Speak oft and carry a big shtick

Obama loves the meaningless pronouncement. For instance, his hollow executive order to “prevent” federal funding of abortion, in a word, won’t – but it was cover enough to excuse holdouts to vote for ObamaCare. Thank goodness he doesn’t alter the status quo with his announcement not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear nations. The NYT fails to see it that way and thinks words are stronger than sticks:

It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the Cold War. For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons, or launched a crippling cyberattack.

Really? Our nukes aren’t going away. It’s only Obama’s word that prevents us to use nukes in specific contingencies. As Mary Poppins says, that’s a pie crust promise ‘easily made and easily broken’. That should be ambiguous enough for our enemies. After all, he's my president and I don’t trust him. Furthermore, this promise expires when he is replaced as president – unless Obama finds it convenient to move up the expiration date.

This isn’t a sop for our enemies – they’re not stupid. There is someone else Obama is trying to cover; perhaps Stupak’s buddies in Congress beholden to lefty constituents. Those constituents will see through this every bit as much as Stupak’s right to life constituents saw through Obama’s executive order. From the WSJ:
To many arms-control advocates, the review is likely to be a
disappointment. "It's a status quo document, I think, in virtually every
respect," said Bruce Blair, president of World Security Institute and
co-coordinator of Global Zero, a disarmament group.

Cross-posted at Anatreptic

If they cheat, maybe their cause isn't just

Greenpeace has become an oxymoron:

The politicians have failed. Now it's up to us. We must break the law to make the laws we need: laws that are supposed to protect society, and protect our future. Until our laws do that, screw being climate lobbyists. Screw being climate activists. It's not working. We need an army of climate outlaws

This green warrior is a little late calling forth the eco-outlaws. Activists have long been spiking trees, bid tampering land lease auctions, committing arson to name a few eco-crimes in vogue. Or does he fit the definition of someone who keeps doing the same thing but expecting different results?

What is new is the rash of law breaking designed to perpetuate the religion of environmentalism or cash in on the eco-duped. For instance Phil Jones, former director of the East Angilia Climate Unit would be facing charges for violating freedom of information laws (ed.: if not for the statute of limitations). He was trying to hide information that didn't support the eco-theology. The EU is embroiled in fraudulent carbon credits. Every day it seems, a new eco-fraud story appears:

It might sound like common sense. But the misspelling of an expert’s name in a multibillion-dollar environmental lawsuit filed against Chevron is what tipped off Chevron’s lawyers to the fact that the reports may have been fudged, a fact that has now been conceded by the expert himself...

The disclosure comes in the midst of a huge lawsuit accusing Chevron of causing widespread environmental damage in the Ecuadorean rain forest. In 2004, the plaintiffs hired an American biologist named Charles Calmbacher to help oversee soil and water tests in Ecuador.

Reports signed by Calmbacher showed high levels of toxins at two sites and estimated the contamination would cost more than $40 million to clean up at these sites alone.

But in a sworn deposition last week, Calmbacher said he didn’t write the reports submitted over his signature, which said the sites were highly polluted and needed remediation.

“I concluded that I did not see significant contamination that posed immediate threat to the environment or to humans or wildlife around it,” Calmbacher said, according to a transcript provided by Chevron.

Eco-fraud is certainly run by "Green" outlaws - perhaps not the types Mr. Green Warrier is enlisting, but he ignores them at his peril. The politicians at Copenhagen did fail to enact his agenda - but I submit they were in fact influenced a great deal by the unraveling of outlaw eco-huckster schemes.

Update: Rewrote the post to better express my point.

Update II: Here it is April 6, and I woke up to 12 inches of white global warming. I know it's only weather when it snows and Global Warming when it doesn't but just saying...

Cross-posted at Anatreptic

While you were occupied by ObamaCare...

