Turmoil

What a wild ride in the markets and economy. Sorry for not posting for a while; the market downturn to new lows plus some other events really put me into a bit of turmoil. I would not be honest if I pretended not to be shaken by the current economic climate and markets.

Nevertheless, all is not without hope. The Christians' faith is in our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. He is our ultimate anchor in every storm. I have concerns, but I also have Christ. Better yet, Christ has me.

The markets continue to be a concern to those who have saved and invested for their future. It has definitely been a tough, disappointing ride in just a three month time span. Still, after its dip below the 8,000 level, the Dow Jones Industrial Average returned above that level where it is showing some stability. I remain concerned and spooked, but I am trying to regain my own stability and work on recovery from the downturn. I remain positive that applying my lessons learned will assist greatly in recovering from this turmoil.

All Not Lost Yet

Just when I was beginning to think I missed my market range predictions entirely, something strange happened. The market reversed direction yesterday. Expecting some new announcment from the government, fed, or someone, I found nothing to account for the turnaround other than buyers found stock prices attractive and came back into the market. Even in spite of announcements from Intel with lowered earnings expectations in the near quarters, which depressed the market early, the stock and broader markets provided a surge before the close.

This is a good sign, because it indicates that stocks are beginning to find their new price support levels from which to trade. This makes for good basing action and, hopefully, support for future recovery.

Stock market indeces tend to be leading indicators, meaning that prices tend to take into account future expectations. If price support levels hold up generally well even under current bad news, it means that investors & traders are already positioning for recovery. As always, time will tell.

A Little Lower

I expected today to be more positive for the markets. After a couple of days's declines, I was looking for some flattening out. But now the DJI is at 8283, a bit below my predicted 8300. Still a lot of unknowns, but I'm still hoping for some post-election quieting down. We'll see.

Time for Obama to Make Decisions

Two days of post election with the winner Obama has resulted in two days of market downturn to the tune of about 930 points on the Dow Jones Industrials (DJI) index.

This is still in keeping with my prediction that the stock market will begin settling out and forming a base ("Calming Down"). I'm pegging a DJI trading range between 8300 and 9500. Those aren't absolute precise figures, but I think they are close.

Obama needs to state make economic decisions known, though. As I previously wrote, I think that we will see a weaker market with an Obama win because no one really knows how his economic policies will shape up. I doubt that even he knows. He promised higher taxes - for the "wealthy" of course - but also backed down saying that he would postpone raising taxes if the economy is in recession.

I mentioned to my wife that a vast majority believe, probably, that the administration of President Bush is over and that Obama is now President. I think that Obama believes that, so it is now up to him to clarify and solidify his economic policy ideas. Waffling during the election is one thing; declaring uncertainty now is quite another. It's too late for that. Time to fish since cutting bait is no longer one of his options.

Yep

Still on target...

*****

Indications: U.S. stock futures trade lower after Obama victory
By Steve Goldstein MarketWatch11/5/2008 5:17:00 AM

U.S. stock futures dropped Wednesday as traders locked in profits and focused on the deteriorating economy that President-elect Barack Obama will inherit.

Right So Far

Looks like my post from yesterday was right. Even before election results are anywhere close to being known, investors and traders are just glad to get this election over with. The Dow jones Industrials opened with a gain this morning. Time will tell.

Calming Down?

I predict that after tomorrow (election day), the stock markets will begin to show calmer action and finally begin to form a reasonable base. My reason is simple: we won’t be as subject to the end-of-the-world, gloom-and-doom scenarios we have been enduring in these weeks, months, and years of political mayhem. A great deal of the panic-induced choppiness will begin to be eliminated, and both investors and traders will begin to make reasonable decisions again.

I think that the markets will respond more favorably to a McCain win than to an Obama win, but that’s just me. The markets will tend to better understand and digest McCain’s proposals. Obama’s policies remain largely unformed and, therefore, present a higher degree of uncertainty. On the other hand, the markets appear to be responding favorably now to government-imposed “solutions” to the economic “crisis.” Either way, I still think that we will begin to see and experience narrower price swings in the markets.

All of these views are predicated on the assumption that there is no new major catastrophe – natural or man-made – that afflicts us at home or abroad. Any such incident is going to naturally cause a disruption in the markets.

No Spontaneous Big Bang Yet

My imagination was sparked a few weeks ago as newspaper headlines announced the recreation of a “big bang.” Being scientifically inquisitive, I proceeded to read the articles in their entirety. And, being scientifically inquisitive, I found myself making a couple of observations about what I discovered.

First, in spite of the headline leads, there has not been a “big bang” yet. What has really happened is that the particle accelerator that they hope to use has been tested. Are professional journalists taught to constantly deceive their paying public with cleverly crafted but misleading headlines? Is that what constitutes responsible journalism?

Second, I observe that in order to attempt a recreation of the “big bang,” a machine had to be created. Then the created particular matter from which the process begins has to be provided. Finally, the correct environment has to be created in order for the process to get started. It requires the guiding hands of many scientific and technical creators to make a “big bang” recreation happen. Hmmm… appears to be some food for thought here: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” - Genesis 1:1.

There are some who may read this and think, “What a fool to believe the preposterous idea that something created something out of nothing!” I admit that this is indeed a preposterous, fantastic belief . At the same time, I invite you to consider the skeptical atheist’s alternative belief concerning the origin of the universe: nothing created something out of nothing. I fail the atheist’s test. I do not have enough faith to be an atheist.

Dangers of the Command System Economy

*****
"I think it's safe to say, ladies and gentlemen, that houses for people who cannot afford houses is a failed experiment."

"Central planning does not work. Central planning gave us the Soviet Union. Central planning gave us North Korea. Central planning gave us Cuba. Tell me if you want to replicate that." -- Rush Limbaugh, 9/15/08
*****

Not everyone cares for Rush, but not everything he says is off the wall, either. Most of the time, his comments about economics are very well measured and on solid ground. He makes some observations that provide a very good perspective on the current turmoil: "Capitalism is not the problem." The article by Robert Higgs that he references is "Ticking Time Bomb Explodes, Public Is Shocked." With regard to Higgs' article, I submit that what he calls "democracy in action" is more like "mob rule." America's Founders knew the danger of "mob rule," even under the guise of "democracy." This is why they jettisoned the Articles of Confederation in favor of the Constitutional Republic. Unfortunately, citizens have gotten away from the lessons provided by our Founders and by sound economics. Thus, we have this kind of a mess in which our votes will go toward the candidate we think most likely will save us from our problems instead of toward candidates that espouse economic freedom and responsibility.

