In the State of the Union Address we heard President Obama blame the Bush Administration for all the problems including leaving a 1 trillion dollar deficit for President Obama to inherit. The deficit number is certainly true and the fact that President Bush did not properly fund the wars is also true. President Obama and the Democrats like to state that we did the "deregulation" and "tax cut" things under Bush and judging by the deficit, we can clearly see that it did not work. Therefore we must undertake the very socialistic approach of the President and his most left leaning supporters.
The problem is that this is a very good twist of the facts. The facts are that President Bush and the Republicans failed miserably on the economy but it is not capitalism that failed. The Bush Administration spent too much. Conservative capitalism must be just that... Conservative. Spending like drunken sailors (not including the wars) is not conservative. Had the Bush Administration adhered to true conservative principals, we would not be where we are today. There may certainly have been the Banking and Housing crises however, those are also not caused by conservatism or capitalism. Conservative capitalism would never allow the Freddie and Fannie debacle. Conservative capitalism says that if you can't afford it, you don't get it.
Keep in mind that the last years of the President Bush's term in office was with a majority Democrat House and Senate. He could only sign (or veto) the things that comes across his desk.
Americans as individuals need to take accountability for their own actions as well. This is not the popular thing to say but let's just cut to the quick. Those who financed a home on an arm and bought into the "the market will only go up" argument were foolish. Americans who refinanced their homes to buy fancy toys that they otherwise would not have been able to afford were foolish. Believing that a $350k home could possibly have a thousand dollar a month payment was foolish. At some point, we must look at the mistakes that we made as our own and quit calling bankers and Wall Street professionals evil. We all know that there were many criminals out there looking to take advantage but the math is not hard. It does not take a college degree to see that these deals just didn't make sense. Let's face facts. It was nothing more than individual greed that drove the housing bubble. The buyers, sellers, flippers, and the rest were all too greedy to get more for nothing than ever before and they all got burned. In the midst a many good people also got burned. The point is that it wasn't the government's fault and it wasn't all the evil bankers. Everyone has fault here.
Now back to the point at hand... By blaming everything on the previous administration President Obama is setting up the straw man argument that it was conservative capitalism that failed. The facts are that it was abuses by criminals and those who knew better that caused this problem. How many times have you heard, "If it sounds too good to be true, then it is"? We've all heard it and we've all messed up before.
I'm not against some regulation and I believe that modest regulation to protect consumers are prudent. These regulations used to be in place until the Clinton Administration lifted much of them and then the Bush Administration followed suit by further lifting them.
The Bush Administration never acted as a true conservative capitalists therefore it was not conservative capitalism that failed. It was President Clinton followed by President Bush combined with a healthy dose of human greed that led to the perfect storm. Now President Obama will have you believe that it's merely capitalism that failed. I personally blame the failure of President Bush to adhere to strict conservative principles and human greed that set the stage for President Obama's straw man argument. Please see it for what it is and do not allow the economic system that made this country great to be tossed out the window like the baby with the bath water. Remember, the government only deals in disparity, not prosperity. The government cannot make you wealthy unless you are a politician or a lobbyist.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
Massachusetts
I thank God for Scott Brown's victory because of all that it represents. It represents American's speaking out. It represents the fact that you can make a difference, even in a community as liberal as the state of Massachusetts. That's very important for people in California and in states like Maryland, Hawaii, New Jersey, and New York. You can make a difference even when you feel like it's overwhelming and nothing but an uphill struggle. Having said that, let me make one thing clear... stop the rhetoric about this guy running for President. Let's see how he truly does as a senator? Let's not jump to crazy conclusions here. The Mass. election results did not represent Scott Brown's ability to be a senator as much as it represented Americans' disgust with what's currently happening in Washington, D.C. This is a referendum on the socialist policies being forced upon Americans against their will. This is the common guy saying, "I've had enough." So again I say, don't jump to conclusions. Let's see what Scott can do.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Are you tolerant of intolerance?
Ever noticed how the liberals (mostly on college campuses) preach about tolerance. Ever notice how they are tolerant to anything that is liberal and absolutely intolerant of anything that is not within their own point of view.
