Archive for the ‘1’ Category

Cold Facts, Part 2

Posted: April 3, 2012 in 1

Almost 70 years ago, England’s Royal Meteorological Society predicted that because of increased carbon dioxide emissions, a greenhouse effect had begun, and the Earth would heat irreversibly. Immediately, it got cooler. “The advent of the new ice age, scientists say, appears to be guaranteed.  The devastation will be astonishing.”  Gregg Easterbrook (Denison of the environmental movement) in “Return of the Glaciers,” Newsweek, November 23, 1992.

My earlier post made the point that there are 6 links in the daisy chain of Global Warming orthodoxy which need to be accepted in order for the US to engage in the wholesale funding called for, and the draconian reduction in industry and lifestyles that the Chicken Littles are now calling for. To review, here are the six: 1) the planet is getting warmer; 2) this warming is not cyclical, but one-directional; 3) this warming is global; 4) this warming is man-made (anthropogenic); 5) it is harmful to life on the planet; and 6) we can change it by changing our life styles. If any one of these proves not to hold up, it makes no sense to destroy our economy in the pursuit of colder temperatures. I continue now with point three. Is the warming a global phenomenon?

We are treated quite regularly to the projections that the polar ice caps are quickly vanishing. To buttress the point we are shown videos of large chunks of icebergs breaking free. I guess we are to believe that this is something that doesn’t happen every summer. But pictures are effective. Video convincing. It does appear that some retreat of the polar ice caps in the Arctic is taking place. At the same time, the polar ice caps in the Antarctic are growing. It appears to be a cyclical process. Likewise, the temperatures are slightly warmer in the Northern hemisphere, slightly cooler in the southern.

It is also known that the warming is taking place primarily in the night hours and in the winter months.

This global picture is also skewed by the fact that many of the colder measuring stations went off line in the 1990’s due to the collapse of the Soviet Union. You cannot eliminate some of the colder measuring stations from your data and expect accurate results.

Point 4: The warming we see is primarily anthropogenic. This may prove the most difficult proposition to prove. The main culprit cited by the alarmists for man-made global warming is CO2 (carbon dioxide). Never mind that CO2 is necessary for life to exist on the planet. Forget that plants survive on it. It is a greenhouse gas (GHG) and therefore evil. Of course, without the greenhouse benefits Earth receives from these gases, the planet would be uninhabitable. The greenhouse effect keeps temperatures moderate enough to sustain life.

Point 5: This last winter has been one of the most moderate that I have experienced since I moved here to Kansas City. It was quite nice. I heard no complaints. People actually enjoy warmer winters. I don’t plan on getting used to it. Next winter may be one of the coldest. Temperature averages are cyclical.

Historically when temperatures have been warmer, that has served humans well.

During the (now ignored) Medieval Climate Optimum, “In Europe the warm conditions had positive effects. Summer after summer the harvests were good and the population increased rapidly. As a result thousands of hectares were cleared of woodland and farmers expanded their fields high into the hills and on mountain slopes. It was even possible to grow successfully grapes as far north as Yorkshire.” Vikings populated Greenland, grew grain and raised cattle ( The temperatures were warmer then, than during the 20th century. Though there was a large decrease in sea ice, making navigation of the northern seas possible, the land was not over-run by the seas (the chimera we are now being frightened with).

Point 6: The idea that we can appreciably effect global climate temperatures by reducing CO2 emissions is questionable at best. I’m being generous. Even the most optimistic among the Chicken Little’s believe that after spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year annually (yes, every year) we could perhaps reduce the warming by less than 1 degree Fahrenheit. I just reviewed many alarmist web sites and could not find any projections on how much we could actually reduce warming, by their estimates. I found many site that outlined how much we would need to spend, and how much we would need to reduce GHG’s, but did not find any current estimates of how successful such expensive efforts would be. The last estimate I found was something like 0.6 degrees Fahrenheit. After trillions of dollars of investment, the disruption of American industries and concomitant lifestyle changes required, we could only effect a minuscule and insignificant change. One site said that were we to add no GHG’s, global temperatures would still rise because we have already emitted too much into our fragile atmosphere. That leads to the question, “Why should we upend our way of life for the possibility that by doing so we might reduce global temperatures to so insignificant a degree?”