Socialists/collectivists/central planners love economic crises such as this, even though it stems from their policies and not a free (ie, capitalist) market, because they can then turn around and use it to shore up their calls for more centralized control. I will be open to thinking that such a scheme is good only when someone can demonstrate with empirical data (proof) the nation or nations that have benefited politically and economically from a command system economy. (For those who are tempted to say "China," first consider this: China's economy has grown since it made very small moves toward a market economy. The more the central planning, the less favorable the economic results.)

Well, there's a lot here to digest, but this forms the crux of how much longer we will enjoy our American liberties. I have a feeling that we will see a lot more of them evaporate ere this all dies down.

Are They Nuts?

"Islamic law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases." -- FOX News, 9/15/08

Have they gone stark-raving mad in Britain? What kind of legal precedence is going to be set when a judicial ruling in one system clashes with a judicial ruling in the other system? What is British jurisprudence going to do when a sharia court orders a death penalty by stoning?

In 2006, Mark Steyn wrote the book entitled America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It. It is looking more and more as if this is not idle speculation.

Remember

Seven years ago, Americans witnessed and experienced the most catastrophic attack ever inflicted upon our shores by any enemy. The assault came from a group of Islamic jihadists who had declared war on America several years before; a declaration that went largely unnoticed and was largely ignored by most Americans. The event on 9/11 was so cataclysmic that it even drove our congressmen and congresswomen to gather in unity on the steps of the capitol to sing “God Bless America” and to declare their solidarity against all enemies who dare attempt to inflict America with such unprovoked attacks.

Although building for decades, the plans to take purposeful aim at America solidified among many Islamic jihad organizations when the Saudis accepted the assistance of America to defend Saudi Arabia and oppose the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait instead of calling upon armed Muslim groups such as al-Qaeda (see The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright, pages 156-161 for more detail). Thus began the progression of violence against American assets that culminated in the terror of 9/11/2001 and American involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In these seven years, the only reason that America has not been subject to more atrocities is because of the disruption of the jihadi terror cells during the Global War against terror. Thanks to the vigilance of the Armed Forces and security personnel of America and her allies, other acts of planned terrorism have been thwarted. Sadly, at the same time, Americans fragment over how to handle these enemies who are still conducting their war against us. A lot has happened since that terrible day, and thankfully we have not experienced anything like it again, but if we need a reminder of why we are at war, I invite us to look again at the photos and videos of 9/11/01 and experience once more the stake of terrorism that was painfully thrust through the hearts of all Americans. Use this 9/11 anniversary to not only reflect upon the losses we sustained on that day and the subsequent heroism of all Americans fighting our enemies, but to also remember the unity we need to display in order to demonstrate to this world that Americans will not be defeated. “United we stand, and in God we trust.”

Political Donors - Still the Big Guys

The Sen. Barack H. Obama continues to convince his gullible minions that his campaign does not accept contributions from Political Action Committees (PACs) or Washington lobbyists. He declares that his campaign is fueled by individual, small donors, not big, deep pocket, corporate donors. Then the Sen. Barack H. Obama makes the audacious declaration to the even more gullible that the entire Democrat party will not accept PAC, lobbyist, and corporate big money.

The dirty little secret is that none of this squares with the actual filings and records that are maintained on political contributions. A list of top 10 political donors since 1989, compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics (see the list at Human Events), reveals that most of the big money given by organizations and corporations goes to the Democrat party.

I've done the math for you... Of the $305,777,033 cited in the list, $243,532,628 have gone to the Democrat party. That's 80% of the total amount given by the top 10 donors!

Of the top 10 donors, six are union organizations. Instead of giving these hundreds of millions of dollars away to politicians, couldn't they use this money to actually serve their paying members? How many foreclosures and utility shutoffs could have been prevented if they had allowed their members to actually keep the money they earn instead of paying for benefits for politicians? Remarkable, isn't it?

Don't forget, think logically and vote responsibly.

National and International Security

Just applying my old school lessons of compare and contrast...

*****
...On NBC's "Meet the Press" last month, Sen. Joe Biden was asked whether he would support military action against Iran if the Iranians were to go "full-speed-ahead with their program to build a nuclear bomb."No, of course not. There is, Biden said, "no imminent threat at this point."

...On "Meet the Press" last Sunday, Sen. Biden lightly dismissed the North Koreans, saying their "government's like an eighth-grader with a small bomb looking for attention" and that we "don't even have the intelligence community saying they're certain they have a nuclear weapon." -- Ann Coulter, "Liberals: Born to Run," Human Events, 7/19/06

*****

*****
...Still, it was Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican widely touted as a possible future president of the United States, who may have been the most blunt about the implications of the developing crisis in the Middle East. Appearing on NBC's Meet the Press in April of 2006, McCain warned that "there's only one thing worse than using the option of military action, and that is the Iranians acquiring nuclear weapons.' If Iran gets the bomb, he says, "I think we could have Armageddon." -- Joel C. Rosenberg, Epicenter, Tyndale Press, 2006, p. xiv.
*****

America and the world has faced tons of "no imminent threats" before with all equal results: devastation. The bad news is that the first strike devastation from all those "no imminent threats" out there keeps increasing.

I want a warrior, not a lawyer, as my next president.

A Joe Biden Sound Bite

"You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent, I'm not joking." -- Sen. Joe Biden, while campaigning in 2006 (MCT, "Biden is seasoned politician," 8/24/2008)

The Democrat Dynamic Duo

As everyone probably knows by now, Sen. Barack H. Obama finally quit playing coy with his fans (I know who I have selected, but I'm not telling anyone yet) and named his running mate - Sen. Joe Biden.

Yep, the "gonna change Washington & America & the world" presidential candidate chose a typical long-time liberal Washington insider. Just one of the many ways, I suppose, that Sen. Barack H. Obama is going to bring about new hope and change.

Change...

I figure that's about all we'll have left after this dynamic duo gets done with us.

Russian Imperialism

"Russia has invaded a sovereign neighboring state and threatens a democratic government elected by its people. Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century." -- President Bush

In response to American opposition to the Russian invasion of Georgia, Big Media immediately demonstrates their lack of support for anything that smacks of defending freedom. Ed henry, CNN, "What's the difference here between the Russians doing what the United States did after 9/11, moving into a sovereign country like Iraq?" (8/13/08)

Amazing. Leave it to liberalism and America's enemies to try to make Russia-Georgia and America-Iraq equivalent. America did not invade a sovereign nation; Russia did. Iraq surrendered its sovereignty when it invaded the sovereign nation of Kuwait. At that moment, Iraq was no more sovereign than Nazi Germany. Accepting a cease fire after watching its crack Iraqi divisions disappear, Iraq submitted to treaties that were specified through U.N resolutions. Iraq then proceeded to violate these resolutions and treaties. When it did that, it also once again vacated its sovereignty.

