SNOW BALLS CHANCE IN HELL: Obama, ‘I Must Win Back Credibility’On Thursday, President Obama took to the White House podium to explain that he would be unilaterally allowing insurance companies to continue selling health insurance plans Americans liked and wanted to keep. Obamacare has already ... READ MORE
A Cut-Rate President’s War on Bad ApplesIs that really the best they can do? After weeks of taking body blow after body blow, the Obama Administration settled on some new talking points which they feel will deflect the rising tide of […] ...READ MORE
The progressive socialist democrats did this to America – and 5,000,000+ Americans are worried sick over their insurance coverage on January 1, 2014 – some who are sick and dying …
The progressive socialist democrats crafted the Obamacare legislation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, in secret with help from progressive socialist foundations and industry lobbyists from special interest groups such as the pharmaceutical and durable medical equipment industries. No Republican input allowed.
The progressive socialist democrats passed the legislation en mass without one Republican vote, some say unconstitutionally using a Senate rules trick that never saw the revised Senate version given a full House vote. No Republican amendments were allowed and special concessions for swing-vote members of Congress were built into the law.
The progressive socialist democrats were advised in 2010 that the law was deeply flawed and that millions of Americans would lose their coverage and doctors when the legislation was implemented and people forced to purchase insurance through exchanges. Of course, this was the plan as they needed millions of Americans to abandon their current plans and accept higher-priced plans that would subsidize premium payments for those who could not afford insurance. The democrats voted en mass to kill a Senate initiative that would hold Obama to his promise of allowing people to keep their insurance and doctor if they were satisfied with their current plans. Nowhere did the President or democrat members of Congress explain that the new regulations forced insurance companies to cancel their existing insurance offerings because they did not meet Obamacare standards.
Now the not so unintended consequences have come home to roost. Obamacare is a failure of epic proportions. Billions of taxpayer dollars spent recklessly and millions of American citizens forced to suffer, not knowing if their continuing treatments would be covered come January 1, 2014. Not that they could even get on the website to see their insurance options.
And, all through this debacle, the President of the United States lied to the American people, repeatedly telling them they could keep their current insurance plan and doctors.
With the 2014 congressional election cycle looming large, the progressive socialist democrats are scrambling for cover lest they be turned out of office in response to the wanton, callous, and unconstitutional way they treated Americans – with many suffering real pain and anxiety as they sought to keep life-saving insurance plans in effect while they were undergoing treatment.
Dozens of House Democrats back Republican healthcare bill
Dealing a blow to President Obama’s effort to fix problems with his healthcare law, more than three dozen House Democrats voted Friday to support a Republican-sponsored bill to address the crisis, brushing aside White House warnings that the legislation would only make matters worse.
Thirty-nine Democrats joined Republicans in a 261-157 vote to approve the legislation, offered by Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), which would allow insurers to continue selling individual policies that do not meet new federal standards. Read more at: Dozens of House Democrats back Republican healthcare bill - latimes.com
Bottom line …
I say FU*K the progressive socialist democrats who have brought pain and suffering to five million of our fellow citizens and wasted billions of dollars in a legislative program that nationalized one-sixth of the nation’s economy and ensured that Americans would be bled dry in order to implement socialist wealth redistribution in the guise of “health justice.”
Throw these rat bastards out of office before they can further screw over America with immigration reform and global warming reforms that also feature wealth redistribution and socialist ideology.
Too little, too late should be the mantra you take into the voting booth. Regardless of the promises democrats continue to make. The President lied on Obamacare, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the IRS and NSA scandals – so what makes you think you can trust the liar-in-chief and his cadre of progressive socialist democrats now. Likewise, the mainstream media and Hollywood crowd who acted as cheerleaders because they voted black instead of voting competent.
Oprah Winfrey, despite her billionaire status and approval by women of all races, never hesitates to play the race card when it is to her advantage or to promote radical progressive socialism in the form of President Barack Obama.
What Oprah does not seem to understand is that the democrats, starting with Jimmy Carter, proceeding with Bill Clinton, and now with Barack Obama, have disgraced the Office of the President of the United States with their non-existent foreign and domestic policies, and in Clinton’s case – sex in the Oval Office with an intern.
Oprah has it wrong. People are now seeing President Obama for what he really is: a liar and an incompetent egomaniac who blames his failure on others. Oprah does not get that it is Obama’s corruption and incompetence that is sowing the seeds of discord and personal disdain for the President.