This is an especially significant question when taken with the previous points. If a slight warming of the planet may or may not be happening, and if it may, in fact, be beneficial for life on the planet, why would we spend such inordinate amounts of our resources and disrupt our lifestyles, on the quixotic hope that this might reduce the rise in global temperatures ever-so-slightly?


Al Gore made another public appearance yesterday. His timing is always impeccable. While the country was in the midst of a late  fall deep freeze that covered everything north of Florida in a blanket of snow, there he was assuring us that global warming was right on track. He had been warning us for 30 years.  The bad news for Gore is that the weather doesn’t cooperate with his predictions. The good news for Gore is that the sycophants in the press don’t seem to care. Global warming alarmism continues apace, even in the face of the recently revealed emails that demonstrate the bogus nature of the science from the “scientists” themselves. The emails, of course, originate from the University of East Anglia in Great Britain. They were published on another wordpress blog: Note that this group is not some minor player in the “sky-is-falling” school. It is the school. The correspondence passed between many of the biggest proponents of the anthropogenic climate fear-mongers, including Phil Jones and Michael Mann, the developer of the “hockey stick.”

I am not a scientist. Heck, I don’t even own a microscope. But I do have some common sense, a handle on logic and a grip on reality.  While that doesn’t qualify me to write in peer-reviewed science journals, it does compel me to ask some basic questions about the environmental crisis du jour. With that caveat, let me step into the global warming debate, or as the proponents have taken to calling it since the weather has not cooperated, Global Climate Change.

We are asked to swallow certain propositions so that we may cede our nation’s sovereignty to an international group of environmental bureaucrats with the power to tax and regulate the United State back to the 19th century. There is much at stake. Here are the propositions we are asked to believe: 1) the planet is getting warmer; 2) this warming is not cyclical, but inexorably one-directional; 3) this warming is global; 4) this warming is man-made (anthropogenic); 5) it is harmful to life on the planet; and 6) we can change it by changing our life styles. We must accept all six before it would make any sense to spend trillions of dollars on a “solution” and forgo much of the modern conveniences we enjoy, afforded us by the technical revolution of the last century. If we accept them all but the last, i.e. that our efforts will indeed effect a positive change in the direction of the climate, it is pointless to spend the time and fortune to quixotically tilt toward windmills (literally). Let’s examine them one at a time, applying common sense and a sense of history.

1. The planet is getting warmer. The very first proposition is itself much in doubt. The base-line you use will determine your answer. If we use the decade of the seventies as our base-line, we could say things are heating up. If we use the decade of the 1930’s or the 1990’s as our standard, the planet is cooling. Here is where a good memory, or a simple Google search, can do wonders to bring some historical perspective to the discussion. Back in the 1970’s the environmental crisis du jour was global cooling. Typically the same culprit was to blame: Man. The headlines from that epoch have aptly been dropped into a media memory hole. Let us remind ourselves of some of the headlines to articles that were as certain then that we were heading to a new ice age as they are now that we are headed toward global combustion.

Time magazine carried an article titled “Science: Another Ice Age?” in its June 24, 1974 issue. The story relates how the previous three decades saw temperatures decline and ice caps grow. Though you never hear anyone in the mainstream press refer to such pieces, they were not uncommon. This story may still be found on Time’s web site. It is worth checking out:,9171,944914,00.html