The Democrats destroyed the free-flow of private capital from the U.S:

On March 18, with very little pomp and circumstance, president Obama passed the most recent stimulus act, the $17.5 billion Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (H.R. 2487), brilliantly goalseeked by the administration's millionaire cronies to abbreviate as HIRE. As it was merely the latest in an endless stream of acts destined to expand the government payroll to infinity, nobody cared about it, or actually read it. Because if anyone had read it, the act would have been known as the Capital Controls Act, as one of the lesser, but infinitely more important provisions on page 27, known as Offset Provisions - Subtitle A—Foreign Account Tax Compliance, institutes just that. In brief, the Provision requires that foreign banks not only withhold 30% of all outgoing capital flows (likely remitting the collection promptly back to the US Treasury) but also disclose the full details of non-exempt account-holders to the US and the IRS. And should this provision be deemed illegal by a given foreign nation's domestic laws (think Switzerland), well the foreign financial institution is required to close the account. It's the law. If you thought you could move your capital to the non-sequestration safety of non-US financial institutions, sorry you lose - the law now says so.

So be prepared to prepared to lose 30% of your capital if you want to invest it overseas. The Dems have to get someone to buy those T-bills to extend the debt.

This is a big deal, because your government effectively gets to control your foreign investments. One more thing - It's highly likely you first read about this takeover in a blog. The legacy media continues to cover for our DemoMarxists.

H/T SDA

Cross-posted at Anatreptic

Constitution means whatever liberals say it means

Interestingly Charles Lane becomes a strict constructionalist when it comes to interpreting the constitutionality of healthcare:

On the merits of the issue, I agree with health reform’s supporters that one’s decision not to buy health insurance has economic ripple effects. Basically, it turns you into a free-rider and that imposes costs on everyone else in the risk pool. As Prof. Erwin Chemerinsky recently put it: “There is no constitutionally protected freedom to be able to refuse to be insured or to avoid paying for the benefits provided.”

Do you think Charles would be consistent and conclude that there is no constitutionally protected freedom to be able to have an abortion?

I didn't think so.

But, Chemerinsky is right - there is no constitutionally protected freedom to be able to refuse to be insured or to avoid paying for the benefits provided - if you think in terms of enumerated rights. It wasn't necessary when the constitution was written and first ratified. The constitution doesn't grant rights. It puts limits on Government's intrusion on our rights. From the text it is clear that making a citizen buy health insurance isn't in the purview of Congress's power. Professor Chemerinsky begs to differ, citing the commerce clause and the potential impact if "society" winds up picking up a future tab for an uninsured (where is it written that we must pay?) The commerce clause argument is a stretch when we are dealing with someone who refuses to participate in commerce. And what about the significant chunk of folks who are self insured; the ones who don't have insurance because they will pay their own way? Chemerinsky's argument is only vaild in terms of the modern court's willingness to stretch the constitution to acheive liberal ends. It will be interesting to see how the courts rule this time.

ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS:
Lane's and Chemerinsky's argument to compel people to purchase insurance hinges on covering the individual liability they potentially pose. For young people, that would normally result in a low premium. With Obamacare, however, a massive amount of a young person's premium is just wealth transfer to pay for someone else's healthcare. Wouldn't the term "free-rider" apply here? But wait, isn't this why Lane and Chemerinsky say it isn't fair for someone not to buy insurance?
Cross-posted at Anatreptic

Repeal Obamacare

You might have a winning campaign issue when 55 percent of the people support it.Let's develop this.

Cross-posted in Anatreptic

Trouble for Bennett

Utah Republicans held their caucus tonight. If the turnout at other precincts was anything like the one I attended, then Republican Senator Bob Bennett has cause to worry - but that depends on whether Bennett's opposition is better organized than the ones who showed up at my precinct. Mick fills you in on the details of Bennett's problems here.

At my precinct, we had nearly four times as many people show up than in 2008 - and that was a presidental election year. The extra folks showed up to vote against Bob Bennett - or vote for delegates that will vote against Bob Bennett. They were not organized, however, and ironically they managed to dilute their votes so that the two delegates we did elect will be Bennett supporters. This happened because our precinct chose to elect the two nominees that came in first and second in vote count out of a slate of nominees voted on simultaneously. About eight candidates were nominated - only two were supporters of Bob Bennett. If you supported Bob Bennett (I did for the same reasons Mick noted), you only had two choices. The opposition had six choices and thus they managed to get Bob Bennett two delegates.