What she said … (The comments about President Obama appear at 03:50)
Remember when the Senator yelled out you’re a liar …
Well, President Obama IS a liar – and he deserves no respect!
Notice that she is creating controversy and a buzz … because she is promoting her film.
American broadcaster and actress Oprah Winfrey said there was a whole generation of racist people who were "born and bred and marinated" in racism who would never change their ways, but that would die out.
Unfortunately, racism will not die out as long as there are race-baiters like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Oprah Winfrey who can play the race card for power, prestige, and profits. Notice that she never says anything about the black gangs – domestic terrorists – that are plaguing the black community. And, notice she never acknowledges that most of the racists and KKK members were democrats, and it was the Republicans were the ones promoting civil rights.
Bottom line …
It’s not so much that Barack Hussein Obama is half-black who self-identifies as an African America, but that he is a lying, incompetent, asshole who has screwed over the people of the United States with his cronyism, lack of a foreign and domestic policy, and brought real pain and suffering to Americans with Obamacare.
As for Oprah, I hope she doesn’t continue her progressive socialist democrat meme and continue to denigrate the United States that made her a billionaire.
As we have seen with the recent political crisis involving Obamacare – where public policies were drafted in such a manner as to knowingly inflict pain and suffering on the American people in order to bring about a socialistic “fair” model of healthcare and to cede the power for controlling an individual’s healthcare to the government. The arm-twisting, strong-arming, and dishonest actions of our present Administration are on display for all to see. Emperor Obama has lied to the American people and has no clothes.
In view of how the healthcare system was manipulated, perhaps we now need to examine how the subject of global warming was also manipulated to support the same socialistic ideology of population control, wealth redistribution, and class fairness.
So let us examine some of the fundamental questions related to global warming. Eh! (The Eh! is for my Canadian friend who ranks me in the top fifteen or so climate deniers. Honored, to be sure, because the real skeptics have impeccable scientific credentials and impeccable logic on their side.)
Research bias …
Each and every time I see climate activists claiming that big oil, big coal, or simply big business, is influencing the science – much in the way corrupt science falsely supported the tobacco industry – it amazes me that these very same climate activists do not see the states and federal governments being the largest special interests in the world supporting the hypothesis of global warming in order to pursue an unpalatable political agenda that would result in expanding the size and scope of government, raising taxes and prices, and worst of all, limiting individual freedoms by prohibiting or limiting certain individual activities.
It is human nature to pursue that which is the most rewarding, personally, professionally, and profitably. Therefore, one can assume with a high degree of assurance that the bulk of research being performed by institutions and investigators is that which is most likely to be funded. Therefore, if the prevailing bias is towards proving that man has a significant effect on the global climate, much of the research will be slanted towards anthropogenic global warming. With those institutions and individuals who adopt a contrarian view, receiving substantially less funding for their infrastructure and projects. Thus, a casual examination of the scientific literature will appear to be biased in favor of the position most likely to be funded. Ergo, when substantial funding is controlled by partisan or hyper-partisan politicians and bureaucrats, it would be reasonable to suspect that the bias in any funding would lead to research that could be used to further a political agenda.
In many cases, researchers can fulfill the needs of the political class by remaining essentially honest, but simply altering their conclusions using cherry-picked data or adjusting timescales. An example of this can be found in the scientific literature, where temperature data is not reported as actual temperatures, but as anomalies – deviations from a 30-year baseline. With little being said that 30-years in climatological terms is an eye-blink when compared to climate cycles that cover thousands of years. Which brings up the point that approximately 40 years ago, scientists – including the computer models of James Hansen – were suggesting that there was the probability of another “little ice age.” Something that has been proven over time to be incorrect. As for those models, they do not even correctly agree with the global cooling that has taken place over the last decade. Without computer models that support the hypothesis and the actuality, scenarios of what might occur in the future are both flawed and worthless for the purposes of driving responsible and responsive public policies.
The sad fact is that politics often trumps science, and in many instances conditions the debate, questions to be resolves, and in many cases, the flavor of the answers tend to support the prevailing political agenda. As an example of politics trumping science, let us look at how a well-credentialed, well-accomplished scientist is treated in a political environment.
