Saturday, October 31, 2009

NY-23 Breaking News: Scozzafava Quits Race! (UPDATED)





Read all about it at The Other McCain!






UPDATE (1:13 p.m) Scozzafava's Exit Speech (h/t American Power):




Dede threw the towel in on top of $900,000 of GOP money. Libertyblog has sagely pointed out that, "This episode was a good reminder to Tea Party insurgents that Democrats are the target, the Republican Party must be made into the weapon, and primaries are the venue." Many thanks to Hope n' Change Cartoons for today's theme song:


__________

It Was a Graveyard Smash

It caught on in a flash.

It was the Monster Mash . . .



Happy Halloween!
__________

Friday, October 30, 2009

Catholic Bishops Unite Against Abortion Mandates in Gov't Care


Back in November of last year, 54% of Catholics voted for Barack Obama, despite his staunch support of abortion. I wonder how many of those Catholics knew about Obama's unfazed opposition to and votes against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which was designed to protect infants who survived late-term abortions by mandating that they receive medical care instead of being left to die. Not many, I suspect.

Now, in an unprecedented entrance into American politics, Catholic bishops have united in asking every Catholic to tell Congress to stop federal mandates that taxpayer dollars be used to fund abortions. The bishops do not want Catholics to be forced to violate their religious beliefs by paying for abortions.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is asking each parish to distribute printed material at each Mass celebrated this weekend. The material asks Catholics to take specific actions. Here is the complete text of that missive:

Tell Congress: Remove Abortion Funding & Mandates from Needed Health Care Reform

Congress is preparing to debate health care reform legislation on the House and Senate floors. Genuine health care reform should protect the life and dignity of all people from the moment of conception until natural death. The U.S. bishops’ conference has concluded that all committee-approved bills are seriously deficient on the issues of abortion and conscience, and do not provide adequate access to health care for immigrants and the poor. The bills will have to change or the bishops have pledged to oppose them.

Our nation is at a crossroads. Policies adopted in health care reform will have an impact for good or ill for years to come. None of the bills retains longstanding current policies against abortion funding or abortion coverage mandates, and none fully protects conscience rights in health care. As the U.S. bishops’ letter of October 8 states:

“No one should be required to pay for or participate in abortion. It is essential that the legislation clearly apply to this new program longstanding and widely supported federal restrictions on abortion funding and mandates, and protections for rights of conscience. No current bill meets this test.... If acceptable language in these areas cannot be found, we will have to oppose the health care bill vigorously.”

For the full text of this letter and more information on proposed legislation and the bishops’ advocacy for authentic health care reform, visit: www.usccb.org/healthcare.

Congressional leaders are attempting to put together final bills for floor consideration. Please contact your Representative and Senators today and urge them to fix these bills with the pro-life amendments noted below. Otherwise much needed health care reform will have to be opposed. Health care reform should be about saving lives, not destroying them.


ACTION: Contact Members through e-mail, phone calls or FAX letters.

  • To send a pre-written, instant e-mail to Congress go to www.usccb.org/action.
  • Call the U.S. Capitol switchboard at: 202-224-3121, or call your Members’ local offices.
  • Full contact info can be found on Members’ web sites at www.house.gov & www.senate.gov.

MESSAGE to SENATE:
“During floor debate on the health care reform bill, please support an amendment to
incorporate longstanding policies against abortion funding and in favor of conscience rights. If these serious concerns are not addressed, the final bill should be opposed.”

MESSAGE to HOUSE:
“Please support the Stupak Amendment that addresses essential pro-life concerns on abortion funding and conscience rights in the health care reform bill. Help ensure that the Rule for the bill allows a vote on this amendment. If these serious concerns are not addressed, the final bill should be opposed.”

WHEN: Both House and Senate are preparing for floor votes now.

Act today! Thank you!

The Stupak Amendment, proposed by Michigan Democrat, Rep. Bart Stupak, would prevent taxpayer dollars from funding abortions.

Hat tip: Common Sense Regained & American Papist.

__________

Prepare To Be Sick . . .

Oh, no, better not.

You don't want to be sick under single payer.

If you don't have the time or inclination to view the following video (it's worth it), at least look at :36, featuring a quote from the father of single payer. It's all you need to know, really.

Now, please write to one of your Congress Critters. Get your thoughts on paper and into your mailbox. Repeat until the knot goes out of your stomach. After all, writing another letter or two won't kill you, but single payer might.

Hat tip: Gathering of Eagles, NY.
__________

A Not-So-Brief History of the Government Care Debate in Blog Posts:

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Obama Signs New Hate Law: Guilty Until Proven Guilty

Suppose you are tried for a crime. If you are acquitted, by law you cannot be charged with that same crime again. The law that protects you from being hounded by the government with repeated trials for the same offense is the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which says, among other things:
nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.
To the Framers of the Constitution, the fairness of this law seemed obvious. Legal systems since the Code of Hammurabi had guaranteed people found innocent by a Court the right not to have their judgment of innocence changed to a judgment of guilty.