Bennett opponents could have easily insisted on majority rule but they didn't. Thus these anti-Bennett folks became a case study for Mick's point about operating on anger:

...there are plenty of places on the Internet, cable television and radio that you can go to hear people rant and rave about this. I don't want to--I want to win. Winning takes a clear strategy, extensive planning and a disciplined execution.

At this precinct, none of the anti-Bennett nominees for delegate knew anything about the other candidates running against Bennett. Not one could name an alternative candidate who they would vote for instead of Bennett. With the exception of Merrill Cook, who doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hades of being taken seriously again, all of the other declared candidates are political novices. That shouldn't necessarily be a disqualifier but it should give one pause considering how the novices at my precinct managed to elect delegates opposed to their view.

Bob Bennett got lucky in my precinct but the numbers were against him. If his oppostion in other precincts was not as disarrayed, he may be sitting out the primary.

UPDATE:
More bad news for Bennett from Dave Kirkham:

My Tea Party buddies texted me all night from their own precincts as Bennett supporters fell. EVERYWHERE, Bennett was toxic. In our straw poll, Bennett came in 3rd. Maybe there is hope after all.

I attended the Tea Party rally Kirkham organized last April at the Salt Lake Federal Building. Bennett was loudly boo'ed then - almost a year ago. Something to consider for those politicians who think that dissatisfaction was a one time flash in the pan.

Cross-posted at Anatreptic

What hath Congress wrought?

The health care bill, now passed by both House and Senate democrats, will end the health care debate just like the Missouri compromise ended the debate on slavery. Pelosi and company think they have passed a bill, soon to be law, that will be irrevocable. Before the election of Scott Brown, I may have conceded, but now the democrats have willfully voted against the majority interest of this nation. In so doing, they have set the themes for the 2010 and 2012 campaigns. In their haste the democrats have:
1) Established 50% plus 1 rule. They have killed the need for a super majority in the Senate. What they have built with 50% +1 support can be undone by the same.
2) In their effort to lie about the health care costs, they enacted economy killing taxes that will be implemented years before "benefits" will be seen. Unlike Social Security and Medicare, the democrats have not built a constituency to support Obamacare, instead they have placed the burr of disatisfaction under the saddle they have just laid on the middle class.
3) They have succeded in energizing an opposition who will use points 1 and 2 above.

Cross-posted in Anatreptic

Matheson still undecided?

I called congressman Jim Matheson's office yesterday afternoon. Actually I called three offices before I could get through to the one in St. George. His staffer said he still hadn't declared how he would vote on the health care bill. He isn't my congressman but the lady asked me how I wanted him to vote anyway. She recorded my opposition and my home town. I only live twenty-five minutes from his Salt Lake office. He votes yes at the peril of people like me swarming his district as volunteers for his opponent - not to mention the influence we will already exert on friends and family living in the district.

I expect Matheson will vote no. He voted no last time and the bill hasn't improved. I speculate Nancy Pelosi already knows he is a firm no and has asked he keep mum so the margin of votes in play seems larger.

Cross-posted at Anatreptic

APropaganda

Yesterday the AP reported a CBO finding that the Senate health care bill would actually reduce the deficit:

In a bit of bookkeeping, the Congressional Budget Office on Thursday released its final cost estimates for the bill the Senate passed on Christmas Eve. That 10-year, $875 billion plan would reduce the federal deficit and cover 31 million people who'd otherwise be uninsured. The Senate bill is the foundation of the proposal that Obama wants Congress to pass in the next few weeks. But the numbers will change yet again with the new version.

The AP failed to mention the fantastical ground rules the CBO was operating with to arrive at such happy news. Somehow though the public opinion is being informed despite the perfidy of the AP:

Two-out-of-three voters (66%) also believe the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats is likely to increase the federal deficit. That's up six points from late November and comparable to findings just after the contentious August congressional recess. Ten percent (10%) say the plan is more likely to reduce the deficit and 14% say it will have no impact on the deficit.