If you disagree with the social programs, you're evil. If you are wealthy, you are evil. If you wish to create a social and economic environment that fosters individual accountability and independence, you are heartless. Pay attention to the political races. Now I'm not going to go on some limb to defend republicans because they are by no means perfect but just look. The liberals will even devour their own if they step out of ranks. Take for example the attacks on Joe Lieberman's wife when he balked at the Senate Health Care plan. They'll first try to convince you, then they'll discredit you, then they'll attack you. They'll act as if you don't even exist.
When there's not a defensible position, there's no argument. When one is guilty they resort to name calling, diversionary tactics, and slander. Even if there is a defensible argument for socialism, it's not here. The founding fathers set out to create a nation of free men, not kept men. A nation where men are free to succeed and fail and free from the government's intervention from either. That plan worked!
Unfortunately the media has played right into this montage and they control information (so they think). One beautiful thing about technology is that folks like you and I can write and communicate. We can go to libraries in person or online. We can do freedom of information act requests. We can read the history books of years ago and compare with what our children are being taught now. We can (and should) hold our children's educators accountable. We can hold our government accountable. We can even hold our media accountable. This is done by refusing to be silenced or ignored. This is done by writing, voting, and putting our money where our mouths are. Donate to the conservative independent candidate on the ticket and help them to win over the big lobby interests. Donating $5 each to a candidate will far outweigh what the lobbies can bring in.
The republican "status quo" is also not the answer. If republicans wish to garner our support they need to also move themselves away from the earmarks, overspending, and bribery. The republicans need to get back to the basics of Constitutional values.
Do not allow the intolerant to preach tolerance to you. Do not allow the those who preach moral relevancy talk to you about morality. Do not allow those in jets and limos to preach to you about hybrid cars.
Stand up tall and proud and speak loudly for original American Values as true Americans did in Massachusetts did tonight. Remember to be civil but be strong. Meek is not weak. You will be heard and you do have the power to bring back America to what it once was both democratically and economically.
If you disagree with the social programs, you're evil. If you are wealthy, you are evil. If you wish to create a social and economic environment that fosters individual accountability and independence, you are heartless. Pay attention to the political races. Now I'm not going to go on some limb to defend republicans because they are by no means perfect but just look. The liberals will even devour their own if they step out of ranks. Take for example the attacks on Joe Lieberman's wife when he balked at the Senate Health Care plan. They'll first try to convince you, then they'll discredit you, then they'll attack you. They'll act as if you don't even exist.
When there's not a defensible position, there's no argument. When one is guilty they resort to name calling, diversionary tactics, and slander. Even if there is a defensible argument for socialism, it's not here. The founding fathers set out to create a nation of free men, not kept men. A nation where men are free to succeed and fail and free from the government's intervention from either. That plan worked!
Unfortunately the media has played right into this montage and they control information (so they think). One beautiful thing about technology is that folks like you and I can write and communicate. We can go to libraries in person or online. We can do freedom of information act requests. We can read the history books of years ago and compare with what our children are being taught now. We can (and should) hold our children's educators accountable. We can hold our government accountable. We can even hold our media accountable. This is done by refusing to be silenced or ignored. This is done by writing, voting, and putting our money where our mouths are. Donate to the conservative independent candidate on the ticket and help them to win over the big lobby interests. Donating $5 each to a candidate will far outweigh what the lobbies can bring in.
The republican "status quo" is also not the answer. If republicans wish to garner our support they need to also move themselves away from the earmarks, overspending, and bribery. The republicans need to get back to the basics of Constitutional values.
Do not allow the intolerant to preach tolerance to you. Do not allow the those who preach moral relevancy talk to you about morality. Do not allow those in jets and limos to preach to you about hybrid cars.
Stand up tall and proud and speak loudly for original American Values as true Americans did in Massachusetts did tonight. Remember to be civil but be strong. Meek is not weak. You will be heard and you do have the power to bring back America to what it once was both democratically and economically.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Political Correctness is Political
I've already addressed this topic but I believe that you'll find my position on this as a little bit of a surprise. I believe that we must stand for Reid on this one.
I personally believe that Harry Reid needs to resign just because of the radical socialistic policies that he's forcing upon America against the overwhelming will of the people. That being said, I believe that we as Americans need to confront the Republicans who are looking for political expedience with Reid's comments about President Obama.
First, this is America and Americans have this all too often forgotten thing call freedom of speech. Secondly, what Reid said was absolutely the truth and panned out to be just that.