Time  magazine was not alone in beating the drum for a cooling catastrophe. Newsweek had global cooling headlines as late as 1978.  And George Will reminds us, “In the 1970s, ‘a major cooling of the planet’ was ‘widely considered inevitable’ because it was ‘well-established’ that the Northern Hemisphere’s climate ‘has been getting cooler since about 1950’ (New York Times, May 21, 1975).”
We don’t have to go all the way back to the 70’s to read the screed that we were headed toward another ice age. “The advent of the new ice age, scientists say, appears to be guaranteed.  The devastation will be astonishing.”  Gregg Easterbrook  in “Return of the Glaciers,” Newsweek, November 23, 1992. Easterbrook has recently(June 2006) gone on record as accepting that global warming is the unchallenged view of climate scientists (see
It seems that the Earth is about 1 degree warmer on average than a century ago. But we were just emerging from what climatalogists called a Little Ice Age that began after the Medieval Climate Optimum and lasted until the end of the 19th century (from around 1400-1900). That the planet would regulate itelf is unremarkable. A 1-degree increase in temperature over a century hardly constitutes a permanent direction in global terms.
2. The trend is one-directional, not cyclical. We were in a cooling trend in the 70’s. Alarmists then told us we were headed for catastrophic cooling, projecting a one-directional temperature trend. Since the 90’s the alarmists are just as certain that catastrophic warming is going to be the death of us all.  Is it not more likely that climate is cyclical, not one-directional?
If we want to project the trends since 1998 we would have to say we are more likely headed for another Ice Age than a seared earth. But, of course, neither seems to be the case. One of the biggest hoaxes in the whole global warming debate is the “hockey stick.” The “hockey stick” graph was developed by Mann and used by the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to demonstrate that the planet has never been as warm as it is today. The hockey stick graph shows that temperatures were pretty much stable for the last couple millennia until the end of the twentieth century. Then it shot up. The graph looks lik a hockey stick laid on its side. Scary stuff. Gore used it as part of his horror movie on the coming climate disaster and still sites it as fact. Only problem is, it was totally made up. This was understood by many people prior to the recently unveiled email messages that make that fact clear.  (See Christopher Horner’s, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming.) The data that the alarmists have used to insist that the planet is warmer than ever, have been manipulated to effect the desired result: the hockey stick graph.
The hockey stick ignores the widely known period of Medieval warming as well as the mini-ice age from which we just emerged a century ago. That period is also known as the Climate Optimum, because it had a beneficial effect on life on the globe. I will discuss that further under point five.
I still have four points to cover. I will deal with them in my next installment.

Remember the “W”

Posted: January 15, 2009 in 1

I I know it is not popular to say–even among Republicans, not at least among polite company–but I love George W. Bush.  There, I said it.  Do I love everything he has done.  No.  But I choose not to air any of those criticisms because he gets that from every other quarter.  This post is rather about why we should all be grateful to the 43rd president of the United States.

George Bush took office right after the disgraced 42nd president disgracefully left office.  Clinton left office soon after giving pardons to former terrorists and other ne’er-do-wells with the right political connections.  The most notorious being the FLN terrorists and the infamous Marc Rich, who profiteered by selling weapons to our enemies.  Rich went so far as to renounce his American citizenship.  That was just the last of his string of corrupt acts that were commonplace in the White House which began with Whitewater and Travelgate and ended with Pardongate.  “It was just about sex” his supporters always said.  Please.  That was the least of it.

But I digress.  This is not about how bad Clinton was, but the contrast provides suitable context.  Bush’s detractors like to talk about his presidency’s culture of corruption without ever getting specific.  What does it come to?  He may or may not have gotten bad intelligence about WMD’s in Iraq, specifically yellow cake uranium from Niger.  “Bush lied, people died,” they shout.  Seriously?  Scooter Libby is indicted for perjury because he didn’t remember the events in the same order as a journalist about a non-spy who was not outed by him.  This is corruption?  There is corruption there, but not from the Bush administration.

Bush restored order in the White House.  Things ran on time.  Press conferences started just when he said they would, not an hour later as often happened in the previous administration.

Then 9-11 happened.  Well, it didn’t just happen.  Evil men perpetrated this evil terrorist strike on innocent and unsuspecting Americans.  A strike that would never have happened if Clinton had taken out Osama Bin Laden when he had the chance, but balked.

Bush was changed by 9-11.  But the test also brought out the character of the man.  He would remain steadfast against the enemies of America.  He would do what it took to insure that 9-11, or something similar would not happen on his watch.  And it didn’t.  History will remember, if the ungrateful, forgetful citizens don’t. 