In 1959, however, the Supreme Court decided in Bartkus v. Illinois that a person could be tried for the identical offense both by his or her state or territory and by the federal government.

Enter the Democrat-heavy 111th Congress and President Barack Obama. From Hans Bader of the New York Examiner:
October 28, 12:27 PM

Today, President Obama signed into law a bill that will dramatically expand the federal hate crimes law, enabling prosecutors to bring federal charges against many more people who were previously found innocent of hate crimes in state court. The hate-crimes provisions were added to a defense appropriations bill, which the President signed in a White House signing ceremony this afternoon.

[snip]

The hate-crimes bill was opposed by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights for allowing the reprosecution in federal court of people found innocent in state court. The Commission called the new law a "menace to civil liberties" because it is an end-run around constitutional double-jeopardy protections.

As explained earlier, the bill’s sponsors seek to use it to reprosecute people in federal court who have already been found innocent of hate crimes in state court, taking advantage of the “dual sovereignty” loophole in constitutional protections against double jeopardy. Civil libertarians like Nat Hentoff and Wendy Kaminer thus object to the bill on double-jeopardy grounds. Backers of the bill, like the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and Commissioner Michael Yaki, supported the bill partly as a way of prosecuting all over again people who were either found not guilty, or who were convicted only of ordinary crimes, while being acquitted of hate-crimes (like the teenagers acquitted of hate crimes in the Shenandoah incident, and the California case of Joseph Silva and George Silva).

Such re-prosecutions can be an enormous waste of money, and grossly unfair to the people who are reprosecuted, driving them into bankruptcy to pay lawyers to represent them all over again when they have already been found innocent in state court after an expensive trial. When the government re-prosecutes someone, it gains an enormous tactical advantage over the defendant from using the prior prosecution as a test-run, even if the defendant is innocent — making a guilty verdict possible even if the defendant is in fact innocent.

The bill also raises serious constitutional federalism issues under the Supreme Court’s Morrison decision.

[snip]

Many supporters of the hate crimes bill want to allow those found innocent to be reprosecuted in federal court. As one supporter put it, “the federal hate crimes bill serves as a vital safety valve in case a state hate-crimes prosecution fails.” The claim that the justice system has “failed” when a jury returns a not-guilty verdict is truly scary and contrary to the constitutional presumption of innocence and the right to trial by jury.

[snip]

Supporters of the hate crimes bill also see it as a way to prosecute people even in cases where the evidence is so weak that state prosecutors have decided not to prosecute. Attorney General Eric Holder has pushed for the hate crimes bill as a way to prosecute people whom state prosecutors refuse to prosecute because of a lack of evidence. To justify broadening federal hate-crimes law, he cited three examples where state prosecutors refused to prosecute, citing a lack of evidence. In each, a federal jury acquitted the accused, finding them not guilty.

As law professor Gail Heriot notes, “Some have even called for federal prosecution of the Duke University lacrosse team members–despite strong evidence of their innocence.” Advocates of a broader federal hate-crimes law have pointed to the Duke lacrosse case as an example of where federal prosecutors should have stepped in and prosecuted the accused players — even though the state prosecution in that case was dropped because the defendants were actually innocent, as North Carolina’s attorney general conceded (and DNA evidence showed), and were falsely accused of rape by a woman with a history of violence (including trying to run over someone with her car) and making false accusations.

The new hate-crime legislation adds new identifying characteristics to the specially protected, more-equal-than-others list. A crime against someone having one or more of these characteristics is subject to prosecution by both state and federal governments. If a state doesn't do a good enough job of proving guilt, well, that's what Big Government is for.

Back in 1959, Justice Hugo L. Black dissented to the Supreme Court majority ruling in Bartkus v. Illinois, the decision that made possible yesterday's enactment of double jeopardy for hate crimes. Justice Black observed, "Fear and abhorrence of governmental power to try people twice for the same conduct is one of the oldest ideas in Western civilization."

Some 12 years earlier, in 1947, Black, a former Democrat senator, wrote what he considered to be his "most significant opinion," in Adamson v. California:

I cannot consider the Bill of Rights to be an outworn 18th century 'strait jacket.' ... Its provisions may be thought outdated abstractions by some. And it is true that they were designed to meet ancient evils. But they are the same kind of human evils that have emerged from century to century wherever excessive power is sought by the few at the expense of the many. In my judgment the people of no nation can lose their liberty so long as a Bill of Rights like ours survives and its basic purposes are conscientiously interpreted, enforced, and respected... I would follow what I believe was the original intention of the Fourteenth Amendment - to extend to all the people the complete protection of the Bill of Rights. To hold that this Court can determine what, if any, provisions of the Bill of Rights will be enforced, and if so to what degree, is to frustrate the great design of a written Constitution.