I've listened to all the commentators weigh in on this however they are ALL wrong.
The left "forgives" him and states that it's because of all that he's done for the African American community as a politician. I can first tell you that his socialist policies are more racist that his comments could have ever been. The left is looking to get past this quickly so that they can move on to more racial policies. The left use the black community as a tool to be used on an "as needed" basis. Harry Reid was actually one of the Senators that called for Trent Lott's resignation. Al Sharpton and President Obama jumped right on the bandwagon to forgive Reid. They did this because they need this to be over and for him to continue to push for the socialist agenda that they all have a limited time to move forward.
The right are all wrong because they are looking for nothing more than to capitalize on a situation and use it to take down a political opponent as well as to exact revenge for the Lott situation. The Republicans need to be standing up for his right to freedom of speech. The Republicans need to get past the race issue by making issue of anything that furthers their own political agenda.
what Reid said was true. Barack Obama is light skinned and this unfortunately does make a difference within the white and the black community respectively. Anyone who denies this is simply denying facts. The fact that Barack Obama is so articulate was most certainly a factor is his getting elected. Again, denying this simply is denying obvious facts.
Reid needs to go for obvious reasons but not for this. We as a society need to write our politicians as well as the radio commentators and news agencies to let them know that we're done with the politicizing of everything for their own respective gain.
Remember, you must absolutely stand for freedom. To stand for freedom, you must stand for your political opponents freedom. Freedom does not know political persuasion, freedom is God given. We must protect the freedom of ALL people.
I personally believe that Harry Reid needs to resign just because of the radical socialistic policies that he's forcing upon America against the overwhelming will of the people. That being said, I believe that we as Americans need to confront the Republicans who are looking for political expedience with Reid's comments about President Obama.
First, this is America and Americans have this all too often forgotten thing call freedom of speech. Secondly, what Reid said was absolutely the truth and panned out to be just that.
I've listened to all the commentators weigh in on this however they are ALL wrong.
The left "forgives" him and states that it's because of all that he's done for the African American community as a politician. I can first tell you that his socialist policies are more racist that his comments could have ever been. The left is looking to get past this quickly so that they can move on to more racial policies. The left use the black community as a tool to be used on an "as needed" basis. Harry Reid was actually one of the Senators that called for Trent Lott's resignation. Al Sharpton and President Obama jumped right on the bandwagon to forgive Reid. They did this because they need this to be over and for him to continue to push for the socialist agenda that they all have a limited time to move forward.
The right are all wrong because they are looking for nothing more than to capitalize on a situation and use it to take down a political opponent as well as to exact revenge for the Lott situation. The Republicans need to be standing up for his right to freedom of speech. The Republicans need to get past the race issue by making issue of anything that furthers their own political agenda.
what Reid said was true. Barack Obama is light skinned and this unfortunately does make a difference within the white and the black community respectively. Anyone who denies this is simply denying facts. The fact that Barack Obama is so articulate was most certainly a factor is his getting elected. Again, denying this simply is denying obvious facts.
Reid needs to go for obvious reasons but not for this. We as a society need to write our politicians as well as the radio commentators and news agencies to let them know that we're done with the politicizing of everything for their own respective gain.
Remember, you must absolutely stand for freedom. To stand for freedom, you must stand for your political opponents freedom. Freedom does not know political persuasion, freedom is God given. We must protect the freedom of ALL people.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Honor
The dictionary gives about twenty-five definitions for the word Honor. Depending upon the translation, the Bible uses the word Honor (or some variation) anywhere from 170 to a little over 200 times. Here are some of them:
Honor - noun
1. honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions: a man of honor.
2. a source of credit or distinction: to be an honor to one's family.
3. high respect, as for worth, merit, or rank: to be held in honor.
4. chastity or purity in a woman.
–verb (used with object)
1. to hold in honor or high respect; revere: to honor one's parents.
2. to treat with honor.
3. to confer honor or distinction upon: The university honored him with its leadership award.
4. to worship (the Supreme Being).
Bible - New American standard
Exodus 20:12 Honor your father and your mother, that your (B)days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you.
Proverbs 4:8 Prize her, and she will exalt you; She will honor you if you embrace her.
Proverbs 21:21 He who (A)pursues righteousness and loyalty Finds life, righteousness and honor.
