runs.  Why we want to bet TRILLIONS on those runs is beyond me.

In summary – don’t be a “Climate Change Denier,” it’s a silly position.  But don’t let someone else declare it’s about “Climate Change.”  If it’s not WARMING, CO2 is not the problem!


What’s a few words between friends?

President Obama, for the 2nd time, has determined that the “words” of a law are less important than the political realities surrounding the upcoming mid-term elections. Apparently, dates that appear in laws are “open to interpretation,” even though they appear to be hard and fast dates. Obviously, the possibilities are endless.

Election Day is just a “Date”

Suppose, for example, that Election Day is seen as inconvenient. Is is, after all, just a date – and the need to protect the population from the inconvenience or pain of elections is obviously a sufficient reason to ignore, or delay, such dates.

The same could be said for Inauguration Day. Put it off a couple of years – what’s the big deal? Statutory dates are now open for interpretation anyway. If Obama wishes to put off the inauguration of the next president until 2027, what’s to stop him? It’s just a date, and we need to protect the Citizenry from the pain and inconvenience of learning the new President’s name anyway.

A Rose by Any Other Name

My only question is – why are “dates” different from other parts of the law? I mean, a penalty is already a tax, and hard fast deadlines are just targets. Why can’t numbers be re-interpreted? Obviously they’re just words on paper. Rights enumerated in the constitution? Well, obviously people can bear arms – just not weapons. The Press only refers to printing presses operated by Responsible Journalists. “Unreasonable Search” is just a phrase designed to protect the guilty, and “Self Incrimination” is just a meaningless phrase.

According to Ancient Scripture, when a King issued a decree, the letter of the law had to be followed (c.f. Esther). If the king said something, the rule was it had to be followed. When the King said that his subjects could kill the Jews, he was unable to rescind that order. His solution was to pass another law allowing the Jews to defend themselves.

Apparently, Obama would have just ignored the rules. He’s more than a King. He is Judge, Jury, and Executioner – taking the role of Legislature and Judiciary all in one!

Some may claim this is to make the law “workable.” They are living in a dream world. The motivations are obvious to all but the most partisan of sycophants. If the Health Care Law, as passed, were being enforced as written, the Democrats wouldn’t stand a chance in the next 2 election cycles. The House, the Senate, and the Presidency would be solidly Republican.

And THAT would be President Obama’s legacy. So apparently, to avoid that disaster, the Constitutional Scholar feels it’s just more convenient to destroy the Rule of Law that forms the basis of the Republic.

“When a [ruler] becomes a tyrant, he thereby breaks the bond binding his subjects to him….” – Thomas Jefferson, 1776 The Musical

Taking a Stand of Our Own

Oh, the delicious Irony!  In case you missed it, The Journal News in White Plains, NY, has published an interactive map showing the homes of all people who hold firearms permits in 2 New York counties.  They obtained the list from FOI requests to the county clerks, and are currently preparing additional maps based on pending requests.

Reaction has not been all positive as you can imagine.  Complaints run the gamut from outrage at treating legal activity as if it were a sex crime (these are permit holders, not necessarily gun owners), to fears that criminals will target such people in search of firearms, to fears that some law enforcement personnel on the list now have their addresses published for criminals to attempt retributive strikes on their homes, to fears that some battered women who have armed themselves while hiding from their abusers are now exposed to further harassment and abuse, to fear that criminals, now knowing where the guns aren’t, will target the homes of those who DON’T appear on the list.

The one thing the paper claims it wanted – a discussion about guns in our society – is the last thing that is actually happening as a result of this publication.

So where’s the irony?

Calls are currently being made for a boycott – not of the newspaper itself, but of the newspaper’s advertisers.  Ironically, the “featured advertiser” at the Journal’s website this week is….wait for it….

Target Logo


The store that uses a “bullseye” logo should now be firmly in the cross-hairs of believers in privacy and the 2nd Amendment everywhere.  They should be receiving e-mails, and phone calls, and a flood of negative feedback based on their support of what is clearly an attempt by the Journal to intimidate permit holders and paint them all as “nut jobs waiting to explode!”

The Sandy Hook shooter would NOT have appeared on this map.  He did not own a gun.  He was not a permit holder.  As a matter of fact, the one thing that might have helped the community have a “discussion” about his disposition was his mental health history.  Let’s see the newspaper get such information published without breaking Federal Privacy laws.

This is, of course, another irony.  The mentally deranged psychiatric patient who WOULD shoot up a school has more privacy rights than a law-abiding, mentally sound gun permit holder!

Let’s see how “committed” the Journal is when their revenue stream starts to dry up.  I wonder if the owners are willing to….ironically….”take a bullet” for the Editor In Chief when there’s no profit in it….

Another Four Years of This….

So Barack Obama, judged worthy to lead despite the overwhelming evidence against him, has been given another four years to….to do what?