A Democrat strict constructionist. How times have changed.

Hat tip: Ann Coulter

__________

Related posts:

Monday, October 26, 2009

To Those Thinking of Voting for Any Democrat on Nov 3

These alarming times call for stern measures, and I'm not convinced this is a good time to "vote for the best candidate" regardless of party. Every Democrat placed in office offers support to other Democrats up and down the chain of command; each is a cog transferring power to the legislative and regulatory wheels that are stuffing Obama's policies down America's throats.

Here's something to think about. If you haven't already seen it, it's a recent "Graph of the Day" by Randall Hoven at American Thinker, based on statistics provided by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Senate (click on graph for a better view):


And then there's that Monumental Power Grab that goes after the salaries of those who manage to remain employed, at least if they work in an industry that operates under federal regulation, and try to think of one that doesn't. If the business is involved in interstate commerce, it qualifies. Click over to Legal Insurrection for law professor William Jacobson's warning.

That little local election really does matter, and so does your little ol' vote.
__________

Sunday, October 25, 2009

Meditation: Benjamin Franklin's Creed



I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That he governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we render to him is doing good to his other Children. That the soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its Conduct in this.

~Benjamin Franklin, March 9, 1790, Letter to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale

Saturday, October 24, 2009

ACORN Set to Control America's Banks! No Joke


Perhaps you thought that ACORN was already running financial institutions like mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in league of course with a Democrat controlled Congress and ACORN's union buddies, like Denis Hughes, former political director of the AFL-CIO, the chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

However, it seems there are a few slight obstacles to completely open, unashamed, control of our country's financial destiny by ACORN. For example, ACORN clearly doesn't yet control insurance companies, a very important class of financial institutions, which include banks, credit unions, trust companies, mortgage loan companies, pension funds, brokers, underwriters, and investment funds.

You didn't really think that a few dozen election, tax, and embezzlement scandals would get in ACORN's way, did you? Nah.

Courtesy Republican members of the House Committee on Financial Services:
Democrats on the House Financial Services Committee voted to pass an amendment offered by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) that will make ACORN eligible to play a role in setting regulations for financial institutions.
The idea is to "protect" certain financial "consumers" via a brand-new federal agency, Obama's Consumer Financial Protection Agency, the CFPA. The CFPA will have an Oversight Board, and that's not to provide oversight of the agency, which would be my first choice.

No, the Oversight Board will exist to make sure that financial consumers, notably those in "underserved communities" or those who are unqualified or marginally qualified for mortgage loans, experience "fair lending," and "civil rights":
The Waters amendment adds to the CFPA Oversight Board 5 representatives from the fields of "consumer protection, fair lending and civil rights, representatives of depository institutions that primarily serve underserved communities, or representatives of communities that have been significantly impacted by higher-priced mortgages" to join Federal banking regulators in advising the Director on the consistency of proposed regulations, and strategies and policies that the Director should undertake to enforce its rules.
Wait a second. Aren't these the very "financial consumers" who drove America into a housing crisis by forcing banks to loan to unqualified buyers? And wasn't ACORN, with its 300+ affiliates (including two political parties) the head muckety muck of all community organizations, even getting their legal advice from the Community-Organizer's-Lawyer-in-Chief, before he became president of the country that his pastor of 20 years thought should be damned by God? Those people?

Oh, yes, and ACORN runs on government money, colloquially known as "Obama's stash," which is a euphemism for your money, which is more and more starting to sound like a euphemism for your poverty, once you have been drained of your assets.
By making representatives of ACORN and other consumer activist organizations eligible to serve on the Oversight Board, the amendment creates a potentially enormous government sanctioned conflict of interest. ACORN-type organizations will have an advisory role on regulating the very financial institutions from which they receive millions of dollars annually in direct corporate contributions and benefit from other financial partnerships and arrangements. These are the same organizations that pressured banks to make subprime mortgage loans and thus bear a major responsibility for the collapse of the housing market.

In light of recent evidence linking ACORN to possible criminal activity, Democrats took an unprecedented step today to give ACORN a potential role alongside bank regulators in overseeing financial institutions. This is contrary to recent actions taken by the Senate and House to block federal funds to ACORN.
And, we cannot easily forget, the government now effectively owns controlling interests of some of the largest financial institutions in the world. Meaning that ACORN would be controlling those banks.
A recent inquiry into bank funding of ACORN activities by three House Committees found that institutions that would be regulated by the CFPA have provided millions of dollars to the organization in the form of direct donations, lines of credit, cash, and other assets over the last 15 years.

