ORCHESTRATING THE OIL SPILL

Yesterday, federal judge Martin L.C. Feldman struck down the moratorium on offshore drilling that was imposed on Louisiana by the Obama administration.   The 22 page ruling commented on the lack of proof that a blanket ban was required, as well as the burden it would place on the citizens of the state.   The people of Louisiana are really hurting.  The ban would send the oil rigs, and thus even more local jobs, to places like Brazil and Africa. 

At the inquisition Congressional hearings last week, oil company executives testified that a six-month blanket ban on drilling would force them to move their drills to other countries, as an idle drill can cost upwards of $1 million per day.  That seems to be the sum total of the information we managed to get out of them at the hearings - how much did that congressional circus cost the taxpayers again? Considering the damage to the other major industries of the state - fishing, shrimping and tourism - they cannot afford to have another industry shut down for no reason (via the New York Times): 

“The blanket moratorium, with no parameters, seems to assume that because one rig failed and although no one yet fully knows why, all companies and rigs drilling new wells over 500 feet also universally present an imminent danger,” wrote Judge Feldman

The most interesting remarks in the injunction were on the report presented to the judge by the Interior Department.  This report included the much touted peer review by experts assembled by the National Academy of Engineering - a review the administration had insisted backed the ban.  The judge noted that the findings of the experts were "misstated".  In reality, the findings by the experts that a moratorium was the way to go were complete fabrications.  This act of deception on the part of Salazar and the administration to manipulate the situation is shameful in the extreme, not to mention flat-out fraudulent.  Where are the calls for Salazar's resignation?

The real story is that the report was signed off on by the experts, but the paragraphs recommending a moratorium were added after the fact.  The experts have been vocal in their opposition to the shenanigans regarding the report - opposition that the administration attempted to shrug off, but the judge's findings leave little room for doubt about their authenticity.  In response to his ruling, the left is in full attack mode, of course.  Secretary of the Interior Salazar is going to attempt a new moratorium, this time more specific and targeted, insisting a deepwater ban in necessary.  Maybe this time they will get a more sympathetic judge to see things their way.  For the sake of Louisianans, let's hope not. 

On another front in the 'war' on the oil spill, the feds have halted dredging for sand berms.  They feel the area that is being dredged is environmentally detrimental and want to move the operation two miles further out into the gulf.  All dredging is to be halted until the move is complete - seven precious days.  In a letter to Obama, Plaquemines Parish President Billly Nungesser pleads for compromise: 

"Once again, our government resource agencies, which are intended to protect us, are now leaving us vulnerable to the destruction of our coastline and marshes by the impending oil," Nungesser wrote to Obama.

Nungesser requested that the dredging be allowed to continue for the next seven days as they move dredging equipment in an effort to placate the U.S. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife.  No doubt dredging is damaging to the environment, but could it really be worse than what the oil spill will do?  It's high time  federal agencies like Fish and Wildlife and the Department of the Interior look at the bigger picture here. 

It's beginning to seem like this is no longer a question of incompetence - it is now moving into the realm of active interference.  But for what reason?  Considering how adamant (and blatant) the administration is about passing Cap and Trade legislation on the back of this tragedy, it's not too hard to figure out.  It's hard to believe our government is willing to allow such damage to the country in order to pass their agenda.  It seems far-fetched, because our government should have our best interests at heart, but it is getting harder and harder to believe they do these days.  Their continued insistence on passing wildly unpopular legislation raises questions about their motives.  The recent revelations that Obama has stated there will be no securing the borders until amnesty comprehensive immigration reform is passed illustrates how willing this administration is to hold the American public hostage in order to obtain the desired results.  Let's not forget that, according to the patron saint of Progressives, Saul Alinsky, the ends justify the means (numbers 1, 3 and 10 in particular).

At best, this is a perfect illustration of Ronald Reagan's nine scariest words in the english language - "I'm from the government and I'm here to help".  At worst, our government is allowing a major catastrophe to become even worse so that they can pass their dream agenda.  An agenda that will further cripple us with massive taxes and skyrocketing energy prices. 

Talk about orchestrating chaos....

