February 11, 2012

Obama To Pitch Lower Corporate Tax Rate Sometime In The Future

While Obama’s budget, which he plans to announce on Monday during what will be a campaign rally, significantly ramps up tax rates for small business owners, he’s looking to pander to corporations

(Reuters) President Barack Obama will call for cutting the top 35 percent corporate tax rate as early as this month, according to two sources close to the administration.

The president is likely to propose a rate closer to an average of that seen in peer nations, the sources said.

That would put the rate at about 20%. But, why not announce it now? Because this isn’t about passing a corporate tax rate cut, but, about politics

Facing a potentially tough presidential re-election challenge this November, Obama will propose cutting the rate following the release of his 2013 budget plan on Monday, February 13, according to the sources, who were not authorized to speak on the record.

While he spent a big part of his January speech to Congress criticizing businesses for moving jobs overseas, Obama said that “companies that choose to stay in America get hit with one of the highest tax rates in the world.”

If he does announce a plan, the details will probably end up helping just a few companies, probably ones led by people who vote Democrat and donate to Democrats, much like with Obama’s Stimulus. And much like Obama’s vaunted bank settlement, which seems to help the big bank owners.

An overhaul of the corporate tax system is extremely unlikely in an election year, but the president’s proposal could be an olive branch to the business community to show that he agrees with them on one key aspect of tax reform.

And there you go, this is about campaign optics, not about actually Doing Something. He’ll probably offer up something which looks great on the outside, but has poison pills on the inside, which are objectionable to the GOP. The media will avoid mention of the poison pills, and make the GOP look bad. If the GOP has any brains, they should pass a clean corporate tax rate quickly, forcing Obama’s hand. They should do the same with the payroll tax cut, extending it for one year, get ahead of the curve. Obama whined about this in this week’s weakly address (yes, I meant to spell it that way). Obama plans to offer the cut in his budget. Now we know why Democrats wanted a 2 month extension: to attempt to make Obama look magnanimous by pushing a year long extension, which is what Republicans wanted in the first place.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Email This

Posted by William Teach at 8:48 am | Comments (2) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Barack Obama, Economy, Elections, Jobs, News, Political prostitution, Politics As Usual, Small Business, Taxes, liberalism, political opportunism

Trackback URL:

Everyone Needs Free* Birth Control To Stop….Climate Change!

Come on, when this whole contraception fiasco with the Catholic Church (fiasco for Obama) started, you knew in your heart of hearts that some Lefty would tie it in to globull warming, right? Just like most holidays (I blew off any mention of “green” initiatives for the Super Bowl), it seems that the Warmists have to tie everything in with “climate change”, and, even though excitable Brad Johnson at Think Progress doesn’t mention the current issue, it’s surely what was in mind when he wrote this post

Access To Birth Control Is A Fundamental Component Of Climate Survival

Any morally acceptable pathway to prevent catastrophic global warming includes broad access to affordable birth control for the world’s women. The conservative war on birth control is a war on women’s rights, and thus on the rights of us all. Manmade global warming is one of the most troubling symptoms of economic and social injustice around the planet, and the ”countries in the developing world least responsible for the growing emissions are likely to experience the heaviest impact of climate change, with women bearing the greatest toll.” Researchers have found that empowering women to reduce unplanned pregnancies is one of the most cost-effective ways to combat greenhouse pollution, as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson discussed at the Durban climate conference last December:

In addressing climate resilience, Robinson stressed the importance of focusing on health and burden impacts of climate change. One of the keys is access to reproductive health for women.

Good grief. Is there a class Lefties attend to learn to write like that, like Marxist Magniloquence 101? Anyhow, this goes back to one of the Warmist’s biggest issues: reducing the global population. And, interestingly, this ties into what Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger wanted, namely, reducing the number of minorities, which is what happens when birth control is spread around to much of the developing world, particularly places like the African continent. You want racism? That’s racism! Planning based on the doctrine of eugenics.

The more world leaders focus on giving women and girls the tools of empowerment — access to family planning, education, and the political and economic system — the better future all of us will have.

A world where women and girls have more power is a healthier world.

That’s interesting, since Liberals get the vapors when Conservatives talk about liberating women from being 2nd class citizens as they are in much of the Islamic world. But, really, this is all about spreading abortion on demand around the world. Cheaply. Which is where the asterisk in the headline comes in: liberals think contraceptives, sterilization (Sanger loved the thought of sterilizing Blacks and defectives a hoot), and abortions should be free, and, by free, I mean “someone else pays.” Liberals never seem to want to pay for anything themselves. That’s why they loved Obama’s insurance mandate, as Someone Else would pay for their condoms and birth control pills, and screw what the constitution says about religious freedom.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Email This

Posted by William Teach at 8:00 am | Comment (1) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under 1st Amendment, Abortion, Agenda based science, Anti-Americanism, Anti-Capitalism, Authoritarianism, Barack Obama, Bigotry, Collapsing Science, Delusional Dupes and DUmmies, Democrats, Despotism, Fascism, Fraud/misrepresentation, Global Warming, Government hostility towards religion, Government malfeasance/misfeasance, Government tyranny, Healthcare, Hypocrisy/Situational Ethics, News, Obamacare, Planned Parenthood, Racism, Science/pseudo-science, Secular Humanism, Social Engineering, Socialism, Taxes, Totalitarianism, UN, Unconstitutional, Welfare, anti-Liberty/Freedom, environmental activists/terrorists, feminism, liberalism, social parasites

Trackback URL:

BOOK REVIEW: for The Reptile with a Conscience by Nathan Cofnas.