What did he promise in his long campaign?  What exactly are his plans for America?

The Great Keynesian apparently is going to spend us out of this recession.  I’m thinking we’ve got another $6 to $8 Trillion dollars of debt to look forward too, and no sign that he is “bending” any curves.

My friends assure me that 30 million people who were not insured before will now have insurance, but I don’t see how that is possible.  I can’t believe that 30 million people are suddenly going to be able to afford health insurance when they couldn’t before, and I really don’t see there being 30 million people who were just “opting out” of buying health-care coverage and selfishly making the rest of us pay their bills.  It won’t get cheaper, because of all the new mandates regarding preexisting conditions and mandatory benefits, so what does Obamacare get us?  One step closer to England’s wonderful healthcare system, where they come up with great ideas like the LCP?

My friends assure me that we’ve had 32 months of job growth.  But it’s such anemic growth that it’s not even keeping up with the demographics of new workers coming of age.  The ranks of the unemployed and underemployed grow, and for many they are becoming increasingly unemployable – thanks in no small part to the policies of the Obama Administration, that says a kid you pay to sweep the sidewalk in front of your shop and do odd jobs must now earn the equivalent of $15.00 an hour in pay and benefits.  Sorry Tommy, I can’t afford you.

My friends tell me what a wonderful place the world will be now that we have a president who embraces Gay Marriage!  I’ve written extensively on this in another posting – but even so, is that really an issue that affects more than 3% of the population. Really?

The EPA is set to issue regulations that will stifle energy production in the United States and make our power grid less reliable.  Obama is keeping his promise that “electricity bills will necessarily skyrocket” under his administration, because wind and solar are just so much better for us than safe, reliable, and arguably more environmentally friendly coal, natural gas, and oil.  Cuisinarts of the air cutting down endangered bird species by the hundreds and thousands verses low-emission, reliable power.  No wonder we’re going to be shivering in the dark cursing those evil power companies that keep raising rates and providing less reliable service.  Just ask the people of England how that’s working out for them?

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid remain on course for bankruptcy, insolvency, broke, whatever you want to call it – and the Obama Re-Election bid spent a year scaring current beneficiaries so badly that any meaningful “reform” is now out of reach.  The programs are projected to be less than 75% funded when I start drawing benefits in 20 years – hope you youngsters are ready for higher taxes on whatever jobs you DO find!

And now we’ll have “four more years” – of blaming a past President for the current problems that the new President’s polices can’t fix.  “Four more years” of failed leadership abroad as Al-Queida renews its strength in the strongholds of Afghanistan, and the newly fertile fields of Libya and Egypt.  “For more years” of “containing” Iran as they develop nuclear weapons.  “Four more years” of Trillion Plus deficits, no budgets from the Democrats in the Senate, and economic malaise.  “Four more years” of hearing how proud we are of this empty suit who spends more time on the Golf Course and Vacation than at National Security Briefings.

And “Four more years” of hearing how it’s all about “race,” and “Bush’s fault,” and the obstructionism of the Republicans.

“We aren’t broke!  We need $16 TRILLION Dollars to get BACK to Broke!”

The Obama Administration’s “Battered Wife Syndrome” – Updated

NOTE:  It turns out the Egyptian Embassy may have issued its apologetic statement prior to the actual assault on the Embassy. [Reuters]  That one occurred within hours of the other is what caused the confusion.  The fact that the White House claims regarding the apologetic statement (that it wasn’t cleared through the WH, etc) still leads to the Valid Discussion over “Who’s in charge here?”  The Lie remains the same.  And yes, we apologized for being ourselves PRIOR TO the incident.  Apparently in an attempt to “head off” the beating we anticipated…

Original Post:

So protesters upset about a YouTube video they were told was an insult to Mohammed stormed the American Consulate in Cairo, tore down the American Flag, and put up a black “Al Queida” banner proclaiming “Allah Ahkbar (God is Great).”  Like all great powers in the last 500 years, the American Government immediately filed a protest against the action with the Egyptian Government, demanding that international treaties and laws governing the sovereignty of embassies be enforced and that they control their more passionate members of their society…..wait, that didn’t happen?

Apologized for Being Ourselves

What did happen is even more embarrassing than failure to control our own sovereign territory.  We apologized to the Egyptian people for being ourselves.  Like some “Battered Wife” who’s husband has gone off on her again for some minor or imaginary affront, the United States Of America apologized to those who are abusing us!  “We’re sorry people actually use their freedoms!  Really!”  It’s as if we’re apologizing for not cleaning the house or overcooking the bacon!

The embassy released the following statement:

“The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.”

Not Only a Lie, But a Damned Lie!

Where was the Embassy of the United States in Cairo when “Religulous” was released a few years ago?  What about “The Last Temptation of Christ?”  Or maybe “Saved!”  Or that new series on TV called “GCB?”