I'm all for world peace, but I don't care to be anyone else's vassal to attain it.

(photo: Russia invades Georgia)

Global Warming - The Solution Revealed

"...So, those who believe disaster is around the corner face a dilemma: while they’re educating their fellow citizens and demanding governments regulate believers and non-believers alike, the problem continues, and the date of the world’s doom draws ever closer. But there is a solution. It’s relatively simple, can begin immediately, and will change the dynamics of global warming overnight. Instead of continuing to preach to the rest of us, the true believers need to step forward and set an example. I’m not talking about recycling Evian bottles; I’m talking about giving up cars and moving into smaller houses or apartments, or even forming communes where people can live simpler, more Earth-friendly lives. Yes, I’m talking about living the kinds of lives they want all of us to live.Such a movement could literally start tomorrow. It would need a leader, of course; someone who could inspire others to choose a more spartan lifestyle. The obvious choice would be Al Gore, who already has a loyal following. If he would eschew large homes, gas-guzzling cars, private jets and the consumption of meat, millions more would likely do the same. If enough people joined the cause, Mr. Gore and his followers would be able to demonstrate the results of this new way of living in very short order. They could lead by example. They could create a movement. They could have uniforms and badges and secret handshakes. The could have their own reality TV show. In short, they could become a major force for change. Carmakers would be driven out of business or forced to dramatically alter their products to meet the demands of this eco-friendly Gorian tsunami. Companies of all stripes would, similarly, have to adapt or perish.

Once the rest of us saw the presumed reversal (or at least slowing-down) of global warming, it would do more to convince us than any lecture or study signed by UN scientists, and it would likely add millions more to the cause. So what if you can’t get one-hundred percent co-operation initially? Wouldn’t half (or a third or a quarter) of the population make a huge difference if they made substantial sacrifices? You could argue it wouldn’t be fair to have some of us going on abusing the planet and leading our lives of consumption and gluttony while others are putting aside the trappings of modern life, but this isn’t about fairness; it’s about survival.The time for talk is over. The time for action is now. Just think of millions and millions of committed Americans making the personal sacrifices necessary to demonstrate their resolve to combat man-made global warming. And, most important, thanks to their efforts, theory would be replaced by fact. It’s much easier to argue about a study than it is to refute the demonstrable results when the temperature drops and the ocean levels stabilize. When future generations write of the sacrifices of these men and women, they’ll use words like “inspirational” and “heroic”.

And so, I urge the advocates for change to embark on this important mission. Do it for the children. Godspeed." -- Pat Sajak, "A Solution to Man-Made Global Warming"

Questions for Global Warming Alarmists

Here are some questions for global warming alarmists:

1. What is the perfect temperature?

2. Just what is the average temperature of the earth?

3. What factors have led to global warming in the past, and how do we know they aren’t the causes of the current warming trend?

4. Why is there such a strong effort to stifle discussion and dissent?

5. Why are there such dramatically different warnings about the effects of man-made global warming?

6. Are there potential benefits to global warming?

7. Should such drastic changes in public policy be based on a “what if?” proposition?

8. What will be the impact on the people of the world if we change the way we live based on man-made global warming concerns?

9. How will we measure our successes?

10. How has this movement gained such momentum?

Thanks to Pat Sajak for asking.

Why Leave a Workers’ Paradise?

I’m watching some Olympics and enjoying the coverage on extra channels. Getting to see some of the contests not normally shown, like boxing. So, I really perked up during a bout that included a fighter from Cuba when the announcers commented that the Cuban team lacked the international experience of the other teams because they were not allowed to go to the world events for fear of defection.

Defection? From the workers’ paradise of Cuba? The land of health care and government benefits for everyone? Why would any Cuban want to defect from there? I don’t get it.


(Photo: Amateur standout Guillermo Rigondeaux, right, tried defecting from Cuba in hopes of pursuing a career as a professional boxer -- and was punished severely for it.)

The Obama PAC

The Sen. Barack H. Obama has enjoyed crowing about his campaign’s refusal to accept money from Political Action Committees (PACs). The Sen. Barack H. Obama declares that he and his entire party will not be beholden to anyone except the “American citizen.” No corporate or political fat cats will derail his drive for “hope and change.” (No PAC money? Really? Consider this pro-Obama PAC ad.)

It turns out, though, that the Senator has no qualms about using his own PAC to influence Washington politics. What? You never heard about the Sen. Barack H. Obama’s PAC? Funny how that seems to be overlooked by both the Senator and Big Media. Turns out that the Sen. Barack H. Obama established a PAC called the Hopefund.

*****
Hopefund is what is known as a “leadership PAC,” a frequent target of campaign watchdogs because it can raise money in much larger bundles than individual candidates. The Candidate of Hope from Illinois followed the example set by Senate and House members who establish such accounts to raise money and then spread it around to other politicians in the hopes of gaining new best friends. Legally, such PACs are supposed to operate independently and cannot coordinate with any campaigns of their owner.
Now that Obama is running for president, he's handing out the bulk of Hopefund money to politicians and groups who happen to be in early presidential voting states, as the Washington Post's John Solomon noted the other day. The pace of giving has increased in recent months and this has led to some remarkable coincidences. – Andrew Malcolm, “Turns out, some Obama PAC money comes from PACs.” (See also “Obama Campaign Worker Discussed PAC Donations,” Washington Post, 11/30/07.)
*****

Because of the complicated, convoluted methods of political campaign funding, virtually none of the Sen. Barack H. Obama’s “American citizens” have a clue about how his and his Democrat party’s campaigns are funded. It’s too hard to figure out. How many of you aren’t already looking cross-eyed by now, if you have read this far? The sad result, though, is that the Sen. Barack H. Obama can make his public declarations without very much worry that his cheering minions, who are also forking over dollars they need to pay for mortgages, food, healthcare, and transportation, will ever have a clue who the Senator will be paying back.

Consider the Service Employees International Union, which “spent over $9 million during a crucial three month period to help the Big O secure the Democrats’ nomination.” (William Tate, “Obama, the PAC-Man,” The American Thinker, 7/10/08.) The article goes on to disclose that “…SEIU’s PACs have paid for such campaign essentials as door-to-door canvassing for Obama, voter identification and registration, and even bus rental and food for pro-Obama rallies.” Ironically, Federal Election rules require that “independent expenditures” by political committees be limited to communications.