Paperback. pp. 523. Available from The Ulster Institute for Social Research. Review by J.J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).

One of Einstein’s more famous sayings is: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong”. That single experiment would now appear to have been done so is Einstein now old hat? Far from it. Just as Einstein’s relativity subsumed Newton’s mechanics, so the next generation of physics will have to cope with the observations that came from Einstein’s work.

A failure that Einstein himself acknowledged was his failure to devise a “unified field theory”. Einsten was of course Jewish so it is interesting that another brilliant Jewish writer, Nathan Cofnas, HAS attempted a “unified field theory”. But this theory is not about physics. It is about ideology. Nathan has presented us with a theory that accounts for both religion and politics as being from the same rootstock.

And I can even tell you very simply what that theory is. Nathan points something out that seems obvious when you hear it but nobody previously seems to have thought of it. He takes Adam Smith’s famous theory of markets — the invisible hand — and points out that religious people also see an invisible hand in the world about them: The hand of God.

You don’t have to think about that for long, however, to start saying “Yes but …”. And that is why Nathan has written his book. He presents his theory in a much more subtle and careful way than my crude generalization above and proceeds to answer all the “Yes buts ..”. He fleshes out how he believes both conservative thinking and Judeo/Christian thinking arise.

But this is not a book for scholars, philosophers and ideologues only. It does something that anybody interested in modern politics needs badly: It gives an systematic answer to the old Leftist retort to all facts and arguments that they dislike: “There’s no such thing as right and wrong, anyway”. The crazy thing about that assertion of course is that the same Leftists who say that will say in almost the same breath that racism or anything done by George W Bush is wrong. They contradict their own assertion almost as soon as they make it. So it is not only conservatives but Leftists too who need to get their minds clear on what is right/wrong and where that right/wrong comes from. And Nathan helps us greatly with that.

But WHY do Leftist deny right and wrong when it suits them? Doing so makes all their OWN doctrines, policies and beliefs look like empty vapour. It’s a strange thing to do. So: The reason they do it is because most analytical philosophers say the same thing. And as John Maynard Keynes once said: “Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back”.

Analytical philosophers say: “If there is this objective property of “rightness”, how do we detect it and where is it? Do we lift up a stone somewhere and find it there? And that challenge has proved hard to answer. Just what IS rightness and how do we know it is right?

In recent times, however, an answer to that has begun to emerge: We know some things are right because we have rightness instincts. Rightness IS located somewhere. It is located in our long evolution as social beings. It is somewhere in our primitive “reptilian” brain. But the “Yes, buts …” come thick and fast to that proposition, as it is obvious that our higher brain (where “conscience” is located) has a role too and can make some things seem right to one person that another person sees as wrong. So how do we sort THAT mess out? Nathan goes through it systematically for us and leaves even atheists like me confident that there IS such a thing as a real right and wrong.

Nathan’s book will not be the final answer on all the questions it addresses but, like Einstein’s theory of relativity, future discussions in the field will have to take account of his arguments if they are to be well-informed.

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

Email This

Posted by JonJayRay at 6:41 am | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Christianity, Conservatism, Hypocrisy/Situational Ethics, Judaism, Moral Relativism, Moral absolutes, News, Science/pseudo-science, liberalism

Trackback URL:

Obama Throws a Bone to Catholics

The typical Leftist belief that money grows on trees at work again. Does he really think that health insurers will be able to provide cover without charging for it? The companies will still charge Catholic organizations the same as before, even if contraception is not written down in the agreement between the organizations concerned. Catholics will still be paying for contraception as before. But I guess Left-leaning Catholics will see it as a real concession

The White House today announced a compromise for religious groups lambasting a recent mandate requiring health insurers to cover contraception as a preventive service. The federal government will now be extending an exemption of the mandate to religious organizations — including faith-based hospitals.

Under the new policy announced today, women will have free preventive care that includes contraceptive services no matter where she works. The policy also ensures that if a woman works for religious employers with objections to providing contraceptive services as part of its health plan, the religious employer will not be required to provide contraception coverage but her insurance company will be required to offer contraceptive care free of charge.

The new policy ensures women can get contraception without paying a co-pay and addresses important concerns raised by religious groups by ensuring that objecting religious employers will not have to provide contraceptive coverage or refer women to organizations that provide contraception.”

More HERE

Email This

Posted by JonJayRay at 6:40 am | Comment (1) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under 14th Amendment, 1st Amendment, Abortion, Barack Obama, Church And State, Fascism, Government hostility towards religion, Government malfeasance/misfeasance, Government tyranny, HHS, Healthcare, News, Obamacare, Socialism, Taxes, anti-Liberty/Freedom, liberalism, social parasites

Trackback URL:

“Der Schwed” — yesterday and today

During the 30 years war of the 17th century Gustav Adolf den store (Gustavus Adophus) led his Swedish troops to many great victories in Europe. Without him the Protestant cause may well have lost out to the Catholic South. His armies were at the time simply referred to as “Der Schwed” (the Swede), though they would have referred to themselves as the “Svea”.