No, the Embassy in Cairo has not spent the last few decades constantly opposing and condemning mocking of all religions.  They also didn’t condemn the Danish Cartoons of Mohammed, the Van Gogh movie, or the burning of the Koran by some nutjob in Florida.

They have been silent on most issues that don’t affect them, or the country they are in.  Of course, this is to be expected.  Most embassies would look foolish if they constantly condemned the actions of people in other countries, or the perfectly legal and constitutional acts of those living in their own country.  But they look equally foolish when they make broad, sweeping, and essentially untrue statements about issues when forced to comment on them.

Who’s In Charge Here?

Now, there are those who will attempt to paint the statement released by the Cairo Embassy as “not the official Administration response.”  Well then, who’s in charge of the Embassy if not Obama’s State Department?  Do we now have rogue embassies, issuing statements at odds, or at least not in line with, Official US Policy?  They’re writing statements up for the consumption of the world, and then sending them out without being vetted?

Which is more comforting to believe?  That the Obama Administration is apologizing for “over-boiling the water” or that Obama is not in control of his own Foreign Policy implementers?

We Deserved It

So now, like some battered wife constantly beat for our “misbehavior,” we have apologized again.  Sorry we burned the toast.  Sorry we didn’t make the bed.  Sorry we’re breathing your air!  We’ll try and do better.  It’s not you, it’s us!

Nobody, and I mean nobody, I know would say “Well, a battered wife needs to figure out why her husband is so angry at her.”  And yet, I hear people saying we have to figure out why “the Muslims” are so angry at us!

Get the State Out of the “Marriage Business”

The biggest problem facing the advocates of “Same Sex Marriage” is that, despite all the platitudinous statements our country may make about “Separation of Church and State,” marriage is our one willful blind spot.  “Marriage” is, in the eyes of most religions and a majority of religious people in the United States, a spiritual union of two people deriving sanction from a governing Deity.  That the State recognizes this union and provides certain legal and social benefits is nice – but that sectarian “blessing” is not important.  The Roman Catholic Church does not even recognize the “marriage” of two people if it is performed contrary to the laws and customs of the Church, regardless of what the state may say.  Other churches have different stances as to how a “valid” marriage is performed, but they hold the same general view – Marriage is Sacred.  Marriage is a Sacrament.

On the other hand, the United States Government, and the governments of all the individual States, view marriage as a legal contract.  They do not care what any particular church, mosque, or synagogue may have to say about it – it is strictly a legal union for purposes of inheritance, power of attorney, and family creation.  My spouse is, in the eyes of the state, the most closely related person in the world too me.  Not related by blood, but by legally binding contract, until such time as that contract is declared null and void by a judge.  If I am lying in a hospital bed, and decisions have to be made, my spouse is the one who makes them.

The point of these two complementary situations is this; the state needs to get out of the “marriage” business.  To sanction marriage, to perform marriages, to claim to be the “authority” that binds two people together in a spiritual covenant, unnecessarily blurs the line between Church and State.  The State takes the roll of priest in these situations, when what really needs to happen is that the State needs to grant only one thing – legal spousal status.

In my opinion, the State needs to take the same attitude about “Domestic Partnerships” that the Roman Catholic Church takes about “Marriage.”  That is, the state shouldn’t care who you choose to marry at your church.  You should be able to marry whomever you please.  If you wish to marry two, or three, or four people, and you find a church willing to perform the ceremony, why does the state care?  Such marriages, performed by a priest or rabbi or imam, would be spiritual in nature, and have no legal status.

What the state needs to do is be in the “Domestic Partnership” business.  This would look a lot like “marriage” to the world, but unlike marriage, which comes with way more religious baggage than is good for the state right now, it would simply be the “legal side” of the equation.  You would go to a “priest” for your marriage, but you would go to a judge or otherwise authorized bureaucrat for your “Domestic Partnership.”  While you may have an unlimited number of “spiritual spouses” if your religion permits it, you get one “legal spouse.”

There are some who argue that this differentiation opens the door to other issues.  What if I want more than one legal spouse?  What if I have a dozen “spiritual spouses” and I die?  Those questions are not new, nor do they have to be dealt with any differently than they are today.  The democracy can make the same rules for Domestic Partnership that we have for “marriage.”  However, by removing the word “marriage,” we remove the religious entanglement which is at the crux of the current problem.

What about all the marriages that currently exist?  Obviously, they are grandfathered in under these rules.  However, going forward, if you want to be married, you go to a priest or other religious official, or just start telling people you’re “married,” if that satisfies you both.  However, the designation “Domestic Partner” requires a “piece of paper” from the state.  A Spouse then becomes your Legal Partner.

The upside to this arrangement is that we no longer discuss whether the State should recognize “Same Sex Marriage,” because the State no longer cares about “marriage.”  The State cares about legal status, and that’s all it should care about anyway.