The Waters amendment passed on a vote of 35-33.
The Bad Guys who voted Aye (besides Madam Waters):
Frank (no surprise), Kanjorski, Maloney, Gutierrez, Velazquez, Watt, Ackerman, Sherman, Meeks, Moore of KS, Capuano, Hinojasa, Clay, McCarthy, Baca, Lynch, Scott, Green, Cleaver, Moore of WI, Hodes, Ellison,Klein, Wilson, Perlmutter, Donnelly, Foster, Carson, Speier, Childers, Minnick, Adler, Kilroy, Driehaus, Kosmas, Grayson, Himes, Peters, Maffei. Click here to see the Voting Record for the Waters Amendment (006) with your own eyes.
Nice Deb has been spreading the word. Thank you, Nice Deb.
__________
Related Posts:

Another Day in ObamaNation


In 1941, Progressive Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt outlined four fundamental freedoms he thought should be enjoyed by humans "everywhere in the world":
  1. Freedom of speech and expression
  2. Freedom of religion
  3. Freedom from want
  4. Freedom from fear
It's been a long, strange, and distorting trip for Liberal America since then. Every day brings us a grotesque new edition of Bad, wrapped in Sad, inside Treachery. Yesterday's version:
  1. Freedom from speech and expression, Godfather style
  2. Freedom from religion, high school style
  3. Freedom to suffer want, Democrat style
  4. Freedom to fear, Islam style
And then:
  • In another of the seemingly endless series of "Religion of Peace" news items, there's the arrest of jihadist Tarek Mehanna, 27, a Beltway Sniper copycat, who also is a teacher at an Islamic middle school in an affluent Boston suburb, and whose father teaches at the Massachusetts College of Pharmacy. Charges? Aiming to kill unsuspecting "unbeliever" mall shoppers plus two members of the Executive Department, likely from a previous administration.
  • America was treated to a display of the razor-sharp focus on the Constitution of the United States by a Democrat Party led by a Harvard-trained Constitutional scholar whose Regulatory Czar also is a Harvard-trained Constitutional scholar.

A bright spot:
__________
Related Post: Vote No for ACORN

Friday, October 23, 2009

Congress Says: This Way to Chaos -- Or Else

It's simple really. Not long ago Thomas Sowell expanded on an observation made by two Russian economists that hit the nail on the head.

From Investor's Business Daily:

Nikolai Shmelev and Vladimir Popov said: "Everything is interconnected in the world of prices, so that the smallest change in one element is passed along the chain to millions of others."

What does that mean? It means that a huge increase in the demand for ice cream can mean higher prices for catcher's mitts, among other things.

When more cows are needed to produce more milk to make ice cream, then fewer cows will be slaughtered and that means less cowhide available to make baseball gloves. Supply and demand mean that catcher's mitts are going to cost more.

[snip]

If everything is connected to everything else in a market economy, then it makes no sense to have laws and policies that declare some given goal to be a "good thing," without regard to the repercussions, which spread out in all directions like waves across a pond when you drop a rock in the water.

Case in point: a relatively modest 5% increase in the demand for U.S. housing led to a huge increase in financial suffering across America, thus:

Our current economic meltdown results from the federal government, under both Democrats and Republicans, declaring homeownership to be a "good thing" and treating the percentage of families who own their own home as if it was some sort of magic number that had to be kept growing — without regard to the repercussions on other things.

We are now living with those repercussions, which include the worst unemployment in decades. That is the price we are paying for increasing homeownership from 64% to 69%.

How did we get from homeownership to 15 million unemployed Americans? By ignoring the fact that there was a reason why only 64% of families owned their own home. More people would have liked to be homeowners but did not qualify under mortgage-lending standards that had been in place for decades.

Politicians to the rescue: Federal regulatory agencies leaned on banks to lend to people they were not lending to before — or else. The "or else" included not having their business decisions approved by the regulators, which could cost them more money than making risky loans.

Mortgage lending standards were lowered in order to raise the magic number of homeownership. But with lower lending standards there were — surprise! — more mortgage payment delinquencies, defaults and foreclosures.

This was a problem not only for banks and other lenders, but also for those in the business of buying mortgages from the original lenders. These included semi-government enterprises like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as Wall Street firms that bought mortgages, bundled them together and issued securities based on the anticipated income from those mortgages.

In other words, all these economic transactions were "interconnected," as the Russian economists would say. And when the people who owed money on their mortgages stopped paying, the whole house of cards began to fall.

Now our ACORN-saluting Congress have declared government-run health care for all to be a "good thing" and are treating the tax burden of providing "health care" to every person who resides in--or enters--the United States as some sort of magic number that must be kept growing — without regard to the repercussions on other things.

Meanwhile, state tax receipts are showing the steepest decline on record, one in 10 Americans (9.8%) is out of work, one in 2 (54%) of Americans under the age of 24 is totally unemployed and will continue to be unemployed because job openings for everyone--in all regions of the country--are decreasing, the dollar keeps depreciating, and our national debt has now grown to exceed $516 thousand per U.S. household, whether or not anyone in that household pays taxes.

The philosopher/historian Will Durant once observed that "civilization begins with order, grows with liberty and dies with chaos." If that observation is correct, then we'd best get busy protecting and expanding the remnants of our liberty, because chaos will not be a happy place.