So we see that the Swedish martial spirit did not die out with the Vikings of the 11th century (Swedish Vikings mostly sailed up rivers into what we now know as Russia. It was left to the Norwegians and Danes to harass Britain and Western Europe).

And, strange as it seems in the light of their constant peacnikery of the 20th century, that spirit is still alive today. For good reasons the proximity of Russia gives everybody at the Eastern end of the Baltic the heebie-jeebies. Going by their invariant and very successful form since the 11th century, we would expect the English to deal with such a peril by forming alliances with other countries. Not so the Swedes. They cherish their independence. And they can realistically do that because of confidence in their military. They have been prepared to fight Russia alone if need be. The Finns did it under Mannerheim in the early stages of WWII so they have a successful example to go by. But the Swedish military has to be independent too — so we come to the Swedish defence industries.

With a population about the same size as Israel, it is amazing what the Swedish defence industries have produced. The famous Bofors gun was used for antiaircraft defence by BOTH sides in WWII and is still in use today. And Bofors are not sitting on their laurels. I could go on to talk about Swedish military aircraft and submarines but I think that for the moment I will just say a few words about Bofors.

Aside from nuclear weapons, the most fearsome thing about the old Soviet Union was their vast fleet of tanks. And Bofors produced an answer to that in the form of the BILL1, a fearsome antitank missile. Bofors turned out tens of thousands of them, quite enough to wipe out the entire Soviet tank fleet with a bit of luck. It is a guided missile that flies just a bit ABOVE the tank and fires a shaped charge down onto the turret of the tank at just the right time — the turret being a tank’s weakest point. That must be a considerable challenge to the missile’s controller but the Swedes must be confident that trained operators can pull it off. Below is a video of it in action:

(Note: Some mischievous person has been circulating the above video together with a claim that it shows an Israeli missile using white phosphorous to destroy a Syrian tank. Israel has been much criticized for its limited use of white phosporous in Gaza but insists that it only used phosphorous in accordance with the laws of war. Using it in an anti-tank weapon would heap criticism on Israel so the false claim attached to the above video is malicious)

And to keep up with advances in tank technology Bofors have produced a BILL2 missile that is even more capable than BILL1. (The “B” stands for Bofors)

It seems sad that such an apparently effective weapon is not held in the arsenals of Western countries but Swedish neutrality forbids it. Only a few other “neutral” countries such as Austria and Brazil have it. So Sweden has had to bear all the costs of developing and deploying the weapon by itself — a considerable challenge. Most armament manufacturers are keen to sell their stuff to all and sundry — to help defray the development costs.

And even if Sweden did decide to sell BILL2 more widely, it might not get much uptake. I remember when I was in the Australian Army during the Vietnam war, we deployed the prime Swedish antitank weapon of the day, the Carl Gustav. But as soon as we entered the Vietnam war, the Swedes stopped supplying ammo for it! Tanks featured little in the Vietnam war so it was not a great setback but it was a salutary lesson in being careful about the source of supply of your weaponry. The Swedes have no worries on that score.

Email This

Posted by JonJayRay at 6:38 am | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under History, Israel, National Security, News, Video, military

Trackback URL:

February 10, 2012

Surprise: Super PAC Supporting Ron Paul Run By a 9/11 Truther

I’m sure we’ll get all sorts of talking points about how Paul isn’t actually a truther, he just doesn’t want to annoy potential donors

(MSNBC) As libertarian Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul looks for a state he can win, some of his supporters have turned to a new theme: voting fraud.

A Super PAC supporting Paul has pledged to monitor the vote in all the remaining states, using an army of exit pollsters to fight what it calls results that are “outrageous, unacceptable and patently un-American.” The group, called Revolution PAC, has spent half a million dollars supporting Paul with videos, webcasts, online ads, direct mail, billboards and radio ads in primary and caucus states.

The leader of the group, its founder, chairman and treasurer, is Gary Franchi, a promoter of conspiracy theories and sophisticated social-media entrepreneur in the resurgent movement known as the Patriots.

Some of what MSNBC writes about is

Franchi has supported the 9/11 Truth Movement, which supports the idea that the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, werean inside job to create a pretext for a reduction in American liberty, or at least involved a cover-up, with the World Trade Center brought down by a planned U.S. demolition, instead of terrorist-controlled airplanes. Franchi founded the Lone Lantern Society (a reference to Paul Revere indicating that foreign enemies are on American soil). The group supports “the birth of freedom and the death of the New World Order,” a secretive elite that is supposedly trying to set up a world government. Lone Lantern has held street demonstrations on the 11th of every month in Chicago and elsewhere, demanding an investigation of 9/11. In New Hampshire in 2008, a video shows Franchi asking Tom Ridge, the former secretary of Homeland Security, who was campaigning for Sen. John McCain, whether Ridge would support an investigation of the “controlled demolition” of the World Trade Center. Ridge was having none of it, saying, “I just don’t buy into that. That’s a conspiracy theory that has no basis in fact. It’s almost out of the Twilight Zone.”