THE ISSUE'S NOT THE ISSUE

Chris Horner, author of "Power Grab" was on Hannity tonight.  In his interview, he used, over and over, the phrase "The issue's not the issue".  This is the mainstay liberal/progressive tactic to a T, and he deserves a hearty thank you for tagging it as such.  It's quick, concise, easy to remember and right on the mark.  A perfect foil for the coming campaign clashes. 

In his book, he discusses the Obama administration's green agenda.  On the face, the green agenda is hard to fight - after all, it's all about "saving the planet", and what kind of heartless, selfish person would you be if you wouldn't want to do that? 

But if you dig deeper, as Mr. Horner did, you will find that it has, in reality, very little to do with saving the planet - that angle is used merely as a means to an end.  For all the hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer funds that it will suck up and the unprecidented control over American citizens, there is little or no measurable good for the environment that will come of it.  As Horner says, it's all about power and control.  The green agenda is a perfect illustration of his quote, "the issue's not the issue".  It is being sold as good for us, but in reality it is not.  The issue isn't saving the earth, the issue is grasping more power into the ever-expanding federal government.

This phrase, "the issue's not the issue" is something that needs to be remembered and repeated so that all will know it, because within that phrase is the key to fighting back.  Understanding your opponent's tactics is the first step in defeating them.

The issue not being the issue concept applies to every piece of legislation that has passed this Congress so far.  The stimulus was not about helping the country get back on it's feet.  That is just the bill of goods we were sold.  That bill was all about consolidation of power.  It was a big, wet, sloppy kiss to all of the special interests who helped put the democrats in power.  That expensive thank you also acts as a promise of thank yous to come if the democrats stay in power, thus ensuring their legacy.

The health care bill was not about lowering costs, as was sold to us.  It was about redistribution of wealth and control over the most important part of your life - your health.  If they hold the key to your good health, you're more inclined to vote to keep them happy and in power, and redistribution buys a whole sector of voters.

Cap and trade isn't about the environment, it's about seizing wealth and controlling the energy sector.  Period.

The coming election isn't about a referendum on the distinctly leftward tilt towards european socialism that we are currently pursuing - it's apparently about George W. Bush.  I haven't quite figured out how yet, but give me time.   Suggestions are appreciated.

The democrat's talking points these days are not just a reflection of their desperation, they are also a roadmap for the coming elections.  But then, faced with polls like these and these and these, it's no wonder there is a distinct whiff of desperation in the air.  It seems that their entire strategy for the 2010 election is "the issue's not the issue" (and blame Bush, of course).

The liberals are geniuses at directing a conversation.  This is what they will attempt to do over the next few months.  Instead of addressing the issues that are paramount to a majority of Americans, they will redirect the conversation to either other issues altogether or changing the issue to suit their needs.  Thus the green agenda is not about power and control, it's about saving the planet somehow.  Instead of being accused, they are going to attempt to be the accuser.  When they are accused of grasping for power, they will accuse you of hating the planet.  Health care doesn't lower costs translates to "you hate people and don't want them to have insurance".  Concerns that there is a lot of taxation coming down the pike becomes "you're one of those fringe militia people, aren't you?"

It's a brilliant strategy, really.  When you have no answers, start asking the questions. 

The problem is that we have been subjected to this tactic for years now.  You might say the country was battle weary, but that would only confirm you are a tea party member extremist out to slaughter some random government official(s).  The secret is, though, that Alinsky was right.  In Rule #7 he said that "a tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag".  The rising opposition in the polls shows that the "issue's not the issue" tactic has become a drag.  It's time to start calling them out on it.

The tea partyers know the issues, often better than their representatives, and they are equally as tenacious in their pursuit of an answer as the liberals are in their attempts to avoid the discussion.  It promises to be an interesting summer campaign.  The big question will be whether the issue is debated, or the issue that isn't the issue. 

It's time to take control of the debate and demand real answers to the real issues.

THE UNEXPECTEDNESS OF IT ALL

There has been a theme in the media for the first year of President Obama's term that has been getting some notice on the right.  Considering all of the experts weighing in on things, all of the examination and consideration, there have been an awful lot of 'unexpected' things happening.  Just this week, for example, there are no less than three 'unexpected' reports.

The first is the 'unexpected' dip in consumer confidence.  And by dip, I mean a nearly 10 point drop.  The index last month stood at 56.5.  The 'experts' were expecting it to dip to 55.  Instead it dropped to a staggering 46.  Ooops.  Just a minor miscalculation, I'm sure.