__________

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Vote No for ACORN


Word is spreading, thank goodness: A vote for a candidate running on the Working Families Party line is a vote for ACORN, or maybe a few votes for ACORN.

That's not a big surprise, because the Working Families Party, which likes to call itself WFP, was co-founded by ACORN and union interests, shared the same Brooklyn, NY office and staff, and even shared Bertha Lewis, who is both the "Chief Organizer" of ACORN and Co-Chair of the Working Families Party.

Expect the Working Families Party to demonstrate the same level of respect for law as ACORN shows. For example, just a few weeks ago, in Troy, NY, the Working Families Party handed in fraudulent absentee ballots signed with the forged signatures of real people.

Many of the questionable ballots were filed under the names of students and people who live in government-subsidized housing and other downtown areas. Still others were submitted on behalf of voters who were alleged to have signed the ballots earlier this month, but those people have not lived in New York state for at least a year, records show. [From the Times Union via Moonbattery at The News Factor.]

The object of the fraud: to ensure that the WFP got on the line in Rensselaer County voting booths this coming November 3 in order to "tip" the election to the Democrats. (Working Family Party votes would have been added to Democrat votes.) According to the lawyer of one of the candidates, "the fraud was carried out by 'individuals associated and working with the Democratic candidates ... they are working to get the WFP lines for their candidates in the general election.'"

Documents at the county Board of Elections show the fraudulent ballots were handled by or prepared on behalf of various elected officials and leaders and operatives for the Democratic and Working Families parties. [From the Times Union via Moonbattery at The News Factor.]

ACORN is getting their hooks into all kinds of politicians in New York State these days.

Remember the handful of Senators who voted to keep funding ACORN even after the Giles/O'Keefe videos captured ACORN Housing staff members helping a young man and woman set up a child prostitution business? One of those was Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a Democrat/Working Families Party candidate who masqueraded as a conservative until she got her Senate seat and then, overnight, morphed into one of the 20 most liberal politicians in the U.S. Senate. ACORN told her which side of her bread holds the butter: more than half of the people who handed her a margin of victory pulled the lever for Gillibrand on the WFP line, the same line that WFP was entering fraudulent ballots to the Rensselear County Election Board to procure.

In the special election for the seat in New York's 23rd Congressional District, Working Family Republican Dede Scozzafava has been taking heat for her liberal positions that have won her WFP support, which translates into paid workers shipped in from New York City who go door-to-door for the candidate, not to mention her goofy campaign decisions, like calling the cops on a mild-mannered reporter for asking a tough question and holding a press conference in front of her opponent's headquarters.

According to The Jawa Report, Scozzafava supports the Obama stimulus, abortion in all cases, card check, morning after pills for teens (no prescription needed), same-sex marriage, more laws banning discrimination against gays, and more laws creating more "hate crimes." On the other hand, she is against secret ballots in union elections, doesn't want kids to be able to attend private schools, is opposed to testing and merit pay for teachers, and won't go near a "no pork" pledge with a ten-foot pole.

Obama is personally raising money in New York to crush her opponent, Doug Hoffman, a career accountant and stand-up guy who is against higher taxes, pork, abortion, and same-sex marriage and for secret ballots and school choice. Hoffman's reaction: "Isn't that amazing? Little old me. The president has to come in and try to beat me."

In defying the Democrat/WFP/Acorn coalition, Hoffman has attracted the attention not only of the president, but also of Glenn Beck and Marc Levin, both of whom interviewed him on their radio shows yesterday. Much of America learned Hoffman's name today, as well as place to send money: doughoffmanforcongress.com.

This obviously will be a very influential race. If New York State can tell ACORN where to go in this election, some Congressional Democrats may stop greasing the skids on this country's wild ride toward what William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection calls "the biggest, baddest hurt."

__________
Related Posts:

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Here a Maoist, There a Maoist . . .



Lucky us. We now know where Obama's Car and Manufacturing Czar, Ron Bloom, stands on Mao's dictum: "Power comes from the barrel of a gun." He "kind of agrees."

From Glenn Beck, the following is a transcript from a speech given by Bloom, who, as a U.S. Treasury employee handpicked by Obama, naturally enough supports government monopolies. Of course, when he gave the speech last year, he was still special assistant to the president of the United Auto Workers, so he especially likes government monopolies in auto manufacturing. I notice he used the plural pronoun in his speech; perhaps he meant that the United Auto Workers union members believe in government monopolies in manufacturing.
We know that the free market is nonsense. We know that the whole point is to game the system, to beat the market, or at least find someone who will pay you a lot of money because they're convinced that there is a free lunch. We know this is largely about power, that it's an adults only, no limit game. We kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun. And we get it that if you want a friend, you should get a dog.
Yes, there's video:



Gaming the system?

Finding someone who "thinks there's a free lunch" or maybe a free $3000 check from Obama?