Honor is a noun, a title, a verb, and an adjective. Honor is as old as mankind. Honor is something to give, it is something you can have, it is earned as well as lost. Honor is something that actions and/or attitudes can bring upon yourself and others. Honor is something that solicits a response. It is both a call to action and a quiet humility. Honor is praise and reverence. The word Honor encompasses nearly all things moral and upright. Honor is both meek yet full of strength and humble yet confident. Honor gives respect, even more so than it receives. Honor is a gift and a reward.
Who do you honor? How do you honor? Who do you bring honor to?
It is my belief that honor cannot be taught in a class or by reading this post. Honor is only taught by example. Children learn honor from parents and influential people within their lives.
Who brings honor to you? Who bestows honor upon you?
These questions that I put forth are rhetorical. If this makes you think, then send this to another person. Copy this and send it to the person who you believe is honorable and tell them. Copy this and send it to the person who brings honor to you and tell them. Quietly thank the One who can bestow honor upon you.
We cannot force another to be honorable, to have honor, or to give honor but we can set an example. We can be one more honorable person in world that is in deficit. The first place to start is with your parents. The Bible did not say that our parents had to be honorable for you to honor them. The Bible simply told us to honor them. This logic should apply to relationships in general. Do not wait for another to be honorable, set the standard and honor them.
Do you honor your spouse? Do you bring honor to your spouse?
I believe that now more than ever, is the time for honor.
Honor - noun
1. honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions: a man of honor.
2. a source of credit or distinction: to be an honor to one's family.
3. high respect, as for worth, merit, or rank: to be held in honor.
4. chastity or purity in a woman.
–verb (used with object)
1. to hold in honor or high respect; revere: to honor one's parents.
2. to treat with honor.
3. to confer honor or distinction upon: The university honored him with its leadership award.
4. to worship (the Supreme Being).
Bible - New American standard
Exodus 20:12 Honor your father and your mother, that your (B)days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you.
Proverbs 4:8 Prize her, and she will exalt you; She will honor you if you embrace her.
Proverbs 21:21 He who (A)pursues righteousness and loyalty Finds life, righteousness and honor.
Honor is a noun, a title, a verb, and an adjective. Honor is as old as mankind. Honor is something to give, it is something you can have, it is earned as well as lost. Honor is something that actions and/or attitudes can bring upon yourself and others. Honor is something that solicits a response. It is both a call to action and a quiet humility. Honor is praise and reverence. The word Honor encompasses nearly all things moral and upright. Honor is both meek yet full of strength and humble yet confident. Honor gives respect, even more so than it receives. Honor is a gift and a reward.
Who do you honor? How do you honor? Who do you bring honor to?
It is my belief that honor cannot be taught in a class or by reading this post. Honor is only taught by example. Children learn honor from parents and influential people within their lives.
Who brings honor to you? Who bestows honor upon you?
These questions that I put forth are rhetorical. If this makes you think, then send this to another person. Copy this and send it to the person who you believe is honorable and tell them. Copy this and send it to the person who brings honor to you and tell them. Quietly thank the One who can bestow honor upon you.
We cannot force another to be honorable, to have honor, or to give honor but we can set an example. We can be one more honorable person in world that is in deficit. The first place to start is with your parents. The Bible did not say that our parents had to be honorable for you to honor them. The Bible simply told us to honor them. This logic should apply to relationships in general. Do not wait for another to be honorable, set the standard and honor them.
Do you honor your spouse? Do you bring honor to your spouse?
I believe that now more than ever, is the time for honor.
Health Insurance and Freedom
I cannot claim originality on this because I heard most of this on the Glen Beck show last night but it really got me thinking. I'm going to ask, beg, and plead that you not simply right this off if you are not a fan of Beck. There's some real common sense to this with regard to the dangers of all of the government programs that are intended to serve and to help society. I'd like to elaborate a bit.
As I'm sure you've already read, I truly believe that the government (any government) does not deal in prosperity, they deal in disparity (mediocrity at best). The government does not make you prosper nor does it protect you into prosperity. Only your hard work and ingenuity combined with the freedom of a free market democracy can enable an extremely poor man to become wealthy. The government has no "get wealthy" programs unless you are a politician or lobbyist. We are all given freedom and the majority of Americans believe that this is given to us by God. A government limits our freedom which in many cases is good. We should not have the freedom to kill another human. We should likewise not have the freedom to steal from another, and the list goes on. These are good reasons for limited government controls. Government and laws enable us to live in a society that is safe and conducive to productive, free, and happy lives.