Sadly, with Big Media rooting for the Sen. Barack H. Obama, these complex revelations will remain largely buried. But, I guess we can all take small solace in knowing that if the Sen. Barack H. Obama is elected as our next president, he really won’t be any different than anyone else who would be on the ticket. So much for “hope and change.”

(photo: Obama plays the crowd)

More from the Depressed American Economy

Another weekend, another good report about this summer’s highest grossing movie. Yes, “The Dark Knight” remains on top at 26 million dollars. So far, it has box-office receipts of 441.5 million dollars. According to the Monday (8/11/08) AP entertainment report, the top 10 movies pulled in 106.6 million dollars over the weekend.

Maybe I’m beating the dead horse here, I don’t know. And I really don’t have anything against a Batman movie – although how many times do we have to see Batman beat the Joker? No, my point really doesn’t have anything to do with the movies, other than they are entertainment and, therefore, a use of discretionary spending. In other words, after we have paid for our mortgage or rent, utilities, food, clothing, transportation, and any legal debts, then we can pay to go to the movies. Or a concert. Or MP3 tunes. Or the golf course. Or Disneyland.

Yet, headlines scream that the American economy has tanked. Without the “change and hope” plan of a particular political party’s candidate (why is my mind clanging “switch and bait?” Freudian slip?) to correct all of the disastrous policy decisions of the current administration, Americans are doomed to the Greatest Depression. Foreclosures, record gasoline prices, increasing food costs, business failures, layoffs, unaffordable health care. We’re doomed! DOOMED, I tell you!

Until you turn from the front page of the NY Times to the entertainment section. There, once again, we breathe a sigh of relief, for all is right with the world. At, say, $12 per ticket, about 37 million Americans have been able to see “The Dark Knight.” Thank the government for our tax rebate check. Those Big Media front pages had me worried there for a minute. No matter how far behind we are with the house payment, we can by golly still escape nasty reality and plunk the food money down on Big Entertainment. Big Oil hasn’t won yet! They’re gonna have to do better than this!

Friends, before you start your panic mode over the American economy – which is certainly not in the greatest shape right now by any stretch – take a look at the entertainment section or wait for the entertainment report on CNN, etc. You know we’re in trouble when there are no lines for movies or iPhones or tennis shoes or whatever silly fad is drawing us like moths to a flame. Panic does us no good; rational thinking and common-sense decision-making do us a lot of good. Meet your necessary financial obligations first – including a savings plan – and then go spend some on fun. Or help out someone else in real financial trouble. Try this, and you will probably weather most financial storms that come along. And don’t forget TNSTAAFL – There’s No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

The photo? Waiting in line for the movie. What else?

Unseasonably Cool in a Globally Warmed World

I know that global warming alarmists reply to weather reports like this with comments about how local conditions do not negate global warming trends. In fact, they have cornered the market on all meteorology & weather conditions by being allowed to blame every weather phenomenon on global warming: floods, droughts, record high temperatures, record low temperatures, active hurricane seasons, inactive hurricane seasons, ad nauseum. So I know that the weather report I received for my area today does not validate any argument against global warming.

*****

Tonight our low will drop down around 60 and by Saturday our high will be just 79 degrees as a large area of high pressure moves into Indiana. This time last year it was very hot and muggy for state fair goers, but that won't be the case this year. This weekend we'll have perfect weather for the fair as it's looking to be nice and dry with unseasonably cool temperatures. -- "Is This August?," Chief Meteorologist Chris Wright, WTHR, Indianapolis, Indiana, 8/7/08

*****

So, fair enough; this local report does not refute global warming. But, why then, is it legitimate for global warming alarmists to point to weather patterns & reports in localities experiencing extended & record heat waves? If local areas experiencing below normal temperatures are invalid in the global warming debate, then are not local above normal temperatures just as invalid?

And, I admit to a lack of understanding how, in a world that is warming, there can continue to be new record low temperatures? I mean, yes, there will still be periods of cold temperatures, but should they not be higher instead of lower cool temperatures? So how are we in Indiana privileged to these cooler temperatures in August in a world of rising temperature?

Economic Depression - American Style

See the people waiting in lines? Given the tanking American economy reported by Big Media, we might think that these poor folks hope to receive help for food, mortgage, gasoline, or some other necessity. After all, home foreclosures, job losses, high energy costs, the falling value of the dollar overseas, and other economic maladies are wrecking the American dream today. This is another Great Depression era brought on by the failed policies of the Bush administration.

Oh, wait! These are people in line for consumer goods; specifically, the Nike Hyperdunker athletic shoe (left) and the Apple iPhone 3G (right). The line for the iPhone began forming a week before their availability! The Nike shoe sells for $110.00 a pair or more.

Over the weekend of August 2-3, 2008, the “Dark Knight” Batman movie grossed 43.8 million dollars. This is in addition to the more than 150 million dollars it brought in during its debut weekend. Its 17 day total is nearly 400 million dollars. Over the first weekend in August, movie patrons spent about 145 million dollars on the top ten grossing movies (AP entertainment reports 8/4/08).

According to liberal progressives everywhere, Americans are living in poverty with no hope for their future unless we receive government health care, government-subsidized energy, government mortgage relief, government minimum wage laws, and about government-everything-else. Americans are suffering and need government bailouts. Americans need hope and change!

Actually, what Americans need is some fiscal common sense and the opportunity to be left alone to succeed. Not much more than these simple ingredients built the most powerful and the most charitable nation in the world. Need to pay the mortgage? Pay forty bucks for a decent pair of shoes and use the rest to pay bills. Need health care? Quit going to movies every weekend and plan for the future. There are Americans in financial distress, so voluntarily donate to causes that ease the distress and provide new hope (hint: it ain’t from the government).

As long as the news is filled with reports of American waiting in lines for brand shoes and phones and entertainment, the American economy is not tanking. It’s the victim of stupidity as people try to violate one of any economy’s fundamental truths: There’s No Such Thing As A Free Lunch (TNSTAAFL).

Olympic Games in Beijing

My, my, my. As the days count down toward the opening festivities of the Olympics in Beijing, reports are filling the airwaves about how we can “all get along.” “See,” we seem to be told, “if only those nasty American conservatives would stop insisting that America has enemies, we could all get along and live in peace.”