An adults only, no limits game?

And I thought union dues were for, say, a worker's pension fund.

Silly me.

James Madison, the Father of the U.S. Constitution had a few words to say about power, too:
The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny" (1788, Federalist No. 48).


__________
Related Posts:

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Global Warming Lies: Making the Obvious Obvious

Hold onto your socks. If you are not made of iron, prepare to weep. Presented here, Lord Christopher Monckton's full address on global warming lies, global warming lying liars, and Obama's plan to cede U.S. sovereignty to a new world government via the Treaty of Copenhagen, thanks to the global warming lies of lying liars.

The video is long, 1 hour and 35 minutes. If you like, download Monckton's accompanying visuals (17.5 MB PowerPoint presentation here) or view it in increments when you get a few minutes here and there. Lacking the time to watch the whole thing, turn on the video in the background and listen to just the audio; it would be a pity if you missed it altogether. (Tip: You'll want a pen and notebook at hand to record facts you'll want to retain and language you'll want to savor.)





Hat tip to Watts Up With That?. Thanks to cbullitt at Soylent Green for the heads up.
__________

Monday, October 19, 2009

USA: Beacon of Freedom, Not World Lackey


Last night I watched the online premier of the new documentary, Not Evil, Just Wrong, which exposes key elements of the global warming nonsense that assaults us every day and threatens our livelihoods and ability to pursue our American dreams.

I wasn't expecting also to learn about the struggle to reintroduce DDT to malaria-stricken regions, but I was glad I did. The banning of DDT in the 1960s cost millions of lives in areas where malaria had not yet been wiped out as it was in the U.S. (without, it should be noted, the loss of a single species).

Not Evil, Just Wrong is a deeply felt work, supported by actual, that is to say, unmassaged, historical data. The film, says Andrew Breitbart, fights misinformation on the pop culture level, where global warmists have scored victory after victory without having to prove their case in the court of science. This film deserves attention and support.

The warning that follows presents one critically important reason why the film deserves attention. It was delivered to Americans by Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and it is currently making its way around the blogosphere, which is a good thing. Sunshine, sunshine. Cbullitt at Soylent Green acted as Paul Revere by notifying the Internet, Opus #6 reposted the story, as did Nickie Goomba at It Don't Make Sense, and now I'm reposting it here.

The Minnesota Free Market Institute hosted an event at Bethel University in St. Paul on Wednesday evening. Keynote speaker Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, gave a scathing and lengthy presentation, complete with detailed charts, graphs, facts, and figures which culminated in the utter decimation of both the pop culture concept of global warming and the credible threat of any significant anthropomorphic climate change.

A detailed summary of Monckton’s presentation will be available here once compiled. However, a segment of his remarks justify immediate publication. If credible, the concern Monckton speaks to may well prove the single most important issue facing the American nation, bigger than health care, bigger than cap and trade, and worth every citizen’s focused attention.

Here were Monckton’s closing remarks, as dictated from my audio recording:

At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.


I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.

How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.

[laughter]

And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, if your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution (sic), and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.

So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back. That is how serious it is. I’ve read the treaty. I’ve seen this stuff about [world] government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or not.

But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire – it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with climate and, even if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to [help] it.

So I end by saying to you the words that Winston Churchill addressed to your president in the darkest hour before the dawn of freedom in the Second World War. He quoted from your great poet Longfellow:

Sail on, O Ship of State!
Sail on, O Union, strong and great!
Humanity with all its fears,
With all the hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate!
Lord Monckton received a standing ovation and took a series of questions from members of the audience. Among those questions were these relevent to the forthcoming Copenhagen treaty:
Question: The current administration and the Democratic majority in Congress has shown little regard for the will of the people. They’re trying to pass a serious government agenda, and serious taxation and burdens on future generations. And there seems to be little to stop them. How do you propose we stop Obama from doing this, because I see no way to stop him from signing anything in Copenhagen. I believe that’s his agenda and he’ll do it.

I don’t minimize the difficulty. But on this subject – I don’t really do politics, because it’s not right. In the end, your politics is for you. The correct procedure is for you to get onto your representatives, both in the US Senate where the bill has yet to go through (you can try and stop that) and in [the House], and get them to demand their right of audience (which they all have) with the president and tell him about this treaty. There are many very powerful people in this room, wealthy people, influential people. Get onto the media, tell them about this treaty. If they go to www.wattsupwiththat.com, they will find (if they look carefully enough) a copy of that treaty, because I arranged for it to be posted there not so long ago. Let them read it, and let the press tell the people that their democracy is about to be taken away for no good purpose, at least [with] no scientific basis [in reference to climate change]. Tell the press to say this. Tell the press to say that, even if there is a problem [with climate change], you don’t want your democracy taken away. It really is as simple as that.