In prosecuting the war on terror Bush took down two nations that supported terrorism abroad and imposed it at home.  The Taliban is deposed in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein has been tried by an Iraqi jury and executed.  Millions of Iraqis went to the polls, at personal risk to their own lives to vote for the first democratically elected government in Iraq’s long history. 

We couldn’t lose the war in Iraq now if we wanted.  It was won in a couple weeks.  Despite the rhetoric we hear about the possibility of losing the war (well, we hear it less now then a year ago) the war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was won long ago.  What our troops are doing in Iraq right now is building and protecting the young democracy against domestic and foreign terrorists.  Make no mistake.  Bush won the war in Iraq.

After 9-11 the stock market crashed as business came to a standstill.  It is nothing short of miraculous how the market bounced back, nearly doubling in five years.  This fueled by the Bush tax cuts and the serious commitment to restoring order in the world.  The market would still be rising if not for the ill-advised federal mandates, pushed by the previous administration and Democrats in Congress, on lenders to loan money to people who couldn’t afford to pay it back.

Bush has been solidly pro-life, signing the partial-birth abortion ban and supporting the ban on abortions at military hospitals. 

In all of this he has been vilified in the most outrageous terms by his opponents on the left.  He has not returned fire.  If he was unable to change the political culture in Washington, it wasn’t for lack of trying.  It may be true that the nation is more polarized than ever.  That blame lies solely at the feet of the viciously partisan Democrats, many of whom supported him publicly when the war was popular but jumped the fence and began throwing stones in his direction when the political winds changed.  I wish President Bush had done more to defend his own record.  When a charge goes unchallenged, it becomes truth.  At least in the public eye. 

I agree with what one admirer said of Bush.  He has the same stubborn tenacity to principle that Ronald Wilson Reagan and Winston Churchill possessed.  The major difference between George W. Bush and them is his inability or unwillingness to articulate his position and defend it against his detractors.  But, like Reagan, George W. believes history will judge him better then his contemporaries have.  I believe that is true.  But given who writes the history books, that is far from certain.


Posted: December 22, 2008 in 1


Ann Curry shows her politically correct creds with her antagonisitc interview with the “controversial” Rick Warren. Of course, the reason the Main Stream Media has dubbed Warren controversial, even though he has sold more books than just about anybody over the last several years, is because he opposes gay marriage. It never seems to register with the MSM that every time the issue is brought up for election, even in liberal California, gay marriage is turned back. It only advances at the behest of activist PC judges who decide to treat the law like so much putty in their creative little hands.

Here is part of the transcript of Friday’s Dateline interview with Rick Warren. As bad as it looks on paper, it doesn’t do justice to the smarmy, “holier than thou” countenance that Curry donned for the cameras, as she treated one of America’s most respected pastors like a member of the Aryan Nation.

Ann Curry: Some people in the gay community wonder why you supported Prop 8. Why you supported taking away their right to love each other in marriage.                                                            

Rick Warren: Yeah, well, I’m not taking away their right to love each other.

Ann Curry: In marriage.                                    

Rick Warren: I am opposed to the redefinition of marriage. First place, to me, it was free speech issue foremost of all. First place, I don’t know any church in America that’s done more to help the gay community, particularly with AIDS, than Saddleback.

Ann Curry: And, in fact, gay people will say that is true.

Rick Warren: Yeah. And my wife and I have given millions of dollars to help people–

Ann Curry: Which is why they’re so hurt.

Rick Warren: Yeah.

Ann Curry: Why many gay people are so hurt because of their faith and and reverence for what you have done in this issue. How have you reconciled yourself with that pain that you’ve caused because of that loss of faith in you?

Rick Warren: Well, because if that hadn’t passed, the pain it would have caused to far millions more, I think, would be more severe. And here’s what I see in this, Ann. For 5,000 years every single culture and every single religion has defined marriage as a man and a woman, not just Christianity [but also] Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism.

Ann Curry: Your position has raised the specter that you are homophobic. (laughter by Warren) And that is why people are angry. Gay people are angry. And how is it possible for them to be civil when someone– maybe deny– you would say, “I don’t like what you are.” You understand that.