Obviously, Revolution PAC is an outside group which can support who they want. But, Paul could finally come out and say “I do not support the 9/11 Truth movement, they’re out of their minds. He won’t. He seems to enjoy hanging with Truthers/conspiracy nuts like Alex Jones, and going on their radio programs.

Like Ron Paul, Franchi has a few good ideas, then turns them up to Ludicrous Speed, perhaps even going plaid. Ron Paul has won none of the beauty contests, er, primaries/caucuses, and will, mostly likely, win none in the future. He has a great core group, but no broader appeal, especially when people find out about his background.

Email This

Posted by William Teach at 8:07 am | Comments (28) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under 9-11, Campaign contributions, Delusional Dupes and DUmmies, Elections, Libertarian, News, Political prostitution, Republicans, Ron Paul, Stupidity, Voter/Election Fraud, conspiracy theory, political opportunism

Trackback URL:

Roman Catholic TV Network Files Suit Against HHS Regarding Contraception Mandate

Interestingly enough, they are only fighting the rule, not ObamaCare itself

(Reuters) A U.S. Roman Catholic television network said on Thursday it has filed suit in federal court to block President Barack Obama’s new rule on contraceptives, while a Catholic Church leader and top Republicans stepped up their criticism of Obama.

The rule, implemented on January 20, requires religious-oriented groups such as charities, hospitals and universities, but not churches, to provide coverage for birth control as other health insurance providers must do. The Catholic Church opposes most methods of birth control.

EWTN Global Catholic Network said it filed its case in U.S. District Court in Birmingham, Alabama against the U.S. Department of Health Human Services and other government agencies seeking to stop the imposition of the rule. The case asks the court to find the rule unconstitutional, it said.

The rule itself is part of ObamaCare, and if one group is completely exempted, then ObamaCare is then in violation of equal protection under the law (14th Amendment, Preamble of the Constitution, and Declaration of Independence). But, if the rule applies to all, then ObamaCare is in violation of the 1st, which states that “Congress shall pass no law….prohibiting the free exercise thereof (of religion). I have to wonder if challenging simply the rule has anything to do with so many Catholic institutions supporting the health care reform fiasco. I can’t find anything that shows that EWTN supported it, but….

Anyhow

In another development, Archbishop of New York Timothy Dolan, who is the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, called on Obama to back off from the rule and said it contradicted assurances Obama gave him during a White House meeting in November.

Ah. So, like so many liberals, Archbishop Dolan figured he wouldn’t actually have to be a part of a restrictive, overbearing law he supported. He figured he would be exempt. Kinda like how Liberals love the thought of higher taxes and globull warming restrictions, but always for That Guy.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Email This

Posted by William Teach at 7:13 am | Comments (3) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under 14th Amendment, 1st Amendment, Abortion, Authoritarianism, Barack Obama, Church And State, Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Despotism, Fascism, Government hostility towards religion, Government malfeasance/misfeasance, Government tyranny, HHS, Healthcare, Hypocrisy/Situational Ethics, News, Obamacare, Socialism, Totalitarianism, U.S. Constitution, Unconstitutional, anti-Liberty/Freedom, liberalism, paternalism, social parasites

Trackback URL:

February 9, 2012

Obama Reinforces Stance On Unconstitutional Contraceptive Mandate

It boggles the mind why Obama would want to pick this fight with Catholics, which also means Conservatives, Tea Party members, Republicans, and the 60+% of Americans who oppose ObamaCare get riled up again, in an election year. Democrats, including Obama, avoided mentioning ObamaCare during the 2010 mid-term elections in the same manner people avoid discussions of their grandparents having sex. They avoided mentioning it during 2011. Obama avoided it during the 2011 and 2012 State of the Union campaign speeches. Why bring it up now?

But, Obama is not giving up on forcing his views on American’s, reducing their freedom (via Hot Air)

(ABC News) President Obama “reinforced” his stance on the controversial contraception mandate while speaking at the Democrats’ annual retreat at Nationals Park in Washington, D.C. today, Senate Democrats said.

The retreat was closed to media.

Following President Obama’s speech at the retreat, a small group of Senate Democrats, mostly women, left the retreat early in order to hold a news conference on Capitol Hill to counter the Republicans’ news conference today at which they called for the mandate to be overturned.

Democrats said they will “fight strongly” to keep the mandate in place.

“It is our clear understanding from the administration that the president believes as we do, and the vast majority of the American women should have access to birth control,” Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said pointing out that 15 percent of women use birth control for medical issues. “It’s medicine, and women deserve their medicine.”

Yet, they do have access to contraception, regardless of whether their health insurance offers it or not. They can get a prescription from a doctor and pick up birth control pills. No one is stopping them. They can go down to the local pharmacy and buy condoms! Amazing, eh? And easy! They’re even available at grocery stores and small places like 7/11, WaWa, Kangaroo, and so on. By this same argument the Democrats are making, every plan should include, say, laser eye surgery. For free. No co-pays. Yet, most don’t even include a small discount. Government is not mandating. But, 1 in 4 American’s will need some sort of corrective eye implements by age 40.

“The power to decide whether or not to use contraception lies with a woman – not her boss,” said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. “What is more intrusive than trying to allow an employer to make medical decisions for someone who works for them?”