Question: Is it really irrevocable if that treaty is signed? Suppose it’s signed by someone who does not have the authority, as I – I have some, a high degree of skepticism that we do have a valid president there because I -

I know at least one judge who shares your opinion, sir, yes.

I don’t believe it until I see it. … Would [Obama's potential illegitimacy as president] give us a reasonable cause to nullify whatever treaty that he does sign as president?

I would be very careful not to rely on things like that. Although there is a certain amount of doubt whether or not he was born in Hawaii, my fear is it would be very difficult to prove he wasn’t born in Hawaii and therefore we might not be able to get anywhere with that. Besides, once he’s signed that treaty, whether or not he signed it validly, once he’s signed it and ratified it – your Senate ratifies it – you’re bound by it. But I will say one thing; they know, in the White House, that they won’t be able to get the 67 votes in the Senate, the two-thirds majority that your Constitution has stipulated must be achieved in order to ratify a treaty of this kind. However, what they’ve worked out is this – and they actually let it slip during the election campaign, which is how I know about it. They plan to enact that Copenhagen treaty into legislation by a simple majority of both houses. That they can do. But the virtue of that – and here you have a point – is that is, thank God, reversible. So I want you to pray tonight, and pray hard for your Senate that they utterly refuse to ratify the [new] Treaty of Copenhagen, because if they refuse to ratify it and [Obama] has to push it through as domestic legislation, you can repeal it.
Regardless of whether global warming is taking place or caused to any degree by human activity, we do not want a global government empowered to tax Americans without elected representation or anything analogous to constitutional protections. The Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew their progeny allowed a foreign power such authority, effectively undoing their every effort in an act of Anti-American Revolution. If that is our imminent course, we need to put all else on hold and focus on stopping it. If American sovereignty is ceded, all other debate is irrelevant.

Edited to add @ 8:31 am:

Skimming through the treaty, I came across verification of Monckton’s assessment of the new entity’s purpose:
38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:

World Government (heading added)
(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.

To Redistribute Wealth (heading added)
b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts [read: the "climate debt" Monckton refers to], including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components, © a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.

With Enforcement Authority (heading added)
© The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; © a short-term technology action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange [read; enforcement].
Here's a video of Lord Monckton delivering those remarks (hat tip to Nice Deb):







__________

Sunday, October 18, 2009

Meditation: Progress for Maryam & Marzieh

Regular readers of this blog know that I've been following the case of Maryam Rustampoor and Marzieh Amirizadeh, two Iranian Christians imprisoned in notorious Evin Prison.

Last week, a judge presiding in Iran's revolutionary court acquitted Maryam and Marzieh of anti-state activities, one of three charges for which they have been being held. According to Elam, a ministry that serves the growing Christian church in Iran, acquittal for this charge is a rare occurrence.

Next, Maryam and Marzieh's case will be transferred to the general court for consideration of the remaining two charges: propagation of the Christian faith and apostasy. According to shariah law, the crime of apostasy, that is, converting to another religion from Islam, is punishable by death, provided that the accused is given an opportunity to recant and return to Islam. In a previous hearing, the prosecution demanded that Maryam and Marzieh renounce Christianity both verbally and in writing, but they refused, saying, “We love Jesus,” and "“We will not deny our faith."

As word gets out, support for Maryam and Marzieh is growing, and with it, avenues by which you and I can offer some measure of assistance. A group of American supporters have launched a Web site, FreeThemm.com, at which nearly 6,000 people have committed to pray daily for Maryam and Marzieh, and more than $21,000 has been raised to support efforts to free them. WorldNetDaily recently posted a petition for the release of for the two young women, which at this writing has nearly 1,000 signatures. Quick links are provided for sending the petition to friends via email and social networks.

From one of the blog posts at FreeThemm.com:

The testimony of these two Christians continues to spread across the world. Their unwavering faith has challenged countless believers. Because of Maryam and Marzieh’s example, many Iranian Christians have become even more courageous as they follow Jesus in a hostile environment.

Maryam and Marzieh are aware that Christians all over the world are praying for them. They are encouraged to realize they have not been forgotten, and they have a message for you:

“Thank you for praying for us. We are humbled and strengthened by your prayers and we are determined to remain faithful to Jesus even unto death.”

Our liberties as Americans rest on the fundamental freedoms of religion and conscience, freedoms that we must preserve and protect. The fact that Maryam and Marzieh are enduring imprisonment and facing capital punishment for the mere act of practicing Christianity begins to explain the seriousness with which we must view the fears of teenager Rifqa Bary, another former Muslim who converted to Christianity and whose fate is in the hands of a different pair of judges, not in Iran, but in Florida and Ohio, where we can easily make our voices heard.

Let us not forget these young women.
__________
Related posts:

Friday, October 16, 2009

Communism is not love. . .

Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Mao Tse-Tung

White House Communications Director Anita Dunn recently praised the thinking of Chairman Mao:



Did I hear that right? Obama's Communications Director is advising an audience to emulate Mao's resolve to take over and enslave an entire country? Mao and Mother Theresa resemble each other because they "did their own thing." Is that what I just heard?