Rick Warren: Yeah, I could give you 100 gay–

Ann Curry: Are you homophobic?

Rick Warren: Of course not. I’ve always treated them with respect when they come and wanna talk to me. I talk to them. When the protesters came, we served them water and doughnuts.

But Warren says he’s surprised by the hostile reaction of gay rights advocates.

Rick Warren: The hate speech against me is incendiary.

Ann Curry: So what happened to Mr. Reconciliation?

Rick Warren: Tolerance used to mean, “I treat you with respect even though we disagree.” Some people want tolerance to mean now that all ideas are equally valid. That’s nonsense. There are some things that are right and there are some things that are wrong.

Ann Curry: If science finds that this is biological, indisputably, not something that can be explained in any other way except that people are born to be gay, would you change your position?

Rick Warren: No. And the reason why–

Ann Curry: Why?

Rick Warren: I’d be happy to tell you why. The reason why is because it doesn’t matter to me. If it’s biological, we’ll be glad to know. We all have biological predispositions. Some people struggle with anger. And other people say, “I don’t struggle with anger, but I sure struggle with fear.” Some people say, “Oh, I don’t struggle with this. I struggle with being shy.”

Ann Curry: You’re saying if it’s part of your biology, it’s your job to struggle against it if, in fact, it’s the wrong–

Rick Warren: Well, here what I’m saying. I’ve had many gay friends tell me, “Well, Rick, why shouldn’t I have multiple sexual partners? It’s the natural thing to do.” Well, just because it seems natural doesn’t mean it’s best for you or society. I’m naturally inclined to have sex with every beautiful woman I see. But that doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do. And why should I reign in my natural impulses and you say, “Well, because I have natural impulses towards the same sex, I shouldn’t have to reign them in.” Well, I disagree. I think that’s part of maturity. I think it’s part of delayed gratification. I think it’s part of character.

Warren says his opposition to same sex marriage is shared by a majority of Americans and by President-elect Obama — and is based on Biblical teachings.

Rick Warren: God said in Genesis 1, a man and woman should cling to each other for life. Now I’m in favor of human rights for everybody…everybody. I’m against redefining marriage historically 5,000 years… because then it’ll be re-defined. What if it’s between a brother and a sister?

Ann Cury: You said that God says in the Bible that a man and a woman should cling to each other for life, but it does not say that a marriage is only between a man and a woman. In fact the Bible says that King Solomon had 700 wives. Leviticus speaks of homosexuality as being a sin, but also orders the death penalty for eating fish that had fins and getting a tattoo.

Rick Warren: The people that make that argument don’t understand there are three kind kinds of law in the Bible that are very different. There’s civil law, which is for the nation of Israel. There’s ceremonial law, which is for the Jewish priesthood. And there is moral law, which is for everybody. The laws about eating fish and stuff, those are civil and ceremonial laws for Israel. No Christian follows those.

Unlike like many opponents of same sex marriage, though, Warren doesn’t see it as a danger to heterosexual married couples.

Rick Warren: I don’t think gay marriage is any threat to marriage. So that’s not why I’m voting the way I did. I think divorce is a bigger problem to marriage than anything else.

Thursday afternoon, the president-elect defended his choice of Warren at a news conference Thursday, saying “It is important for America to come together even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues.”

And Warren issued a statement saying, “I commend President-elect obama (sic) for his courage to willingly take enormous heat from his base by inviting someone like me, with whom he doesn’t agree on every issue.”

Despite the furor, Pastor Rick Warren remains the most influential evangelical in the country and his inspirational messages resonate with millions.

You can view the interview to get the full effect of what this “journalist” and this network (NBC) thinks of Christians right here:

You Say You Want a Revolution?

Posted: November 25, 2008 in 1


Monday, November 8, 2008

What have you done? Yes, you. The ones who, despite all the dire warnings by critics like me and obfuscation by the candidate, went ahead and voted Barak Hussein Obama in anyway. Be careful what you wish for. The first indication of the problems which lie ahead have already emerged. The markets responded by selling off. The Dow dropped over 700 points since he was elected. The second harbinger of the stormy days to come is the selection of Rahm Emmanuel as Obama’s Chief of Staff. The appointment of the former Clinton aide–one of the most partisan Liberals in Congress–does not bode well for those of you who were confident that Mr. Obama would lead from the center.