From Politico Magazine, “LOCKED IN THE CABINET: The worst job in Barack Obama’s Washington”
“Steven Chu is a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, a brilliant innovator whose research fills several all-but-incomprehensible paragraphs of a Wikipedia entry that spans his achievements in single-molecule physics, the slowing of atoms through the use of lasers and the invention of something called an “optical tweezer.” President Barack Obama even credits Chu with solving the 2010 Gulf oil spill, claiming that Chu strolled into BP’s office and “essentially designed the cap that ultimately worked.” With rare exception, Chu is the smartest guy in the room, and that includes the Cabinet Room, which he occupied uneasily as secretary of energy from 2009 to the spring of 2013.
But the president’s aides didn’t quite see Chu that way. He might have been the only Obama administration official with a Nobel other than the president himself, but inside the West Wing of the White House Chu was considered a smart guy who said lots of stupid things, a genius with an appallingly low political IQ—“clueless,” as deputy chief of staff Jim Messina would tell colleagues at the time. Read more:http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/11/locked-in-the-cabinet-99374.html
I am not saying Steven Chu is always right or that some of his climate theories are substantiated by hard-core proof. What I am saying is that a credentialed scientist is being demeaned and manipulated by relatively stupid people for political purposes. Pretty much the same all over where partisan politics and ideology trumps science. The story is well worth reading as it appears to show a Valerie Jarrett/David Axelrod Chicago-style administration running a Barack Obama puppet.
The fundamental questions …
Causation – Is man causing global warming or contributing to global warming in a measurable manner? The simple answer is “we don’t know.” Much of man’s input is a signal lost against the extreme noise of a chaotic natural system. Thus, against the background of nature’s variability, we cannot conclusively “see” that man is affecting the planet in the manner described by the climate activists. The truth is that the planet has been hotter and colder prior to man’s influence (generally agreed to start with the industrial revolution).
Causation -- Is carbon dioxide the causal factor? The simple answer is “No.” From research records we can see that the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide lags the rise in temperature by 600 to 1,000 years (so much for those 30-year anomaly baselines) depending on the dataset being used. Therefore, carbon dioxide is not a causal factor. Climate activists are fond of citing the re-radiation of energy by carbon dioxide molecules, but the truth is that energy is not being created and the atmosphere is not being further heated. What is occurring is that cooling is delayed. An effect easily demonstrated in the tropics using the greatest greenhouse gas water vapor. The greenhouse gasses retard the cooling of the atmosphere and the radiation of heat into the upper atmosphere and space much like a blanket holds a sleeper’s warmth in his body. If it was true that carbon dioxide was generating heat, there would be hot spots in our upper atmosphere – and according to the latest research, they do not exist.
It should also be noted that there is a simple explanation for this rising amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide. As oceans warm, carbon dioxide is outgassed to the atmosphere much as carbon dioxide bubbles form when a beer is opened and begins warming.
The reason carbon dioxide was chosen to be demonized and controlled, is because it is the key to controlling all energy exploration, creation, storage, transportation, and usage – thus providing a politically convenient way to control our entire economy and standard of living.
Direction – Is the Earth heating or cooling? The answer is simple: “it depends on what time frame you use.” Being a naturally chaotic system, climate appears to be cyclical. That is, it has its ups and downs as nature regresses to some unknown mean value. Cycles may be delayed or shifted. Something that is happening with the Sun at the present time. We are seeing a low in sunspot production (which may affect cosmic ray impingement on the Earth and the formation of climate-altering clouds) and a lag in the reversal of the Sun’s magnetic poles. (both poles are currently the same polarity as this is written). Why? We don’t know, any more than we know what the long-term effect of global climate change might be. We do know the Earth has been cooling over the last fifteen years and none of the models predicted this scenario – they posit scenarios that have ever-increasing temperatures.
Confidence – Can we make rational public policies based on some degree of scientific certitude? The answer is “NO.” Reputable, well-credentialed scientists still disagree with the fundamental conclusions of the climate warming activists. Until these concerns are debated in a free and open forum, without consequences from peer-pressure and the potential loss of funding, the debate cannot even begin. What we are hearing today is the loud voices of the climate activists who are staking their careers and fortunes on a politically correct approach to science. Not at all the way science is really done.