Of course we can all get along – if we simply ignore human rights abuses and threats to world stability and peace. Take this MSNBC report, for instance:
*****
The Olympic Games have become the occasion for a broad crackdown against dissidents, gadflies and malcontents this summer. Although human rights activists say they have no accurate estimate of how many people have been imprisoned, they believe the figure to be in the thousands.
The crackdown comes seven years after the secretary general of the Beijing Olympic Bid Committee declared that staging the Games in the Chinese capital would "not only promote our economy but also enhance all social conditions, including education, health and human rights."
Now, human rights have been set back rather than enhanced, activists say. – Edward Cody, “Defiant Chinese harassed, jailed before Games,” 8/2/08
*****

As the Olympic torch made its way around the world, it was met with so much protest over human rights abuses by China that even the route was changed to avoid some protestors. The Chinese government condemned such protests as “deliberate disruptions… who gave no thought to the Olympic spirit or the laws of Britain and France…” Yes, we can all certainly get along… if it just weren’t for those pesky people who insist on human rights and dignity.

Although it will not happen at these games, there was a threat of international boycotts against the Games. Such a move, of course, strikes me as unfair to the athletes who have trained so hard to legitimately compete in the Olympics. So if boycotts are not the right solution, what is?

I think the right solution is for the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to find a spine and stand up to totalitarian regimes in the first place by refusing to award the Olympics to any nation that does not honor its citizens’ liberty. Let the totalitarians squawk. Let them pull their athletes, if they want. I could care less. Instead, like the United Nations, the IOC for some perverted reason believes that they can promote world stability and peace by rewarding tyrants. Baloney.

(image: from Burma Digest)

Taxation and Tyranny

How ironic can it be that the nation that came to be founded because of a “disagreement” over taxation – “taxation without representation is tyranny!” – keeps facing prospects of higher taxes, with or without representation? Pretty doggone ironic, if you ask me.

Yet, the persistent and consistent solution to every economic challenge both real and perceived by liberals and Democrats is to… ta da!... raise taxes. The Sen. Barack H. Obama, the presumptive next president of the United States, has already promised to raise taxes. It is, unfortunately, the campaign promise he is likeliest to keep. In addition to federal income taxes, expect also additional fees of one kind or another for universal health insurance and care, cap and trade carbon credit schemes, mortgage failure bailouts, and who knows how many other half-baked schemes.

But wait! Why wait for the Sen. Barack H. Obama to assume the office of our presidency? In another swift move to bring relief to citizens beleagured by fast rising gasoline prices, our Democrat-majority Congress proposes… surprise!... increased fuel taxes. Yes, to a liberal Democrat, there is no economic challenge that cannot be fixed by a tax hike.

Funny thing, though. Not one of them has ever gotten around to answering the question asked in the last presidential election to the Democrat nominee: “What nation has ever taxed its way to prosperity?”

(During resource searches, I found this interesting article, “Taxes separate ‘rich,’ ‘poor’ states.”)

Herr Obama Enamors Germans

Well, well, well. The Sen. Barack H. Obama was simply adored in Germany. He addressed about 200,000 people, plus all who saw and heard the broadcasts, in Berlin. A great accomplishment, isn’t it?

I don’t know. After all, Germans have gotten excited over charismatic leaders and packed into stadiums before. They have laid their hope at the foot of a leader who promised great hope and change before.

Making plans for the Democrat national convention, the Sen. Barack H. Obama has disdainfully announced that he would not accept his party’s nomination from the convention floor:

*****
At the Democratic National Convention next month, we're going to kick off the general election with an event that opens up the political process the same way we've opened it up throughout this campaign. Barack has made it clear that this is your convention, not his. On Thursday, August 28th, he's scheduled to formally accept the Democratic nomination in a speech at the convention hall in front of the assembled delegates. Instead, Barack will leave the convention hall and join more than 75,000 people for a huge, free, open-air event where he will deliver his acceptance speech to the American people. (email from David Plouffe, Campaign Manager, Obama for America, 7/7/08)
*****

Just wonderful. The Sen. Barack H. Obama is so in touch with the common people. No big time political party apparatus for him.

So what is that little warning buzz I keep hearing in the back of my head? Oh yeah, it’s that fill the stadium thing he’s got going again. Funny how history keeps teaching us that political figures who like to fill stadiums turn out to be fascists and totalitarians. This isn’t entertainment, remember. This is the man who, if elected to the office of President of the United States, has a big say in how government runs our lives. Think logically; vote accordingly.


(photos: upper left, the Sen. Barack H. Obama in Berlin, 7/24/08; upper right, Benito Mussolini wows the crowd in Rome; lower right, Germans honor Hitler at the Olympic games; lower left, Adolph Hitler speaks in the Berlin auditorium.)

Pretty Good for a Recession

Phil Gramm has been all but burned at the stake for his comments about the economy in early July. As usual, most of the talking points among Big Media and Big Liberalism sources come from what they imagine Dr. Gramm said, not from what he actually said. Dr. Gramm did not deny that the economy is troubled, nor did he deny that there may be a recession. He merely made a factual observation that America is not in a literal, technical recession, which is a verifiable truth as defined by two consecutive quarters of declining GDP. For five quarters, 2007 - 1st quarter 2008, the GDP has continued to increase. So, Dr. Gramm is correct. Here are some of his remarks:

*****
"You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession," he said, noting that growth has held up at about 1 percent despite all the publicity over losing jobs to India, China, illegal immigration, housing and credit problems and record oil prices. "We may have a recession; we haven't had one yet." -- Washington Post, 7/9/08
*****

And here's a dirty little secret: Phil Gramm is eminently qualified to make such an observation. He has a Ph.D. in economics, has taught it for 12 years at Texas A&M University, and has won elective office as both a Democrat & Republican. As an economist, he is as qualified to tell Americans that we are not in a recession as any other economist paraded by Big Media and Big Liberalism is to tell us that the sky is falling. Yet following Dr. Gramm's factual statement, Big Media and Big Liberals immediately began whining. Touche, Dr. Gramm.

So for all our good friends living in the land of left-believe, since we are experiencing such troubled economic times, how in the world did the new Batman movie set a new weekend box office record for a superhero movie? According to the AP report on 7/21/08, "The Dark Knight" grossed 155.34 million dollars! And that doesn't include concession stand revenue! Don't movie viewers know that the economy has tanked? That no one has any money? That everyone is living in cardboard boxes and holding out tin cups? What about having to make that tough choice between medicine and food?