Underlying this concern is a lack of trust in the government numbers. Eighty-one percent (81%) believe it is at least somewhat likely that the health care reform plan will cost more than official estimates. That number includes 66% who say it is very likely that the official projections understate the true cost of the plan.

AP - All Propaganda. Just another reason why the legacy media is being bypassed.

Cross-posted in Anatreptic

Why Don't Ask Don't Tell Won't Change

This photograph was taken during the time President Clinton was wrangling with Senator Sam Nunn about homosexuals serving in the military. Senator Nunn was chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The photo was on the front page of my local paper - it probably made the front page of most papers in the nation. It devasted Clinton's efforts to allow gays to openly serve in the military. What was once just a military policy, that could have been overturned by the president, became the law of the land.

The reason the law won't be overturned anytime soon has nothing to do with what the Generals or Admirals think (there are probably enough now who would support overturning the ban, if not for the law, just to curry favor with a liberal president). The reason the law will remain in place is parents don't want their eighteen year old sons and daughters sleeping next to a homosexual. Those parents vote. Incidentally, I'm with the parents on this one.

Cross-posted in Anatreptic

Ignorance of the Journalists

“I tell you I have been in the editorial business going on fourteen years, and it is the first time I ever heard of a man's having to know anything in order to edit a newspaper.”
- Mark Twain, How I Edited an Agricultural Paper Once

Last week the Guardian broke a story that had been in the blogosphere for at least two years:

A Guardian investigation of thousands of emails and documents apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations were seriously flawed and that documents relating to them could not be produced

It is interesting that the “evidence” the Guardian relies on is the email discussion by CRU scientists that the non-CRU researcher responsible for the data “screwed up”. The actual argument for the screw up is in this 2007 paper written by Douglas Keenan. Sans Keenan’s paper, the email exchange is meaningless. But the Guardian didn’t give any credence to Keenan’s thesis until the “establishment” scientists were shown, via the climategate emails, to have done so. Keenan’s paper speaks for itself, but the Guardian journalists do not exhibit any ability to make their own independent judgment. Now that they can’t trust the establishment, where will the Guardian go for critical analysis?

RELATED:

The march of the poodles. Steyn notes the failure of journalism in the climate debate. The point I'm trying to make above is that failure is largely due to the ignorance of the J-school types who must rely on others for their critical thinking. Considering the liberal bent of their training, it is not surprising these journalist tend to trust the views of their liberal ("establishment") climate scientists - especially when opposing views are labeled heretical by the same establishment.

Cross-posted at Anatreptic

Behind the Scenes

While there is no doubt that voter anger and disgust over Obama's leftist agenda is fueling support for Scott Brown's senate campaign, I thought this was interesting:

Largely overlooked in assessing Brown’s prospects: the hidden hand of Mitt Romney. The former Massachusetts governor headlined at a fundraiser for Brown last October. And Romney has helped Brown raise money outside the state as well. “I know Scott and how determined he is to win. I've campaigned for him, raised money on his behalf, and we're doing all we can to help him over the finish line,” Romney wrote supporters last Monday. Brown, 50, raised $1.3 million that day.

But lest anyone accuse Romney of being a Johnny-come-lately—stepping up only as Brown has vaulted from sacrificial lamb to serious threat—the 2008 presidential hopeful has lent crucial support behind the scenes from the start of Brown’s campaign. Ever since he entered the race to succeed the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, Brown has been counseled by members of the Shawmut Group, a Boston-based consulting firm that acts as the Romney political brain trust in exile. Among the many Romney disciples running Brown’s campaign are Beth Myers, the campaign manager of Romney’s presidential run; Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney’s chief spokesman; Peter Flaherty, Romney’s “go-to-guy for conservatives”; and Rob Cole, Romney’s 2008 deputy chairman manager. Beth Lindstrom, another player in Romney World, is working as Brown’s campaign manager. Lindstrom’s ties to Romney go back years; she started working with him in the Massachusetts State House as director of consumer affairs.