As Allahpundit wrote Anyone want to field that question from ObamaCare supporter Kirsten Gillibrand? What about the Central Government’s power to decide? But, neither is deciding whether or not to use contraception, they are deciding whether it is in the health insurance plans. Government is mandating over the specific religious objections of Catholics, a clear violation of the 1st Amendment, along with the liberals own talking points about a “separation of Church and State.”

This is not a bug, though, nor a by-product. This is intentional. When you dig into ObamaCare, you see that one of the main points is to make sure private sector employers who offer health insurance drop their coverages. Central government would much rather have the private sector pay the $2,000 fine to the Central Government, rather than pay the $6-12 thousand per year per employee they are paying now, with the employees then joining the government health insurance exchange. With each company that ends up dropping their offers, the Democrats can demonize them and says “look how mean private sector companies are!”

If just one employee obtains insurance through the exchange, their company is responsible for paying the fine for every employee. In retail, there can be, roughly, 25% of the employees being part-time. Some companies offer insurance for them, but, none take it, because it is much more expensive. Some do not even offer to part time. Companies will not take the chance that just one obtains insurance through the exchange. They will drop their plans. And that’s beside the notion that the fine is cheaper than the out-lays.

Let’s not forget this from the other day

“Unless this rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled to either violate our consciences or drop health care coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so),” according to a letter from Archbishop Joseph Naumann of the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas.

“Drop health care coverage.” That’s the point. But, why Obama would want to pick this fight in a presidential election year is strange. Perhaps he thinks that no matter how shabbily he treats Catholics, they’ll still vote for him. Democrats treat lots of voter blocks poorly, and, yes, they are dumb enough to vote Democrats. Will this time be different? Perhaps Obama was trying to change the narrative, which is that he is incompetent, has no clue how to deal with the economy, and is against creating private sector jobs. Move the conversation away from Keystone XL, Solyndra and other failed “green” companies, the waste of Stimulus, and Fast and Furious. Or, perhaps, he just doesn’t know better, and made a whopper of a mistake in green lighting this agenda.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Email This

Posted by William Teach at 8:47 am | Comments (6) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under 1st Amendment, Abortion, Anti-Americanism, Anti-Capitalism, Authoritarianism, Barack Obama, Church And State, Communism, Conservatives, Democrats, Despotism, Elections, Fascism, Government hostility towards religion, Government incompetence, Government malfeasance/misfeasance, Government tyranny, Healthcare, Nanny State, News, Obamacare, Political prostitution, Social Engineering, Socialism, Taxes, Tea Parties, Totalitarianism, Unconstitutional, anti-Liberty/Freedom, feminism, liberalism, paternalism, progressivism, social parasites

Trackback URL:

Professional Warmists Shocked No Ice Melt In Himalayas, Still Say We’re Doomed

We’ve already had confirmation on massive errors in the UN IPCC’s “science”, and know that the errors were used intentionally to scaremonger. We know that the data came from an unfounded report which had no scientific data, written by a grad student who did no field research, like so much of the 2007 IPCC assessment. And now we find

(UK Guardian) The world’s greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows.

Let that sink in for a second: actual scientific research has shown that there was no ice lost in the past 10 years, the decade the Warmist say is the hottest in Earth’s 4.5 billion year history.

The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall.

The study is the first to survey all the world’s icecaps and glaciers and was made possible by the use of satellite data. Overall, the contribution of melting ice outside the two largest caps – Greenland and Antarctica – is much less then previously estimated, with the lack of ice loss in the Himalayas and the other high peaks of Asia responsible for most of the discrepancy.

Oh, so Warmist are and were wrong on Greenland and Antarctica, too?

The melting of Himalayan glaciers caused controversy in 2009 when a report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change mistakenly stated that they would disappear by 2035, instead of 2350. However, the scientist who led the new work is clear that while greater uncertainty has been discovered in Asia’s highest mountains, the melting of ice caps and glaciers around the world remains a serious concern.

This begs the question, why is it a concern? This happens over and over during the warm periods over the last 10,000 years, and, geez, what about the melt from the end of the last glacial period? It also begs the question, why are some glaciers growing and some shrinking? Quite a bit seems to be localized, and doesn’t seem to support the ~~theory hypothesis~~ crystal ball view of anthropogenic global warming, which should mean the entire globe is warming. Which is why the Warmists have latched on to the phrase “climate change”, in order to cover their tracks for their original prognostications, and enfold everything that happens into their cult-like beliefs.

Don Surber: I do not doubt that over time glaciers retreat, or advance. Surface temperatures may even rise. But if man’s production of CO2 were to blame, the glacial meltdown would accelerate, not stop, as the CO2 levels are on the rise (as measured by proponents of the global warming theory). Instead the melt appears to have stopped.

Vox Popoli: Scientists spend an awful lot of time being stunned because they are some of the most naive, credulous, and easily manipulated beings on the planet. That’s why they tend to inordinately fall for every nonsensical philosophical and political ideology that crosses their paths. The average reader of The National Enquirer probably has a better and more-developed sense of skepticism than the average scientist.