This box office buster phenomenon represents two things. (1) Americans still have money and are still willing to spend it. Ask around; I'll bet you can find someone from "struggling lower middle class" and below households who have plunked down pocket change to see Batman. Would truly desperate people be so frivolous? The stark truth is that far and away the bulk of Americans are not truly desperate. Maybe not as well off as we would like to be, but not truly desperate when there is money to spend for high priced entertainment. (2) Americans want to use their personal money for frivolous entertainment, but want to use someone else's money (i.e., taxpayers) for necessities like housing, food, healthcare, transportation, etc. In fact, "we" have come to expect and demand this as a right. Commit to too much mortgage or other debt? Demand a government bailout. Have to choose between food and casinos? Demand a government bailout. Have to choose between healthcare and movies? Demand a government bailout. Facing retirement age without enough personal savings because of spending for all those movie hours, casino trips, tattoos, piercings, et. al. that have been accumulated over peak earning years? Demand a government bailout - hey, social security is for poor people, not the wealthy who have paid into it.

*****
"We have sort of become a nation of whiners," he said. "You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline" despite a major export boom that is the primary reason that growth continues in the economy, [Dr. Gramm] said.
*****

Not off the mark there, either.

So all of you who saw "The Dark Knight," I hope you enjoyed it. But don't come whining to me if you can't pay your mortgage or come up a little short in retirement.

(photos: Dr. Phil Gramm (l.) Dark Knight movie poster (r.))

No Flip-Flop Here

The Sen. Barack H. Obama will not go down as a "flip-flopper" on his opposition to the "surge" strategy in Iraq. At least, that is his stance in an ABC report during his big adventure to the Middle East. By the way, I would not consider the Sen. Barack H. Obama a "flip-flopper" for recognizing his error in judgment and acknowledging that the strategy he opposed - a strategy that the Democrat party actually called for at the beginning of military intervention in Iraq - has been the correct strategy to pursue.

Sure, there are politics and diplomacy facets during war, but do they supersede reasonable or sound military tactics and strategies? This potential commander-in-chief of the American Armed Forces seems to think so.

Domestic Oil Crisis

"The only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil resources is action from the U.S. Congress." -- President George Bush (on lifting an executive order banning domestic off-shore oil drilling)

One of my questions is why has it taken so long for him to get around lifting this executive order? Nearly finished with eight years as President, and he now decides to take a lead in domestic oil production. I am glad you lifted the ban, Mr. President, but why did you wait all this time?

Similarly, the Republican party is going nuts about Democrats obstructing domestic oil production. Again, I'm glad that they are holding Democrat feet to the fire, but it has not been too many years ago when the Republicans were the majority part in Congress. Where was your leadership then? Why did you wait all these years, and lose your majorities to boot, before shedding your crocodile tears all over the place?

Yeah, the Republican party has messed up, but that still does not mean that Democrats should be given carte blanche allowance to run roughshod over Americans with their debilitating energy policies (or, more accurately, energy non-policies). As usual, the Democrat response to financial crisis is... raise taxes! Now it even appears that they want to raise taxes on our diesel & gasoline - all at a time when market pressures have raised oil prices to historic levels. By the way, here's a dirty little secret: when market pressures subside, the market price of oil will drop! Taxes won't.

*****

Including state and local levies, people in the U.S. pay about 47 cents on average in taxes for a gallon of gasoline. Fuel in many European countries costs $8 to $9 a gallon, with half or more of that going to taxes. FOX news 7/20/2008

*****

Well, there's certainly another reason to want to be like Europeans. I'm convinced... yeah, right.

In addition to their raise-the-tax solution, Democrats of course parade their favorite targets for high energy prices: oil companies & speculators. Here's the other dirty little secret, Congress: take away the market reasons for upward price pressure - that would be increasing supply - and those same evil, wicked, mean, and nasty speculators will be driving down the price of oil. Duh! How do you do that? Allow domestic exploration, drilling, & production.

Drill here, drill now!

Lapel Pin

If you have noticed lately, the Sen. Barack H. Obama has taken to wearing a lapel flag pin. Just as he has his own seal, he has his own lapel pin.


OK, I'm kidding! About the lapel pin, that is. But I ran across the image and had to use it somehow.

If you don't recall the significance of the additional 7 stars, refresh your memory here. Actually, when you do the math, the pin is still missing two stars. Alaska and Hawaii just don't get no respect.

Enjoy your day, especially you folks in the Sen. Barack H. Obama's extra 7 or 9 states.

Israeli Soldiers Mourned

Giving credit where due, the New York Times published a respectful report about the funerals of Israeli soldiers Sgt. First Class Ehud Goldwasser and Staff Sgt. Eldad Regev (“Funerals in Israel for Two Soldiers,” 7/17/08). The families and all of Israel mourn the deaths of these two men abducted and killed by Hezbollah two years ago.

The article also revealed a distinct difference in the regard to life and compassion between these two opposing sides in the conflict.

*****
But far from ameliorating the simmering hostility between the sides, the deal has further hardened the feelings of many Israelis, who charged that Hezbollah toyed with the emotions of the families of the missing soldiers up to the very end.
For the last two years, Hezbollah had refused to clarify whether the soldiers — both reservists and students at the time of their capture — were dead or alive, although Israeli officials concluded that both were badly wounded in the initial ambush and had probably not survived.
But the moment of truth did not come until after 9 a.m. local time on Wednesday, as the first stage of the exchange got under way at Nakkoura, on the Lebanese side of the border. A Hezbollah representative, Wafiq Safa, announced that the soldiers’ fate would “now be revealed,” and gestured toward two coffins.
*****

What purpose was served by keeping the fates of these two men hidden for two years? Or for refusing to return their remains so that their grieving families could find some closure? Hezbollah militants harbor such venomous hatred against all Israelis that they have no intent to take any action that brings comfort.

Individuals and organizations that seek peace and justice in the Middle East should be condemning Hezbollah’s actions as vociferously as they do when they object to Israel’s conduct of defensive operations.

(photo released by Israeli Government Press Office: Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert hugs Karnit Goldwasser, wife of Israeli soldier Ehud Goldwasser next to his coffin at Shraga army base in northern Israel)

Freedom Fighters or Brutal Murderers? You Decide

Today, among much world publicity, Israel is releasing specified Hezbollah prisoners and the bodies of Hezbollah and Palestinian fighters killed in conflict in exchange for the bodies of the two Israeli soldiers kidnapped two years ago. The kidnapping led to the Israeli conflict against Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006. One of the Hezbollah prisoners being released is Samir Qantar, who is hailed as a hero among Hezbollah militants.