As I looked into the faces of those in attendance (perhaps 200,000–not 1 million) I saw the same looks I saw as a child watching the Beatles concert on the black and white screen. They were looks, not of settled conviction or just exuberant jubilation, but of unabashed idolatry. They were worshipping at the feet of their nascent savior. I didn’t actually see any swooning, but wouldn’t be surprised if it happened. I am not now talking about the Black people in the crowd. We could rightly chalk that up to having gained a sense of authentication and vindication for years of discrimination and second-class status. I give them a pass. Let them rejoice.

I was more concerned with those young White kids (and old White kids, some of whom may have actually swooned at a Beatles concert) who stood rapt and riveted to every word falling like a benevolent rain on their otherwise parched world. They heard nothing. It was very well said. And with every, “Yeah, yeah, yeah” they screamed uncontrollably.

Who are these people? Many are intelligent people. Intelligent people sometimes make very stupid choices. They remind one of the pretty honor student who always picks the wrong guy. It is either the lugheaded jock whom she makes excuses for, as he chases every skirt on the cheerleading squad. When he finally catches one and dumps her she finds the tattooed and pierced drummer with the drug addiction. She assures her friends that he has changed. He really does love her. He is going to get his act together.

I don’t blame people like my young Socialist friend. He enthusiastically supported Barak Obama. He knew what he was getting. He wants revolutionary change.  He is getting what he wants.

But you? You were thinking, against all evidence to the contrary, that you were voting for a warm slice of the American pie. In Biden’s famous words, because he was “clean and articulate” you thought Obama held the same American values as you. He does not. All his early mentors were of the radical stripe. One, Saul Alinsky (through his writing, especially his Rules for Radicals) taught Obama to hide who he really is long enough to grab the reigns of power. Then the radical can really get something done.

Congratulate yourself. It was you who pushed him to victory.

“La, la, la, la, life goes on.”

Change is good, right? Of course! Change is always good.

Have you enjoyed the safety we’ve experienced since 9-11-2001? On 9-12-2001 nobody would have made book that we would have avoided another major terrorist strike against the United States for the balance of the Bush tenure. We have. But that could change. And change is good, right?

Some changes take longer than others to kick in and make a difference. Take the change that the Clinton administration implemented when they forced banks and lending institutions to change the rules on whom they should lend money to. It was about getting more and more people into their own homes. That is a good thing, right? It was especially important to Clinton and his hammer, Janet Reno, that minorities got funding to buy their own homes. Too few minorities owned their own home. That needed to be corrected. They needed full access to the American dream. Good goal.

Question: What is affordable housing? Answer: Houses for people who can’t afford them. That bubble lasted a good while. It had a good run. But eventually that bubble was going to burst because economic laws are unbreakable. Hence, the mortgage crisis, which led to the financial crisis, which led to the stock market crash, which led to . . . well, Barak Obama. But change is good, Right?

Despite the talk of how terrible the last eight years have been economically, most of that time was a time of growth. Fifty-eight months of growth is not a bad thing. The Dow’s post 9-11 move from 7,400 to over 14,000 in five years is remarkable. Who would have predicted it? Nobody did! But there it was. Two years ago we decided to change leadership in the Senate and House. The Dow is (as of this writing, because who can keep up with its decline since the election?) just below 8,000. But, change is good, right?

Bush gave us two excellent Supreme court justices who believe it is their job to interpret the Constitution rather than make it up as they go along. Obama promises to change that. And change is good, right?

Bush has been consistent in pursuing the war on terror. He has committed the US to establishing freedom and democracy in places like Afganistan and Iraq. It is now legal for girls to attend school in Kabul. They need not cover their faces in public. Freedom is coming to Iraq for perhaps the first time in its long history. But Barak Obama is tired of our commitment to establishing democracy there. This commitment could change when he takes office. And change is good, right?