Anthony Watts has the graphic of where glaciers are growing based on the Grace data.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Email This

Posted by William Teach at 8:11 am | Comments (2) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under AGW hyposterics, Agenda based science, Collapsing Science, Fraud/misrepresentation, Global Warming, IPCC, News, Science/pseudo-science

Trackback URL:

February 8, 2012

ACLU:State Infringing on Catholic 1st Amendment Somehow Doesn’t Violate the Constitution

Update from commenter: Here is a petition for all people that believe in the Constitution to sign to let Obama know how we feel about him infringing liberty.

ACLU:

The American Civil Liberty Union announced today that President Obama’s decision to mandate coverage for birth control does not violate religious liberty.
The ACLU’s Alicia Gay warns that the “powerful lobbying arm of the Catholic Church” mistakenly claims that the HHS contraception mandate violates their religious liberty.
Individuals who choose not to pay for employees’ contraceptives, the ACLU counters, are forcing their beliefs on their employees.

“The fundamental promise of religious liberty in this country doesn’t create a right to impose those views on others, including ignoring civil rights laws or denying critical health care,” Gay insists.

Somehow in the ACLU’s backwards world they think that the “wall of separation” between church and state is only for the church to not infringe upon the government. It is laughable because the founders’ clear intent was to keep government out of religion. It isn’t shocking, they’ve held this belief forever. If an individual wants to mention Jesus in a graduation speech they think it is the beginning of the end, but government forcing a religion to violate its own beliefs is A OK with this dangerous organization.

Just look at this sentence: “Individuals who choose not to pay for employees’ contraceptives, the ACLU counters, are forcing their beliefs on their employees.” So, according to ACLU illogic individuals who do not pay for other people’s contraceptives are somehow forcing their beliefs on others. But somehow on the same coin….the government forcing people who do not believe in contraceptives to pay for those that do are not forcing their beliefs on others. It makes your head spin.

Ed Morrissey is all over this:

The rights in the Constitution are not granted to American citizens because the government decided to offer them beneficently at their discretion. They exist in the document as a testament to our natural rights, part of our innate humanness, and are detailed in the Constitution as a bar to government’s overreach in trampling them. If the ACLU can’t figure that much out, then not only have they jumped the shark, they’ve nuked the fridge and made themselves entirely irrelevant except for the elitist crowd that cheers on tyranny. And that is exactly what has happened with this HHS mandate.

Rhymes With Right:

The ACLU seems to thinkt that if Catholic institutions are not forced to pay for the birth control, sterilization, and abortions of their employees that some substantive right is being violated. That is nonsensical – as nonsensical as arguing that a Jewish nursing home with a kosher kitchen failing to provide bacon and pork products to its non-Jewish employees is somehow an unlawful and illegitimate imposition of Judaism upon those employees.

The reality here is that the ACLU isn’t concerned about the First Amendment here. It is instead concerned about the perpetual extension of the abortion culture in America. As a result, they are willing to see the federal government require that those with moral scruples against abortion be forced to burn a little incense at the altar of Margaret Sanger – or be crushed by the instruments of the state in the same way that the ancient Romans sought to crush the early Christian community for refusing to make such sacrifices at the altar of the emperors.

This isn’t new for the ACLU. They have always been hypocrites when it comes to the first amendment, especially if it conflicts with the abortion agenda. Abortion has always trumped the 1st Amendment as the ACLU’s top priority.

Also see: PJ Tattler
The Barber Shop

Email This

Posted by Jay at 10:49 am | Comments (6) | Trackback (1)

» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, Abortion, Anti-Americanism, Anti-free speech, Authoritarianism, Barack Obama, Church And State, Democrats, Despotism, Fascism, Gov.Censorship, Government hostility towards religion, Government malfeasance/misfeasance, Government tyranny, Healthcare, Infanticide, News, Obamacare, PETITIONS, President, Romneycare, Social Engineering, Socialism, Totalitarianism, U.S. Constitution, Unconstitutional, anti-Liberty/Freedom, feminism, liberalism, paternalism, religion, social parasites

Trackback URL:

Links

Wednesday Afternoon Grumpy Daily News Headlines | Grumpy Opinions pinged this post.

Santorum’s Trifecta is a Game Changer

Romney still has the most delegates and Newt has the second most, but last night just flung Rick Santorum to the front of the pack. Romney is still at the top of the National polls followed by Newt, but that will most likely change soon. A trifecta of wins last night was quite impressive and it shows that the majority of Conservative voters don’t want Mitt Romney (Mr. Inevitable). Now Santorum has four wins, Mitt has won three, and Newt has won one.

What does it all mean? For one it validates that Conservatives are not comfortable with Mitt Romney as the nominee. There are many reasons why and Romneycare is the big one. The other thing it means is that Santorum had better prepare for the Romney smear machine to go into full force like it did on Newt. Mitt’s got money and he knows how to use it. Negative ads work and the Mitt is the media’s main man for now. You’ll get slammed from two fronts (Mitt and Media), Rick…so be ready. You’ve stayed clean and left alone when no one thought you were a threat to the establishment candidate. You’re in for it now… so prepare.