That's my take, now on to what Beck was saying that I completely agree with.
Beck was illustrating how health insurance is (even if unintentionally) a vehicle to take away more freedoms. We've already seen this with mandated auto insurance. After the mandatory auto insurance laws went into place to protect us from ourselves and others, we started to see things that affect insurance rates. One example is the helmet law. The argument is that when a motorcyclist is killed or severely injured, there tends to be big payouts in medical expenses, lawsuits, etc. All of those costs negatively affect the collective group of payers by driving up premiums and therefore become detrimental to the whole of society. Because of the affect on the whole the bad decision to go without a helmet no longer represents an individual decision that only affects the individual. Now society sais collectively that it is within our rights to take away a motorcyclists personal freedom to choose to wear a helmet; or not to. Once a person's decisions begin to negatively affect the whole of society, the whole of society feels that it is their collective right to take away that freedom.
Government mandated health care. What do you do that does "not" affect your health? Can you really think of anything? Every single aspect of your life in one way or another affects your health. From drinking a beer, to smoking, to eating a hamburger, to your car's emissions, to everything including being depressed or too stressed. We've already seen the attack on smoking. Clearly smoking is horrible for your health but it did not become scrutinized for potential bans and or punitive taxation until it was determined to negatively impact the whole of society. First by the second hand smoke argument which got it kicked out of bars, businesses, and even from city parks. Then it was the financial impact upon socialized medicine. After smoking the attack moved to fast foods and super sized menu items. Don't worry, they won't ban super sized McDonalds, or Beer, or probably even smoking but they'll continue to tax it because these things have become socially unpopular. Some may say this is good because we're too fat, too drunk, and coughing and maybe they're not wrong. I say that these are all personal decisions. Right now this list is the list that is socially unacceptable. What list is next? The mandated programs empower us to feel as if it is our right and duty to force healthy living upon our fellow "free" man. Will the government mandate exercise programs for fat people or mandatory gastric bypass surgeries?
I don't disagree for a minute that we should all live a more healthy lifestyle but this is my life, these are my choices, and I do not want you or the government to force this way of living on me. If that means that I have to pay for my own health care then so be it.
God gave man free will. God did this with Adam and Eve, they made some bad decisions. I'm sure that you've made some bad decisions and anyone who knows me knows that I certainly have.
Therefore, we must think about how our decisions affect individual freedom. I may not agree with how you live but I must protect your right to live that way. We must do this for two major reasons. First because if we do not take our fellow man into consideration, the government will. When the government does this it is always in the form of a new law (reduction in free will) or a new tax (punishment for exercising free will). Secondly, if you do not stand for your neighbor's freedom there will be no one left to stand with you for yours.
Remember, there is a good reason and purpose for governance. There is also a very fine line with a very slippery slope for when the government believes it their right and duty to control nearly every aspect of your life.
As I'm sure you've already read, I truly believe that the government (any government) does not deal in prosperity, they deal in disparity (mediocrity at best). The government does not make you prosper nor does it protect you into prosperity. Only your hard work and ingenuity combined with the freedom of a free market democracy can enable an extremely poor man to become wealthy. The government has no "get wealthy" programs unless you are a politician or lobbyist. We are all given freedom and the majority of Americans believe that this is given to us by God. A government limits our freedom which in many cases is good. We should not have the freedom to kill another human. We should likewise not have the freedom to steal from another, and the list goes on. These are good reasons for limited government controls. Government and laws enable us to live in a society that is safe and conducive to productive, free, and happy lives.
That's my take, now on to what Beck was saying that I completely agree with.
Beck was illustrating how health insurance is (even if unintentionally) a vehicle to take away more freedoms. We've already seen this with mandated auto insurance. After the mandatory auto insurance laws went into place to protect us from ourselves and others, we started to see things that affect insurance rates. One example is the helmet law. The argument is that when a motorcyclist is killed or severely injured, there tends to be big payouts in medical expenses, lawsuits, etc. All of those costs negatively affect the collective group of payers by driving up premiums and therefore become detrimental to the whole of society. Because of the affect on the whole the bad decision to go without a helmet no longer represents an individual decision that only affects the individual. Now society sais collectively that it is within our rights to take away a motorcyclists personal freedom to choose to wear a helmet; or not to. Once a person's decisions begin to negatively affect the whole of society, the whole of society feels that it is their collective right to take away that freedom.