Bush signed the ban on partial birth abortion. He would not allow embryos to be killed for the misty promises of miraculous cures unsupported by the evidence. Obama wants to change all that. He will sign the Orwellian Freedom of Choice Act.  This act will eliminate all restrictions on abortion in every state in the Union by executive fiat.  But change is good, right?

My body is changing.  I used to be able to read 6 point type without glasses.  Now 6 point type just looks like dust on the paper.  I can’t read it with my glasses.  I used to bounce back from a basketball game nearly as quickly as a basketball.  I once had thick dark brown hair.  But that has all changed.  But I keep hearing that change is good.

Well, the times, they are a changin‘.  And change is good. Right?

Here is the piece I would have written had I the time.  I read this and thought it needed to get out.  It incapsulates much of the case against Obama just before the election.  That is, just before it is too late.  This came from the Patriot Post.

The Audacity of Deception
By Mark Alexander
If you are perplexed, even bewildered, by the number of Americans who
normally make logical and rational decisions but now support Barack Obama, I
refer you to a lucid explanation for this phenomenon in the opening pages of
the candidate¹s political autobiography, The Audacity of Hope. He writes, “I
am new enough on the national political scene that I serve as a blank screen
on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own
views… I am bound to disappoint some… of them.”
Beyond the projection and deception, however, elections have consequences.
Some of Obama¹s supporters, the formerly logical and rational, will be first
in the soup line of deceived disappointees expressing buyer¹s remorse. They
will awaken from the stupor of all the good feelings that attracted them to
Obama and face the hard realities of the Socialist agenda they enabled.
In this, the final week of the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama bought 30
minutes of prime time on several networks to air an infomercial in which he
endeavored to pass as something other than the ideological Socialist he is.
Feigning the fiscal conservatism of Ronald Reagan, Obama claimed he would
review the budget, line by line, and cut waste. He even made taxing and
spending, a.k.a. “the collectivist redistribution of wealth,” sound like a
noble democratic gesture.
At one point he said, “Just because I want to spread the wealth around, they
call me a socialist. The next thing you know, they will call me a communist
because I shared my peanut butter sandwich in kindergarten!”
Cute. Of course, Barack Obama isn¹t proposing to “share” his sandwich.
Instead, he’s proposing to take your sandwich and share it with someone
else. He’s assuming that you aren¹t charitable enough to share it yourself.
Truth is, it is unlikely Obama ever shared a sandwich with anyone. With an
average annual income of more than $500,000 between 2000 and 2006, Barack
and Michelle only gave two percent–two percent–of their income to charity.
Obama¹s running mate is even more miserly. The Bidens’ income averaged
$260,000 over the last 10 years, but they averaged just $650 a year in
charitable giving.
So much for “spreading the wealth around.”
Meanwhile, Sen. John McCain centered his soapbox message on Obama¹s penchant
to redistribute wealth, even uttering the word “socialist” in several
interviews‹and not a minute too soon.
Of course, Socialist policies are now the centerpiece of the once great
Democratic Party, packaged under the aegis of “fairness and equality” or
“investments in our infrastructure and people.”
Obama uses code words such as “political and economic justice” and
“coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.”
In the last two months, however, given the crisis of confidence in our
economy, Obama’s Socialist rhetoric has become bolder. Perhaps he’s heeding
the counsel of his mentors’ mentor, Karl Marx, who wrote, “A new revolution
is possible only in consequence of a new crisis.”
The fingerprints of Obama¹s radical Socialist mentors are all over his
“vision for America,” from his early childhood tutor, Communist Party USA
member Frank Marshall Davis, to his black radical spiritual advisor,
Jeremiah Wright, to the benefactors who launched his political career,
radical terrorists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.These are the Leftists who fed Obama¹s unmitigated narcissism and shaped his warped worldview, which he now seeks to inflict upon the entire nation. Even
his campaign icon implies “Obama over America.”
Of course, when asked about his relationship with these radicals, Obama
responds, “[These people] are not advisors or donors to my campaign,” at
which point an adoring press corps dutifully moves on to the next question.
Despite having spent 20 years as a disciple of Wright, the man who
officiated at Obama¹s marriage and baptized his children, the man whom Obama