It also means that if you all want the nominee to be Rick Santorum…you should probably go donate. He’s been on a shoe string budget and that isn’t much to fight the mighty Mitt money smear machine. He will attack from the right, mention earmarks, the raising of the debt ceiling, and that Rick is an insider while he isn’t. The question of whether Santorum can beat Obama will also come up in many forms.

If you’re still rooting for Newt, he needs money too. His strategy is a Southern sweep, and don’t count him out yet. He has a few tricks up his sleeve, I’m sure.

Hope you all are enjoying the roller coaster ride.

Also, see Jeff Goldstein about this unimportant night for Santorum.

Email This

Posted by Jay at 10:24 am | Comment (1) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Caucus, Elections, Mitt Romney, News, Newt Gingrich, Primary, Republicans, Rick Santorum

Trackback URL:

If Climate Change is So Bad, Why is The Flu So Mild?

How many times have we been told that global warming climate change is going to be bad for humans? Disease and stuff will kill hundreds of millions, turning people into zombies….well, not really, they haven’t gotten to that jumping shark moment. Yet. Though, the Warmists have done “Zombie Walks for Climate change“. But, what is the reality as we go through a mild winter here in North America?

(Fox News) The flu virus is thought to thrive in cold weather, so it’s no surprise that during this unseasonably warm winter, we’ve had an equally mild flu season. Doctor visits for the flu have been below average this winter, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

But don’t think you’re in the free and clear.

Typically, flu season peaks in February or March, so it still has time to ramp up—meaning you still have time to get a flu shot—the kingpin of prevention—if you haven’t already.

There’s still time for the flu to ramp up, but, not much so far. I haven’t gotten the flu. Parents, not so much. Friends and co-workers, not so much. Even in South Dakota, the flu is almost nowhere to be seen. There has been a marked decrease in the purchase of flu medicine in Canada.

(Daily Press in Virginia) We’re into February, traditionally when flu season peaks, and there’s been barely a hint of the illness on the Peninsula, statewide or even across the country. “We really haven’t seen much flu yet. I think the important word is yet,” says David Trump, director of the Peninsula Health District.

Trump received the first lab confirmation of a local flu case on Tuesday. “We may be at the very beginning of it finally,” he adds.

As we get into the coldest month of the year, we are seeing a slight increase in flu outbreaks, but, so far, world wide the flu season has been a bust. So, is a warming world really that bad? At the beginning of the Little Ice Age, the Black Death ran rampant, killing 75 million from Europe to Asia. And like today’s warm period, the LIA was natural. Things will happen, some good, some bad. People have still been getting colds this fall/winter, but most have been mild. This mild winter could (there’s that word again, very scientific) cause more Lyme Disease this year. For the Warmists, though, hot cold wet dry is a cause for apoplexy and force 10 moonbattery. They are true Flat Earthers, thinking that nothing should ever change, that the climate and weather should always be the same and entirely predictable.

Tom Nelson asks a good question: I’m not a climatologist, so questions like this confuse me: If the Maldives is described as “paradise” and averages 40 degrees F. warmer than Minneapolis, why should I be afraid that Minneapolis might warm by a couple of degrees? Warmists? Any answer?

Email This

Posted by William Teach at 8:59 am | Comment (1) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Agenda based science, Collapsing Science, Fraud/misrepresentation, Global Warming, News, Science/pseudo-science

Trackback URL:

And It’s Santorum For The Hat Trick

Tuesday night was all Rick (for the non-hockey fans, first, shame on you, and second, a hat trick is scoring 3 goals, after which people throw their hats on the ice. Not easy to score a hat trick)

(Washington Post) Rick Santorum had a breakthrough night Tuesday, winning GOP presidential contests in Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado, all of which is expected to breathe life into his struggling campaign and slow Mitt Romney’s march to the Republican presidential nomination.

The Santorum triumphs promise to, at least temporarily, alter the face of the campaign going into the crucial “Super Tuesday” contests, as the caustic tone of the primaries is expected to continue and intensify. Romney and his allies have signaled that they will use their financial advantage to launch stepped-up attacks on Santorum and on former House speaker Newt Gingrich, the other main challenger.

Santorum solidly defeated Romney in Minnesota and Missouri, and he narrowly edged the former Massachusetts governor in Colorado, according to state GOP officials.

The breakdowns

Colorado: Santorum 40.2%, Mitt 34.9%, Gingrich 12.8%, Paul 11.8%
Minnesota: S 44.8%, P 27.2%, R 16.9%, G 10.7%
Missouri: S 55.2, R 25.3%, P 12.2%

In Missouri, Gingrich wasn’t on the ballot, and, interestingly, received no write in votes. Even K. Drummond received 162 write ins. That creates an interesting situation: Without Newt, Santorum apparently jumps high in support, and if Newt can’t even get some write in votes, how deep is his campaign enthusiasm?

Maggie Haberman offers up 7 takeaways from last nights beauty contest, most focusing on Romney. She also notices that Gingrich is pretty much out of money, and has only the South Carolina primary to Santorum’s 4 wins. She mentions that Ron Paul is “in it for the delegates.” Apparently, Ron Paul no longer wants to be president, just mess the whole nomination process up, helping the GOP lose in 2012.