Government mandated health care. What do you do that does "not" affect your health? Can you really think of anything? Every single aspect of your life in one way or another affects your health. From drinking a beer, to smoking, to eating a hamburger, to your car's emissions, to everything including being depressed or too stressed. We've already seen the attack on smoking. Clearly smoking is horrible for your health but it did not become scrutinized for potential bans and or punitive taxation until it was determined to negatively impact the whole of society. First by the second hand smoke argument which got it kicked out of bars, businesses, and even from city parks. Then it was the financial impact upon socialized medicine. After smoking the attack moved to fast foods and super sized menu items. Don't worry, they won't ban super sized McDonalds, or Beer, or probably even smoking but they'll continue to tax it because these things have become socially unpopular. Some may say this is good because we're too fat, too drunk, and coughing and maybe they're not wrong. I say that these are all personal decisions. Right now this list is the list that is socially unacceptable. What list is next? The mandated programs empower us to feel as if it is our right and duty to force healthy living upon our fellow "free" man. Will the government mandate exercise programs for fat people or mandatory gastric bypass surgeries?
I don't disagree for a minute that we should all live a more healthy lifestyle but this is my life, these are my choices, and I do not want you or the government to force this way of living on me. If that means that I have to pay for my own health care then so be it.
God gave man free will. God did this with Adam and Eve, they made some bad decisions. I'm sure that you've made some bad decisions and anyone who knows me knows that I certainly have.
Therefore, we must think about how our decisions affect individual freedom. I may not agree with how you live but I must protect your right to live that way. We must do this for two major reasons. First because if we do not take our fellow man into consideration, the government will. When the government does this it is always in the form of a new law (reduction in free will) or a new tax (punishment for exercising free will). Secondly, if you do not stand for your neighbor's freedom there will be no one left to stand with you for yours.
Remember, there is a good reason and purpose for governance. There is also a very fine line with a very slippery slope for when the government believes it their right and duty to control nearly every aspect of your life.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Make Sense of Global Warming
I'm no scientist and I'm not going to try and play one, not even on T.V. I'll try and keep this short and just interject a little common sense into this whole debate. Any sane person can read the news and see that there is a lot of debate still happening. You have scientists from both sides and politicians from both sides and, more importantly, business men from both sides arguing for and against global warming, what it's actually caused by, and how to fix it.
Common sense tells us to step back and look at few things. First and foremost I like to say, "Follow the money." Money makes the world go 'round. Never let a good crisis go to waste. And the cliches go on and on. It's all about money. Let's just be honest here folks... Al Gore actually started one of the companies that sells carbon offsets. Every time that Al Gore tells us that he's carbon neutral because he purchases carbon offsets, he's only telling you that he invested more money into his own company that he profits from. When the US and the rest of the world start their cap-n-trade, who do you think will be on the fore-front of selling the carbon credits? Furthermore, many of the scientists telling us about the impending doom are well vested in "green" companies. They tell us that it's not a conflict of interest but more of confirmation of how sure they are of their theory.
Look at the outcome of the latest climate summit in Copenhagen. What ultimately came from Copenhagen was a loose commitment. The commitment wasn't to stop carbon outputs, the commitment was to send money from wealthy countries to poor countries. Haven't we seen this before on a smaller scale? Doesn't our own now liberal government tell us that the wealthy should pay more so that the poor can have something for free? Don't we see the underpinnings of a socialistic world. Don't we see a few global leaders coming together in a consensus that there should be more socialism on a global level? During the Copenhagen summit, they celebrated the 1st
Economic studies looking at the projected results of the Kyoto treaty show that it will cost billions of dollars while the scientific projections predict that it will not change the temperature of the world as much as a single degree. I ask, where's the logic in that? Shouldn't those who support the theory be saying that this is just not cost affective and that there should be another approach that gains more from the investment?