It also doesn't hurt that the former Massachusetts governor cut his political teeth running for the same seat directly against Kennedy.

Cross-posted at Anatreptic

What can Brown do for you?

Michael Graham, of the Boston Herald,tallys the upside.

Scott Brown, the Republican candidate running for the Massachusetts senate seat vacated by Ted Kennedy, is making the Democratics earn the seat this time. He even has a shot at winning. If the Democrats didn't think Obamacare motivates opposition, they need to mull over yesterday's campaign moneybomb. The Brown campaign sought to raise $500K in a one day drive - they more than doubled their goal at $1.3M.

Cross-posted at Anatreptic

Happy New Year!

Earth could plunge into sudden ice age

And it's still your fault:

In the film, "The Day After Tomorrow," the world gets gripped in ice within the span of just a few weeks. Now research now suggests an eerily similar event might indeed have occurred in the past.

Looking ahead to the future, there is no reason why such a freeze shouldn't happen again — and in ironic fashion it could be precipitated if ongoing changes in climate force the Greenland ice sheet to suddenly melt, scientists say. Starting roughly 12,800 years ago, the Northern Hemisphere was gripped by a chill that lasted some 1,300 years. Known by scientists as the Younger Dryas and nicknamed the"Big Freeze," geological evidence suggests it was brought on when a vast pulse of fresh water — a greater volume than all of North America's Great Lakes combined — poured into the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans.

This abrupt influx, caused when the glacial Lake Agassiz in North America burst its banks, diluted the circulation of warmer water in the North Atlantic, bringing this "conveyer belt" to a halt. Without this warming influence, evidence shows that temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere plummeted.

...This kind of scenario would not discount evidence pointing toward global warming — after all, it leans on the Greenland ice sheet melting.

"We could say that global warming could lead to a dramatic cooling," Patterson told LiveScience. "This should serve as a further warning rather than a pass."

A pass on what? Kyoto, "Cap and Trade", Copenhagen?. If only cavemen had climate scientists they could have been warned about the dangers of cooking meat.

What a racket. Our modern soothsayers have now predicted our SUV's will lead to Global Cooling or Global Warming - whichever comes first. Send more money and remember, when the future happens - they predicted it.

Addendum: If you are worried about the ice sheets of Greenland melting, read this to see what passes for science among the Anthropormorphic Global Warming crowd.

Cross-posted at Anatreptic

HHS Death Panels

Who ya gonna believe?

... The Department of Health and Human Services recommended women not get mammograms until age 50, and then only every two years.

It's a stunning reversal and a break with the American Cancer Society's long-standing position. What's more, the panel said breast self-exams do no good, and women shouldn't be taught to do them.

Dr. Brett Parkinson, the medical director of the Breast Cancer Center at IMC, says, "I think the important thing women can do is to look to the organizations that have proven trustworthy." At Intermountain Medical Center, 20 percent of their breast cancer patients are between the ages of 40 and 49; that's the age the new guidelines discourages from getting mammograms. That's the big reason why the medical director of the Breast Cancer Center at IMC does not agree the new recommendations.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a government panel of doctors and scientists is getting swift pushback:

The recommendations were based on commissioned studies, but Parkinson says, "not one breast cancer expert was on the panel. Nobody in the imaging world, the people who work with mammography, was involved in this project.

...For most of the past two decades, the American Cancer Society has been recommending annual mammograms beginning at 40, and it reiterated that position on Monday.

...Susan G. Komen organization and the American College of Radiology agree with the American Cancer Society.

With government controlled healthcare on the horizon, one won't be sure if a government recommendation is for your health or their budget. But hey, everyone else is doing it:

The panel's new recommendations are more in line with international guidelines, which call for screening to start at age 50; the World Health Organization recommends the test every two years, and Britain says every three years.

How's that working for Britain?

Politically this has got to be a bonehead move on the part of HHS. Didn't anyone tell them that the boss is trying to get socialized medicine through Congress. Ixnay on anything that smacks of death panels until it's a lock.