describes as “a father figure,” he claims he never inhaled any of his
spiritual mentor’s racial hatred‹never even heard any of it.
Obama claims that Bill Ayers was “just a guy in my neighborhood,” and “I was
just eight years old when he was a terrorist.” However, Obama was 34 when
Ayers used his radical celebrity to launch Obama¹s political career, and he
was 40 when this unrepentant terrorist was featured in a New York Times
article (on the morning of September 11, 2001) and quoted in the opening
paragraph proclaiming, “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do
Ayers added, “America makes me want to puke.” Obama was working on his
second major “philanthropic” project with Ayers at that time.
In addition, there are Obama¹s ties to the Socialist New Party, the ACORN
crowd, Father Michael Pfleger, Khalid al-Mansour, Kwame Kilpatrick, Louis
Farrakhan, Tony Rezko, Rashid Khalidi, Raila Odinga and other haters, hard
Leftists and convicted felons.
George Bernard Shaw once wrote, “A government which robs Peter to pay Paul
can always depend on the support of Paul.” All committed Socialists
understand this principle.
For example, when Obama asserts, “We’ll ensure that economic justice is
served–that’s what this election is about… I think when you spread the
wealth around, it’s good for everybody,” that is tantamount to buying votes.
Michelle Obama echoes her husband’s redistributionist philosophy: “The truth
is, in order to get things like universal healthcare and a revamped
education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their
pie so that someone else can have more.”
In 1916, a minister and outspoken advocate for liberty, William J. H.
Boetcker, published a pamphlet entitled The Ten Cannots . “You cannot bring
about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by
weakening the strong. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You
cannot build character and courage by taking away man’s initiative and
independence. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men. You cannot
lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot keep out of
trouble by spending more than your income. You cannot establish security on
borrowed money. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they
will not do for themselves.”
A century later, Democrats are utterly ignorant of these principles. In
fact, Barack Obama’s campaign is built around their antithesis–“The Ten
I was speaking with a friend recently, a man who lived most of his life
under the Communist regime in the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic. He has
spent several years and continues to incur many legal expenses in his
endeavor to become a U.S. citizen, but he has since lost his enthusiasm.
“The prospect of an Obama presidency is like dèja vu for me,” he explained.
“The socialist goal back home was that everyone had equal wealth. They met
that goal–eventually no one had anything. Any attempt to work harder to
achieve a better standard of living for your family was considered contrary
to the welfare of the state, and dutifully discouraged. Socialism is a big
hole, easy to fall into and hard to climb out of.”
He lamented, “The American dream is not something I want to wake up from–but
too many Americans have no idea what they have, and are about to lose it.
Socialism seems an appealing ideal, collective ownership, equal society,
‘sharing the wealth,’ et cetera. But it has a downside: It doesn’t work.”
Indeed it doesn¹t work. It creates wards of the state–slaves, if you will.
In the 1980s, I spent enough time in Socialist countries, including the old
USSR, to know that we want to avoid, at all costs, a USSA. If we could
gather up all Americans who, knowingly or unknowingly, support collectivist
policies like those espoused by Barack Obama and transport them to the old
USSR for a week, they could see the terminus of such policies–he walking
dead–and the wisest among them would rethink their support for statist
concepts such as “sharing the wealth.”
It is no small irony that as the younger generations of former Communist
countries around the world are moving rapidly toward liberty and free
enterprise, our nation is moving rapidly toward Socialism and a tyranny of
the few.
Barack Obama recently said, “I don’t find myself particularly scary or
particularly risky.” It was a weak attempt at self-effacing humor, but make
no mistake: Barack Hussein Obama’s Socialist policies are both scary and
“Hope” and “change” may be pleasant catchall bromides, but as Benjamin
Franklin wrote in Poor Richard’s Almanac, “He that lives upon Hope will die
On change, John Adams wrote, “A Constitution of Government once changed from
Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”
To that end, in 1787, the year our Constitution was adopted, Thomas
Jefferson, wrote, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time
with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
Let’s not go there, yet.