When I see so much debate and I see one side demanding that the science is settled I have to ask myself, what is being hidden? When I see the leaked emails from the global warming scientific leaders I have to wonder why? I've heard that much was taken out of context by the "deniers" however, there is one conversation that cannot be taken out of context. That conversation is where they are clearly stating that they will simply keep publications that publish dissenting articles from the peer review process. They then request (of each other) that all electronic correspondence be deleted. That in itself tells me that something must be hidden rather than vetted or openly debated. Those who will distort and attempt to control what is open to even the scientific community is not objectively seeking truth in science.
This article is certainly only skimming the surface so I'll get right to the point. I do encourage you to read the articles for and against for yourself. My point here is not to tell you to believe one way or the other, it's obvious that I am a "skeptic".
The real question is how do you make "common sense" of all this? The answer is really easy; I believe. Write to your representatives and tell them not to act on a "sky is falling" argument put forth in fear. By all means, conserve energy. By all means, do the things that we know are right with regard to the environment. Most importantly, DO NOT allow your government to implement more socialist policies masked in the guise of global warming doom and gloom. DO NOT allow your government to wreck whole industries and force even higher energy costs upon you in the name of what is clearly not settled. Common sense. It truly does not matter which side of the argument that you find yourself on, there are myths and half-truths on both. Common sense says, "Let's work this out a bit. Let's look before we leap." Please folks, look through the light and you'll see the train bearing down on you.
Common sense tells us to step back and look at few things. First and foremost I like to say, "Follow the money." Money makes the world go 'round. Never let a good crisis go to waste. And the cliches go on and on. It's all about money. Let's just be honest here folks... Al Gore actually started one of the companies that sells carbon offsets. Every time that Al Gore tells us that he's carbon neutral because he purchases carbon offsets, he's only telling you that he invested more money into his own company that he profits from. When the US and the rest of the world start their cap-n-trade, who do you think will be on the fore-front of selling the carbon credits? Furthermore, many of the scientists telling us about the impending doom are well vested in "green" companies. They tell us that it's not a conflict of interest but more of confirmation of how sure they are of their theory.
Look at the outcome of the latest climate summit in Copenhagen. What ultimately came from Copenhagen was a loose commitment. The commitment wasn't to stop carbon outputs, the commitment was to send money from wealthy countries to poor countries. Haven't we seen this before on a smaller scale? Doesn't our own now liberal government tell us that the wealthy should pay more so that the poor can have something for free? Don't we see the underpinnings of a socialistic world. Don't we see a few global leaders coming together in a consensus that there should be more socialism on a global level? During the Copenhagen summit, they celebrated the 1st
Economic studies looking at the projected results of the Kyoto treaty show that it will cost billions of dollars while the scientific projections predict that it will not change the temperature of the world as much as a single degree. I ask, where's the logic in that? Shouldn't those who support the theory be saying that this is just not cost affective and that there should be another approach that gains more from the investment?
When I see so much debate and I see one side demanding that the science is settled I have to ask myself, what is being hidden? When I see the leaked emails from the global warming scientific leaders I have to wonder why? I've heard that much was taken out of context by the "deniers" however, there is one conversation that cannot be taken out of context. That conversation is where they are clearly stating that they will simply keep publications that publish dissenting articles from the peer review process. They then request (of each other) that all electronic correspondence be deleted. That in itself tells me that something must be hidden rather than vetted or openly debated. Those who will distort and attempt to control what is open to even the scientific community is not objectively seeking truth in science.
This article is certainly only skimming the surface so I'll get right to the point. I do encourage you to read the articles for and against for yourself. My point here is not to tell you to believe one way or the other, it's obvious that I am a "skeptic".
The real question is how do you make "common sense" of all this? The answer is really easy; I believe. Write to your representatives and tell them not to act on a "sky is falling" argument put forth in fear. By all means, conserve energy. By all means, do the things that we know are right with regard to the environment. Most importantly, DO NOT allow your government to implement more socialist policies masked in the guise of global warming doom and gloom. DO NOT allow your government to wreck whole industries and force even higher energy costs upon you in the name of what is clearly not settled. Common sense. It truly does not matter which side of the argument that you find yourself on, there are myths and half-truths on both. Common sense says, "Let's work this out a bit. Let's look before we leap." Please folks, look through the light and you'll see the train bearing down on you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)