*****
"We are now handing over the two imprisoned Israeli soldiers [note: they are the remains of the two ‘imprisoned’ Israeli soldiers], who were captured by the Islamic resistance on July 12, 2006, to the [International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)]," Safa said at the border. "The Israeli side will now hand over the great Arab mujahid (holy warrior) ... Samir Qantar and his companions to the ICRC… Hezbollah has dubbed the exchange "Operation Radwan", in honour of "Hajj Radwan", or Imad Moughniyah, the group's military commander who was assassinated in Syria in February. Yellow Hezbollah flags and banners fluttered across south Lebanon and along the coastal highway from the border village of Naqoura to the capital, Beirut. "Liberation of the captives: a new dawn for Lebanon and Palestine," one banner read. – Reuters, 7/16/08
*****

Certain sympathizers call militant members of Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Palestinian Liberation Organization “freedom fighters” instead of terrorists or murderers and simultaneously charge Israelis with conducting terrorist operations against innocent victims:

*****
“If, however, you do believe there is a place for armed struggle, it is unfair to refer to oppressed Palestinians targeting their oppressors as ‘terrorists,’ when their actions are no less humane than those employed by almost any country at war, actions generally accepted as one of the necessary functions of a state. It’s easy to criticize guerilla warfare when you have the luxury of an army to do your fighting for you.” – Anna Baltzer, “Conversation with Hamas Supporters,” 3/13/2005
*****

Here is what is known about Samir Qantar:

*****
In the dead of night on April 22, 1979, [Q]antar and three other gunmen made their way in a rubber dinghy from Lebanon to the sleepy Israeli coastal town of Nahariya, 5 miles south of the Lebanese border. There, in a hail of gunfire and exploding grenades, they killed a policeman who stumbled upon them before they burst into the apartment of Danny Haran, herding him and his 4-year-old daughter outside at gunpoint to the beach below, where they were killed. An Israeli court found that [Q]antar shot Haran in front of his child, then smashed her head with his rifle butt. Haran's wife, Smadar, who had fled into a crawl space in the family apartment with her 2-year-old daughter, accidentally smothered the child with her hand while trying to stifle her cries. – FOX News, 7/16/2008
*****

In spite of this atrocity, Qantar has been held as a prisoner in Israel and not executed. The crime for which the two Israeli soldiers were kidnapped and murdered by Hezbollah? Attending to their duties at a checkpoint along the Israel-Lebanon border.

Freedom fighters or brutal murderers? You decide.


(photo: Israeli soldiers Ehud Goldwasser & Eldad Regev, abducted by Hezbollah, 7/2006.)

Fighting the Smears

In order to combat rumors from e-mails and other sources, the campaign team for Sen. Barack H. Obama established a "fight the smears" website. Sen. Barack H. Obama says that he will not be defined by lies.

Fair enough. But the dirty little secret is that the website offers its own deceptions.

First, prepared e-mails are ready for supporters to send out to others to "fight the smears." The prepared texts indicate that the sources for the smears come from "right-wing" sources. On this site, one concludes that only "right-wing" sources are to blame for the smears. The truth is that not only "right-wingers" oppose Sen. Barack H. Obama's candidacy. For instance, try "Democrats Against Obama." I stumbled onto this site this morning:

*****
"Obama and his Obamatrons made a fatal error during this primary. They insulted, disrespected, threatened, and disregarded the Clinonistas. They played the race card continually, then blamed the Clintons. Now. They need us. Too late. Too much damage. Now you pay. No votes. NObama. Ever." (homepage)
*****

Individual entries at this website mention some of the "smears" being refuted on "fight the smears." "Right-wing" attacks exclusively? Hmmm... I don't think so.

Second, in response to comments (aka, "smears") that Sen. Barack H. Obama's books contain "racially incendiary remarks," "fight the smears" website reads, "recent viral emails quote Barack Obama's books out of context."

So, context is important to the Sen. Barack H. Obama campaign? Let's find out. The first "smear" on the site concerns Michelle Obama saying "whitey" on a tape. The response? "The tape that Rush and others are spreading rumors about doesn't exist." The prepared e-mail response begins, "Rush Limbaugh and his fellow right-wing attack-dogs have been spreading baseless rumors about a non-existent video tape showing Michelle Obama using a racial epithet."

Context? Completely absent. Regardless of one's personal opinions about Rush, how about some straight talk? While Sen. Barack H. Obama's website implies that Rush actively promoted the rumor, the truth is that Rush merely reported that there was a rumor. So did other media outlets: CNN contributor Roland Martin, when asked about the tape rumor on CNN Anderson Cooper 360 on 6/12/08, replied, "I'm not surprised by it, but I think, also, we can't blame Republicans for everything. It's these idiot Democrats that started some of this stuff." If by merely reporting that there was a rumor about a tape, Rush Limbaugh is guilty of perpetuating the rumor, then is not Mr. Martin also guilty? Why not list him on the "fight the smears" website alongside Rush? Besides, along with other "right-wingers," Rush actually revealed that the whole affair was an unfounded rumor started by Larry Johnson, who was working for the Clinton campaign.

Sen. Barack H. Obama and his cronies are worried about context? Right. They probably have some shares in the Brooklyn Bridge that they'll sell us, too.


How to anger a conservative: Tell her a lie.
How to anger a liberal: tell him the truth.

(photo: the Obama seal)

Solar Activity, Cosmic Rays, & Global Warming

Global warming alarmists have grown quite fond of devaluing the correlation of solar activity on earth’s temperature. In the 1972 World Book Science Annual, Dr. Reid A. Bryson, Director of the Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin, and Dr. John E. Ross, the Associate Director, wrote, “The sun is the source of all climatic effects.” (p. 96) More recently published studies continue to validate this statement. In fact, a body of research empirically demonstrates correlations between earth’s temperatures and cosmic ray fluctuations from other stars in our galaxy in addition to the sun.

Results of studies by Henrik Svensmark and others of the Danish National Space Center and of the Institute of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Aarhus, Denmark, links solar activity, cosmic rays, cloud and water vapor formations, and temperature variations. In a nutshell, increased solar activity suppresses cosmic ray penetration of the atmosphere which reduces available low cloud condensation nuclei. This sequence of events increases clear sky, incoming radiation, and the greenhouse effect from gaseous water vapor. The result is terrestrial warming. When solar activity decreases, the reverse effects result in cooling. (Svensmark, et. al., “Experimental evidence for the role of ions in particle nucleation under atmospheric conditions,” Proceedings of the Royal Society A)

Readers will note that the Proceedings of the Royal Society A, a journal of the mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences, also publishes articles of studies demonstrating that the sun is not a factor in current climate change. I think that this demonstrates that current research concerning the correlation of solar activity and climate change remains a valid topic of scientific study. To cavalierly dismiss empirical studies of the impact of solar activity on climate change is counterproductive and has no scientific merit.