Next came the 'unexpected' dip in new home sales.  Now, how this could possibly be unexpected is beyond me.  New home sales have been dropping since August (with the exception of a slight rise in October - which was touted as a leading indicator that the recession was officially over).  There is a lame attempt to blame the weather for some of the drop (no, seriously), but that is just a load of malarkey.  I'm pretty sure there weren't any blizzards back in August.  This is the biggest drop on record, bringing new home sales to a 50 year low, even with government intervention in the form of tax incentives to buyers.

And then there is the report on unemployment that came out this morning.  There was a - you guessed it - 'unexpected' rise in unemployment claims.  This, too is being blamed on the weather. 

I'm waiting for them to use these new numbers to push for Cap and Trade again - after all, the weather is caused by global warming, so global warming is to blame for unemployment and low home sales.  Thus, by that logic, not only will Cap and Trade save the planet, it will also save us from high unemployment and low home sales.  It truly is a miracle cure, isn't it?

You know, I remember when our 'experts' actually sounded like they knew what they were talking about.  I keep hearing about the Great Recession being over, but, aside from the stock market's hurkey jerky rise and a one month increase in new home sales, the evidence doesn't seem to support that position.  Every month we have new 'unexpected' numbers - the only time the numbers are expected is when they actually meet the sunshiny projections - a rarer and rarer occurance.   This administration's overly rosy predictions do these experts and the American people a disservice. 

It's time to start telling it like it is.  It's time to start getting real numbers, real projections and real debate over how the administration's policies are really going to effect us.  This constant atmosphere of 'unexpectedness' does nothing to promote confidence in the economy, the administration and the country in general.

There is one more 'unexpected' number that came out at the beginning of February - the 'unexpected' rise in inflation.   How this could possibly be unexpected is beyond me.  The FED has been pumping literally trillions of dollars into the economy with nothing backing it.  We have to get that money out of the system, and the only way to do that is to increase interest rates in order to buy back the debt.  The notion that an increase in inflation was unexpected is, well, unexpected.

If this is the best our 'experts' can do, I think it's time to get new experts.

CLIMATE FALLOUT

I just found a great video about the ClimateGate scandal.

Check it out.

The wheels are really falling off the bus.

The fallout is reaching incredible proportions now.  There is a new report about IPCC claims of African crops decreasing 50% being completely false.   Claims of increased storm intensity is unsupportable.  Now that scientists aren't afraid of being blackballed for skeptical results, there are more and more of them out there checking the IPCC/CRU data and finding it wanting.  It seems that every day there is a new report of errors and fallacies in the Nobel Prize winning 2007 IPCC report on climate change.

The level of BS involved in the report is simply staggering. 

The African crop projections were based on theories that directly contradicted the information gathered.  Whole areas of the report were based on non-scientific magazine articles and unpublished student theses.   More and more true scientists, who propose a theory and then attempt to prove or disprove it scientifically, are testing the CRU's and IPCC's theories on AGW and finding major holes in the 'science'.

Finally, disgraced 'scientist' Phil Jones of the CRU came out this weekend and admitted that there hasn't been any measurable global warming for the past 15 years.  In addition, he admitted that temperatures during the Medieval Warming Period were higher than what we are experiencing now.  What's more, those temperatures remained high for a period of about 500 years, from about 800 AD to about 1300 AD.  The MWP ended with the Little Ice Age, a period of unusual cold that lasted until the early 1800's.

The MWP was a time of global prosperity.  It was so warm that wine was grown in England and Iceland.  The world's population exploded due to increased harvests of cereal grains, which are intolerant to cold, and warmer winters, which meant less illness and disease.  Trade flourished throughout Europe and the Mediterranean and into Asia.  The Vikings explored the ice-free Atlantic ocean in their longboats and discovered Greenland (which really was green then, thus the name), Nova Scotia and quite possibly northeastern America. 

Times were easier in the MWP because of the added warmth.  With full bellies and full purses, people were able to turn their attention from subsistence to leisure.  There was an explosion of scientific discovery and artisitic achievement.