UPDATE: HHS's Sebelius finally gets the memo.


Cross-posted at Anatreptic

The Non-Combatant Status of Major Nidal Malik Hasan

After the Fort Hood massacre, one of my friends was surprised to learn our military bases are actually gun free zones. Another irony of military life. Chances are, if Major Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire off post, there might have been a concealed weapon available. In 1991, a gunman did open fire in a Luby's cafeteria in Killeen - the town outside Fort Hood - and killled 23 people. Suzzanna Hupp, a patron who lost both her parents in that massacre, had left her gun in her car because she did not have a concealed carry permit. As a result of the Luby massacre, Texas reduced the restrictions for concealed carry permits.

Another thing that non-military experienced folks might not be aware of is that as a medical officer, Major Hasan is considered a non-combatant. Despite the image of Frank Burns brandishing a firearm, medical personnel may not use arms against enemy forces acting in conformity with the law of armed conflict. Of course there is that caveat "acting in conformity with the law of armed conflict" - since when has America had an enemy oblige? Nonetheless, the U.S. conforms to the law. Speculation that Major Hasan was conflicted about fighing Muslims is baseless. He wouldn't have been permitted to even if he desired.

Cross-posted in Anatreptic

Nothing to do with Islam

One day after the Fort Hood massacre, my local TV station, KSL, is telling us nothing to see here, move on:

Reaction from Utah's Muslim community to Thursday's deadly shootings at Fort Hood is one of sadness and regret that the gunman is of their faith. Their leaders are anxious for people of other faiths to understand what he did has nothing to do with Islam.
(emphasis added)

Many devout Muslims are horrified about the Fort Hood massacre, but the idea that violence has "nothing to do with Islam" is fiction. Just in 2009, the world has endured at least 1673 incidents of terrorism, honor killings, and religious executions - all in the name of Islam.

7,869 deaths and 15,394 injuries. This year.

Ignoring Iraq and Afghanistan still leaves 4,046 murders in 36 countries. The level of violence associated with Islam dwarfs that associated with the world's other leading religions. Despite KSL's report, there are many adherents who do find violence an acceptable expression of Islam. To state or imply otherwise is misleading.

Cross-posted in Anatreptic

Sure Iran can't be trusted

A reader at Instapundent comments about Iranian duplicity with the Obama administration:

Now we know why Obama turned his back on Iranian protesters. Note that the secret negotiations began in June. What else went on in June in Iran? Oh yeah… those pesky election results protests.

Basically, he turned his back on the Iranian people because that whole free election fight of theirs wasn’t nearly as important as the nuclear deal he was working out with Iran’s regime. Too bad the regime couldn’t be trusted to actually live up to its end of the bargain. Big surprise there, that you can’t trust political leaders who believe in silencing their own people…

Maybe that should serve as an object lesson to us about Obama…

Object lesson noted, however, when the President is willing to mislead Americans (deficit neutral health care comes to mind) and renege on allies (Eastern Europeon missile protection anyone?) why would Iranian leadership be expected to trust Mr. Obama?

Cross-posted at Anatreptic

Europe's "Free" Healthcare

A letter to the WSJ editor illustrating Europe's "free" health care:

Regarding "Mrs. Pelosi's VAT" (Review & Outlook, Oct. 8): Several years ago when our children were very young, my wife and I hosted a different European au pair each year for six years. During the course of their stay in America, each au pair proudly commented that in their respective European country medical care was free.

When their time with us came to an end, each au pair went to the Mall of America and purchased several pairs of jeans, as well as other clothes, before returning home. At the time, jeans cost between $15 and $30 each. I asked these young women why they were buying so many jeans before returning to their country. With some astonishment at my lack of understanding, they explained that the same jeans in their country retailed for between $80 and $100. The price differential, of course, was due to the value-added tax and the higher costs of doing business in European welfare states.

I thought to myself, "Ah, but your medical care is "free."

Mark Douglass

Minneapolis

Cross-posted at Anatreptic