One thing that surely helped Rick was coming out strong against ObamaCare forcing Catholics, and other religious groups, to offer insurance that includes free contraceptives, sterilizations, and morning after pills.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Email This

Posted by William Teach at 8:28 am | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Caucus, Elections, GOP, Mitt Romney, News, Newt Gingrich, Primary, Republicans, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul

Trackback URL:

The Breivik salute

I did not immediately comment on this because I thought it would be obvious to everyone — but apparently not. When Breivik last faced court over his massacre he gave a salute as he came into the courtroom. His lawyer, Geir Lippestad, said was ’some kind of Right-wing extremist greeting.’

It was not, of course. It was a COMMUNIST salute. The Communist salute is a clenched-fist salute while the Fascist salute is with an open hand.

What the significance is we can only speculate. While it is true that he mostly read and cited conservative sources in the buildup to his actions, that was rather inevitable given his dissatisfaction with Muslims. Only conservatives have the guts to call a spade a spade where Muslims are concerned. Breivik’s other ideas could perfectly well be Leftist.

And his desire to restore traditional Norwegian society is in keeping with that idea. Norway is a very Leftist place and it was only their failure to deal with the Muslim problem that caused the Social Democrats to lose votes in the last election. We may note, for example, that a doctor was recently denied employment at a Norwegian hospital because he did not believe in the Theory of Evolution. See here. Pretty extreme.

That it was Leftists whom Breivik killed makes no odds. Rival Leftist groupings have a long history of killing one-another. The ice-pick in the head that Trotsky got from Stalin is a case in point.

Email This

Posted by JonJayRay at 6:32 am | Comments (2) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Communism, Fascism, Islam, News, liberalism

Trackback URL:

IQ, conservatism and racism

On 22nd January I commented on claims by two Canadian psychologists to the effect that conservatives and racists have low IQs. One look at the study told me that it was brainless so I just reproduced the journal abstract and pointed out two of the things that made it brainless. I didn’t see any point in a detailed look at the paper.

The study has however become much celebrated in Green/Left quarters, with the ineffable Monbiot in the vanguard. Monbiot’s entry into the discussion has however energized a few ripostes from conservatives, with the most amusing point being that after Leftists telling us for decades that IQ scores are meaningless they suddenly have done an 180 degree turn and treat them as highly meaningful!

I thought I might add something to what I regard as the two best conservative responses to the original article. The first is in The Telegraph and makes a number of good points, all of which are worth reading.

I want to say more about just one of them: The point that IQ was measured during childhood (10 or 11 years of age) and that such measures are unreliable. That is however a matter of degree and of purpose. They are accurate enough to be a useful guide to who will benefit from a selective (more demanding) education, for instance.

An interesting aspect of scores at that age, however, is what I call the chimpanzee effect. In brief, this effect is that dummies mature faster so a relatively high score in childhood can lead to a relatively low score in adulthood. So it is quite possible that the high scorers in the data used by the Canadian authors became relatively low scorers later on. So if the high scorers in that body of data were later found to be liberals, it is quite possible that the same people were dummies in later life! So the data could be said to show the opposite of what the authors claim. The data could be said to suggest that it was the liberals who were the dummies.

That is all just speculation, however, The truth is that the data are incapable of telling us which way around it went at all.

That little point is really just a bit of fun, however. The second article by statistician Briggs is by far the most pointed. Briggs had a strong enough stomach to read the whole article. And when he did, he basically found that the authors had misrepresented their results. The correlations with IQ were in fact negligible. They were statistically significant but statistical significance is only a correction for small sample size and the sample sizes in the data used by the Canadians were large.

So statistical significance is irrelevant. It is other forms of significance we have to look at. Let me put it this way: What the Canadians found was (roughly) that out of 100 high IQ people, 51 would be liberals and 49 would be conservatives. Such a near-even split means of course that IQ is essentially irrelevant to ideology, or is not a socially or scientifically significant predictor of ideology.

Now we come to “racism”. The correlations between conservatism and racism were more substantial. Briggs rightly detects the flaw in that. The correlation is between WHAT THE AUTHORS SAY is conservatism and racism and there is no external validation of either measure. So all I want to do is draw attention to something I set out long ago: That even eminent Leftist psychologists have NO IDEA what conservatism is. A much noted paper in the field even identified Stalin, Khrushchev and Castro as conservatives! Can you get any madder than that? So it is no wonder that when they use their questionnaires to predict how people will vote, they find that “conservatives” AS IDENTIFIED BY THEM are just as likely to vote Democrat as Republican (for instance). How clueless can you get? What is going on of course is that Leftist psychologists swallow hook line and sinker of Leftist propaganda about conservatives. They believe that conservatives really are as Leftist propaganda describes them. It would appear that they never bother to talk to any actual conservatives to find out what they really think.

By contrast, I am a conservative so a questionnaire that I devised based on a thorough knowledge of what conservatism actually is, did what the Leftist questionnaires could not: Provided a substantial prediction of vote. See here. So once again the arrogance and ignorance of the Left has led them to a false understanding of reality and scientific work that is futile and useless. The work by the two Canadian authors certainly tells us NOTHING about the correlations with conservatism. I have written more extensively elsewhere about the relationship between conservatism and IQ.

For reference, the Canadian study is: “Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes: Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact” by Gordon Hodson and Michael A. Busseri