AGW alarmists tried to hide the MWP, to pretend that it didn't exist, because it's mere existence put the lie to man-made global warming.  There were no cars or factories spewing CO2 into the atmosphere back then, and yet it was warmer than it is today.  The MWP was a huge threat to AGW, and so they tried to revise history yet again and pretend that the MWP never happened.  By the way, the Little Ice Age was possibly caused by the 'Maunder Minimum', a period of extremely low sunspot activity.  We are possibly going through another period of extremely low sunspot activity right now.  Coincidence?  Well, what do you think the odds are that less activity from the giant superhot ball of gas in the center of the solar system might cause temperature changes in our atmosphere?  I'd have to say the sun would have more effect on our climate than our exhalations and flatulent cows, but what do I know?

The MWP proves the theory of Climate Change, but not AGW, which is a very different thing.  Climate Change is a natural, cyclical phenomenon that has very little to do with the activities of man.  AGW, in contrast, blames man for everything.  Humans are the plague of the Earth, bent on it's destruction, in the minds of AGW alarmists.

Yes, the climate is changing.  It has always changed - the climate we have now is nothing like the climate of 10 million years ago, 10,000 years ago, or even a mere 1,000 years ago - a drop in the climate bucket.  We may be in the midst of a warming period that may or may not be over - in about 100 years or so we will be able to look back over this newest cycle and have a clearer picture what was happening. 

The AGW hysterics scream 'there's a difference between climate and weather, you know!'  Yes, I do know.  Do you? 

The people who are claiming a few blizzards and some broken records doesn't mean it is getting colder are the very same people who jump all over a summer heat wave and claim that it proves global warming - see, it's hotter outside!  They are also the people who touted the lack of snow a few winters ago in DC proved global warming as well.  Now they are saying the cooler temps and major snowstorms are proof of global warming.  To prove this theory, they have come up with a tortured, circuitous explaination involving the increased temps causing increased water vapor in the air resulting in more precipitation, but because it is happening in winter with colder temps, the precipitation shows itself as snow.  Basically saying it is colder and snowier because the temperature is rising.  They seem to have taken to heart the little adage "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with bullshit".

Even Donald Trump is calling AGW a hoax, and has called for Al Gore to be stripped of his Nobel Prize.  Considering he got it in conjunction with the fatally flawed 2007 IPCC report, they should all be stripped.  While they are at it, how about the Oscar, too?

Even liberal Penn State, home of Michael Mann, a leading climate scientist and crony of the CRU's Phil Jones and author of many of the incriminating emails released in December, has students that are demanding answers.  The Young America's Foundation protested the bogus internal 'investigation' of Michael Mann, claiming it is biased.  They are demanding the investigation be conducted by a neutral, unaffiliated, external group and that the findings be released to the public.  Right now the review is being conducted by three Penn State employees and the findings will only be released to donors.  By the way, Michael Mann just recieved $2.4 million in stimulus funds for his climate research - even in the midst of an investigation. 

Our federal masters are refusing to waver from their AGW stance, and have even talked about reviving Cap and Trade.  Tone deaf and crazy, right?  No, more like politically expedient.  The liberals seem to think that saying something often enough makes it true, so they are clinging on to their hysterical ranting about climate catastrophe.  Let's face it - they have a lot at stake, and they'll be damned if they are going to give it up without a fight.  Cap and Trade is a masterpiece of political money laundering.  They will use it to pillage literally trillions of dollars from corporations, small businesses and taxpayers.  They can put that money into a nice little slush fund and claim they are using it for carbon credit offsets and other such untraceable schemes.  They have created such an illusion of major catastrophes that when they don't occur they can claim that their Cap and Trade scheme was a success and saved us from annihilation.

But now it's all falling apart. 

As is usually the case with liberals, they pushed too hard, and their rhetoric just couldn't stand up to the facts.  They tried to silence their critics, but that only works for so long.  They have now resorted to name calling and claiming that any change in weather whatsoever is proof of their theory.  Those are desperate tactics and are being seen as such by a rapidly growing majority.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the climate is changing.  There is a great deal of doubt, however, that man is the cause.  Our AGW Icaruses have flown too close to the sun and are now paying the price.

Better them than us.

JUST A FEW QUESTIONS

The 2011 budget proposal was just released.  Can someone please explain to me how the budget increased by $200 billion despite a spending freeze?