Crisis – Are we at a “tipping point” and is this a planetary emergency? The simple answer is “No.” This artificial crisis was created by politicians and the media to support an urgency to adopt public policies that have adverse consequences to the populace and to overcome public resistance to these onerous policies. The easiest way to demonstrate the non-urgency of that matter is to state that the dire consequences of global climate change are based on nothing more than flawed computer models, with poor assumptions and highly massaged data. But, the real story is told in the chart below ...
As you can see, the temperature variation over the last 2,000 years has fluctuated approximately 1.2o C. Hardly a planetary catastrophe in the making. Like I have said before, the Planet has been hotter, colder, with more atmospheric carbon dioxide and less atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Resolution – Can man alter the global climate at this time? The short answer is NO! Consider the natural forces driving global climate dynamics: energy output of the Sun, position of the Earth relative to the Sun, rotational and precessional dynamics of the Earth, volcanology and plate tectonics, deep ocean currents, and the greatest greenhouse gas of all, water vapor. Against these manifest forces, man has little or no ability to change the climate dynamics on a global scale. Even if man decided to inject pollutant aerosols into the atmosphere (like the explosion of a massive volcano), the result may last a few years and only be a slight blip on the long-term graph. But the process might produce a global health catastrophe from atmospheric pollutants and unknown consequences.
Skeptics – Are climate skeptics harming the planet by delaying action? The answer is an emphatic NO! Science, by its very nature, is one of controlled skepticism. One puts forth a hypothesis, designs and experiment and/or collects data, analyzes the data, and presents the data to the scientific world. It is incumbent upon other scientists to confirm the findings, dispute the methodology, results and/or conclusions, and propose additional scientific work to be performed. So scientific skepticism is a normal function of science and only those who want to use scientific results to push their own political, professional, or profitable agenda are demonizing those who do not believe as they do.
Peer-Review – Is peer-review proof of the author’s assertions? The answer is “NO!” Unfortunately, what the public does not understand is that peer-review is a publishing process, nothing more and nothing less. It is the process where an author’s work is sent to other experts in the field to insure that there are no gross mistakes in their paper, the explanatory work and illustrations are clear, concise, and are presented logically. These reviewers express no opinion on the authenticity, correctness, or conclusions in the work. Merely that it meets the publishing requirements of the specific journal as determined by their editorial board. Many fine publications do not use peer-review, but do use editors who have subject matter knowledge. So peer-review is not an endorsement of the author, his assertions, or the conclusions that have made.
Climate-Gate – What is Climate-Gate and does it prove the fundamental dishonesty of key global warming activist/scientists? The release of stolen e-mails from one of the major climate research centers raises the suspicion that key activist/scientists have manipulated the data and the peer-review process to support their own work. Whether the work of these authors will stand the test of time is up to their fellow scientists and a naturally skeptical methodology of doing science.
Bottom line …
Dishonest people do dishonest things to promote their own agenda. From what I have determined, global warming is not the planetary catastrophe portrayed by those who are, and would, profit from public policies forced on the public by an uncertain science.
As we have seen in Obamacare, there are those who believe that the predetermined “ends” justify the “means,” fair or foul. So it is with a great deal of skepticism, both personal and scientific, that I view the billions of taxpayer dollars that have been given to politically-connected special interests.
Every summer I get an attack of the ants on my kitchen counter. They're really tiny ants. And when they first show up, there are only a few, maybe a half dozen. My reflex instinct is to just squash 'em. But sure enough the next day there are another half dozen meandering around. So, I came up with a better solution. And that is to make a solution of Borax Ant Bait. The recipe is listed below.
But it's the middle of winter now, so why am I jabbering on about my ant problem? Well, just like the winter Olympics, the ants have moved North and they're in my upstairs bathroom. It's disgusting! But I put the solution to work and by tomorrow I will have nothing but ...
dead ants, dead ants, dead ants, dead ants, dead ants, dead ants, dead ants!
Put that last part to music and you'll be singing the tune from the Pink Panther.
=== Borax ant bait Borax is the most common ingredient in house ant control products, and get this: it's absolutely 100% natural. The best way (in my opinion) to use Borax is to mix 1 cup of warm water with 1/2 cup of sugar, and 2 tablespoons of Borax. Then soak the Borax mixture up with cotton balls and place those cotton balls near any trails the ants have established in your home.
Feeding frenzy... tomorrow they'll be gone
~Yale
P.S. I found this Borax ant bait solution on many different Internet sites, so I'm sorry I can't tell who gets credit for it.