(Photo: Composite image of multiple solar flares on the sun, NASA)

The Grand Experiment

With the signing of the Declaration of Independence, a series of events shook and changed the world forever. As the new Republic took shape, the most unusual group of human leaders continued to place liberty ahead of a grab for power. Instead of establishing a new monarchy or other familiar form of totalitarianism in which the victors grabbed as much power as they could for themselves, America’s Founders created a new government that had no human precedent.

In 1787, the year of the signing of the American Constitution, Ch’ien Lung of the Manchu Dynasty ruled supreme over the people of China. Protests against his rule were put down by ruthless military force. In Japan, Tanuma Okitsugu exercised totalitarian and corrupt authority over the Japanese. Catherine II was the enlightened despot of all the Russians. King Louis XVI sat on the throne of France. He was soon overthrown and executed in the bloody French Revolution which provided the fertile ground for a tyrant of a new making, Napoleon Bonaparte. Frederick the Great ruled Prussia, and Joseph II was the emperor of Austria, Bohemia, and Hungary. Some of these great nations still live under despotic forms of rule even today.

In an amazingly short time as measured by the history of world civilization, America outstripped all of these nations in world power and influence – all because a small group of men chose to establish a nation of liberty rather than a nation they could rule. They chose a nation established on their belief in the providential rule of God instead of the terror of man.

"...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

America is decidedly a grand experiment to hang onto.

Global Warming Consensus Melting Down

As if on cue, I received a link on 6/30/08 to a blog by James Spann, chief meteorologist at station ABC 33/40 in Birmingham, Alabama. Posting on his station’s Weather Blog, “Global Warming Movement Turns Cool,” Mr. Spann informs readers that

*****
…the mythical UN IPCC “consensus” continues to crumble… Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist who specializes in optical waveguide spectroscopy from the University of Tokyo, and a top UN IPCC Scientist, calls global warming fears: the “worst scientific scandal in history” in the weblog of former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke.
Here is what Canadian climatologist Tim Ball says about the IPCC: “The IPCC is a political organization and yet it is the sole basis of the claim of a scientific consensus on climate change. Consensus is neither a scientific fact nor important in science, but it is very important in politics. There are 2500 members in the IPCC divided between 600 in Working Group I (WGI), who examine the actual climate science, and 1900 in working Groups II and III (WG II and III), who study “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” and “Mitigation of Climate Change” respectively. Of the 600 in WGI, 308 were independent reviewers, but only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and only five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters of the report. They accept without question the findings of WGI and assume warming due to humans is a certainty. In a circular argument typical of so much climate politics the work of the 1900 (less than one percent of the scientific population) is listed as ‘proof’ of human caused global warming. Through this they established the IPCC as the only credible authority thus further isolating those who raised questions.”
*****

These and many other findings mentioned in Mr. Spann’s report indicate that global warming science and scientists are not quite as infallible as global warming alarmists make them out to be.

Why, then, do they persist in trumpeting their myth that man-made global warming is an incontrovertible conclusion and in discrediting their challengers as “flat-earthers” and other acrimonious names? The clear majority, if not all, of the individuals and organizations leading global warming alarmism is comprised of liberal idealists. Their drive is to attain and consolidate the power to direct the collective lives of the world’s inhabitants, resulting in the curtailment of individual liberty. To accomplish this, they must convince enough of the world’s populations, particularly those in the more influential nations, that governing for the collective good is vital to the survival of the planet and, consequently, humanity. Crisis, whether real or perceived, is therefore a beneficial tool of liberal leadership because it short-circuits debate and democratic deliberation that could lead to solutions outside of their centralized planning goals.

Consider, for instance, the admission of Mr. Al Gore himself during an interview with David Roberts of grist.org in May 2006:

*****
Q: There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the right mix?

A: (Gore) I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.
*****

“An over-representation of factual presentations?” In other words, Mr. Gore declares that Americans need to be lied to and deceived in order to properly comprehend global warming. Without “over-representation,” there would be no crisis, no alarmism, and, hence, no opportunity to drive the world toward the tyranny of collectivism.

Unfortunately for Mr. Gore, et. al., some of the scientists are choosing to leave the corral of deceit they have been so carefully constructing. We can only hope that the global warming “consensus” will continue to melt down.

Infallible Science?

One cornerstone of global warming alarmism is the assertion that the science and scientists of global warming are infallible. The evidence for warming has been called “unequivocal” by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Scientists who raise contrary concerns about the methodologies and conclusions of global warming science are dismissed as industry hacks and science quacks.

In the 1972 World Book Science Annual, Dr. Reid A. Bryson, Director of the Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin, and Dr. John E. Ross, the Associate Director, wrote that the “most important factor in changing the climate, and the one for which man has the most responsibility, is dust… After the eruption, summers in the Northern Hemisphere were cooler than they had been in the years preceding the Krakatoa eruption.” (p. 99) Concerning warming and cooling trends, these scientists wrote, “Incidentally, the spread in temperature from an Ice Age to a no glacial world climate is only about 9 degrees F. Many glaciers have advanced since 1945. We are now nearly two-thirds of the way back to the averages of the early 1800s - a colder time than any living person can recall.” (p. 102)

According to contemporary global warming science, these and other scientists from 30 and more years ago were in error. We are told now that the most important factor is changing the climate, and for which man has the most responsibility, is carbon dioxide emissions. Why were the scientists of previous years wrong? I am willing to acknowledge that new technology and new evidence can change prior scientific conclusions.
However, the rational person must ask, “What, then, makes today’s global warming science and scientists infallible? What if there are new technologies in the making that will uncover new evidence that alters today’s scientific conclusions? If that is the case, then today’s scientists are no more infallible than yesterday’s scientists. And, if that is the case, then do we really want to enact laws and policies that will likely bankrupt us?” After all, had America and the world enacted laws and policies that institutionalized an alarmist fight against the global cooling patterns observed by scientists such as Drs. Bryson and Ross, what kind of climatological mess might we be in today?

Already the term “global warming” is being replaced by “climate change” to reflect that the actual temperatures are not matching the intensity of the scientific predictions. Yet, global warming alarmists continue to espouse that the methodologies and conclusions of their scientists are infallible and are not to be challenged. Is this the kind of thinking upon which we want to impose new laws that will radically alter our lives in ways yet to be imagined? I suggest that we give this some serious thought.