While you're at it, could you please tell my why I should be excited by $20 billion in 'savings'?

Also, why, exactly, is Cap and Trade being discussed again?  The AGW argument is falling apart more and more with every day that passses, but for some reason we need to invest in green technology now, now, now!

While we're at it, I'd also like to know why Paul Kirk is still voting for legislation even though Scott Brown is the Senator from Massachusetts.  Brown won't be sworn in until Feb. 11th, so don't be surprised if they try to jam something reallly offensive through before then.

How exactly will repealing the Bush tax cuts on our small business owners and allowing the SEC to impose new regulations requiring companies to disclose potential risk to investors due to environmental regulations increase job growth and profitability?  Oh, I forgot - uncertainty and heavy taxation are the linchpins for a booming economy and low unemployment.

Those are just my top five questions so far this week.  I'm sure I will have many more before the week is out.

Hey, one more just struck me - why does Obama want Congress to rush the budget through, when it won't be effective until Sept. 2010?

Isn't it amazing how, with all of the spin explaining going on, there are still so many unanswered questions?

THE STORY OF THE NUMBERS

President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have been touting their 'mandate from the people' at every turn, implying that a vast majority of Americans support their far-left agenda.  That is really interesting, since Obama had to run as a centrist to win last November.  Hardly a referendum on far-left policies.

Remember during the campaign, when Obama's polls were crowed from the highest rooftops?  His campaign was constantly pointing to the polls, both in his primary battle with Hillary Clinton, and, later, the general election against John McCain.  Polls were so important that every word out of candidate Obama's mouth was first tested and polled before being uttered.

Now, however, suddenly the polls mean nothing.

Last week, for instance, Dear Leader's approval ratings on Gallup sank to a new low - 47%.  When asked about it, White House flack Robert Gibbs dismissed the poll in his usual snarky way.

"If I was a heart patient and Gallup was my EKG, I'd visit my doctor. Five days ago, there was an 11-point spread. Now there is a 1-point spread. I'm sure a 6-year-old with a crayon could do something not unlike that."

I personally prefer Rasmussen polls to most others because they poll 'likely voters', as opposed to just 'adults'.  This gives a better snapshot of the frame of mind of the voting public - and after all, that's what politics is all about, right? 

Yesterday, Rasmussen's Passion Index, which charts the spread between those who strongly approve and those who strongly disapprove, reached a new low.  President Obama's passion index fell to -19.  Today's number is better, but, at -18, it sure ain't great.  His overall approval among likely voters is now at a dismal 44%, and disapproval sits at a new high of 55%. 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's approval is just as bad.  Identified as just 'Nancy Pelosi', her favorables are 46% approve, 50% disapprove.  When you identify her as 'House Speaker Nancy Pelosi' they drop to 38% - 58% respectively.  Plenty of people may not know her name, but they sure know what she's doing.  As House Speaker, her passion index is incredible - a mere 9% very favorable, and a whopping 45% very unfavorable (as just Nancy Pelosi, her passion index is 14% - 36% respectively).

Harry Reid, up for reelection this year, is polling substantially behind every candidate running against him.   He holds a mere 43% of the electorate, while his republican challengers range from 47 - 49%. 

The health care bills are wildly unpopular (56% against, 40% for), no matter what the left might be spinning.

Support for Cap and Trade is deteriorating, and a full 71% of Americans think creating jobs is more important than global warming. 

Speaking of the economy, 76% prefer a free market economy, with 10% preferring government control.  Good thing the administration is fulfilling their 'mandate' on big government.  Way to read the polls, champ.

Considering the new election cycle begins in less than a month, it's rather amazing that they are being so tone-deaf.  They are screaming louder and louder about 'consensus' and 'mandate', majority and overwhelming support - the irony of Al Gore's statement on global warming 'deniers' is sweet.

“The naysayers are in a sunset phase with a spectacular climax just before they subside from view".

Maybe he's building up an insanity plea.

The level of disregard for the true majority of the people is almost frightening.  Tens of thousands of protesters march on Washington, and they are dismissed as 'fringe'.  Lefty pundits say they are a fad, a phase, an insignificant blip that will soon fade. 

But the numbers don't lie, and they are sinking fast.

Helluva mandate you got there, Barry!