Mao's third wife, Jiang Qing, who also was one of the infamous Gang of Four, saw Mao in a different light than Dunn: "I was Chairman Mao's dog. What he said to bite, I bit."

Perhaps you are curious, as I was, about the location and audience of Dunn's speech. She clearly is speaking from a pulpit. In this video, I discovered, she was addressing the 2009 high school graduating class of St. Andrew's Episcopal School at the Washington National Cathedral.

Mao was a militant atheist who held that "religion is poison" and instituted a policy of eliminating religion in China. Mao had Chinese Christians, Taoists, Buddhists, and Muslims terrorized, tortured, and murdered and ordered their houses of worship destroyed or desecrated. During Mao's dictatorship, the practice of religion was dangerous and existed only in secret. If Mother Theresa had lived in China, Mao would have had her killed.

Added 1:45 p.m.: And now that I think of it, if Mao's "political philosophy" were in practice in the U.S. today, St. Andrew's Episcopal School would not exist, the school's teachers and the clerics at the Washington National Cathedral would have been imprisoned and "re-educated" or murdered, and the Cathedral itself have been razed or commandeered and nationalized for use as government offices, troop housing, a re-education "center," or whatever else the government saw fit.


Hat tip: Gateway Pundit
__________

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Cass Sunstein: You Have No Constitutional Right to Your Own Body Parts

The Obama administration doesn't need to reduce the population by establishing "death panel" rationing of health care, defunding Medicare, or driving fixed-income elderly into poverty with crushing taxation.

No.

It would suffice merely to create a world in which people no longer want to live:

Via World Net Daily:
TEL AVIV – President Obama's newly confirmed regulatory czar defended the possibility of removing organs from terminally ill patients without their permission.

Cass Sunstein also has strongly pushed for the removal of organs from deceased individuals who did not explicitly consent to becoming organ donors.

In his 2008 book, "Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness," Sunstein and co-author Richard Thaler discussed multiple legal scenarios regarding organ donation. One possibility presented in the book, termed by Sunstein as "routine removal," posits that "the state owns the rights to body parts of people who are dead or in certain hopeless conditions, and it can remove their organs without asking anyone's permission."

"Though it may sound grotesque, routine removal is not impossible to defend," wrote Sunstein. "In theory, it would save lives, and it would do so without intruding on anyone who has any prospect for life."

Note: In case you are wondering where these wacky ideas come from, wonder no more. At the risk of losing friends, I will point out that Sunstein is a 1978 magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School and is now that school's Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law (on leave). For 27 years, Sunstein taught at the University of Chicago Law School, where he continues to teach as the Harry Kalven Visiting Professor. Another constitutional law product of Harvard Law School and former lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School is none other than Barack Obama.


Illegitimi non carborundum

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Rifqa Bary Meets Hamlet. Result: Alas or Huzzah? (UPDATE)

Kurt Vonnegut was fond of pointing out why Hamlet is considered a masterpiece. At no point in the play, he used to say, do we know whether Hamlet is about to be doomed or about to be saved. "The truth is," he once wrote, "we know so little about life, we don't really know what the good news is and what the bad news is."

That pretty much sums up what I have been able to garner about the chronicle of Rifqa Bary, the teenage convert to Christianity who ran away from her Muslim family and their mosque in Ohio because she feared death by murder, killing being the Islamic remedy for her apostasy in leaving Islam. At every public moment of her present life, that is, at every court hearing, she seems to be either at the point of being doomed or at the point of being saved. I can't tell whether the news she's just heard is good or bad.

Rifqa has had several court hearings in Florida, where each time she seemed on the verge of being sent back to her parents and mosque in Ohio (who might take her back to Sri Lanka where there is no hope of providing her with safety)--as soon as one or another bureaucratic jot or tittle was added to her ever-thickening court file. A meeting had to take place, a report had to be filed, a mediation must be attempted, a conversation between judges in Florida and Ohio had to occur, etc., etc.

At her latest hearing, held yesterday, Florida Judge Dawson ruled that Rifqa be sent back to Ohio , as soon as her Sri Lankan parents, Mohamed and Aysha Bary, present their immigration papers to him.

Aye, there's the rub.

In a scenario reminiscent of "dialog" issuing from the mouths of Iranian officials avoiding inspection of their nuclear facilities, in hearing after hearing, the lawyer representing Rifqa's parents (who want her back) has promised the Court copies of the documentation, not honored that promise, supplied a couple of copies of incomplete documentation, accused others of racism for asking for the documentation, complained about the onerous difficulty of obtaining access to a photocopy machine, promised copies of the documentation, not supplied these, railed against having to produce documentation, etc., etc., etc.

Rifqa's parents seem to live in an curiously unstructured world in which one day they are prosperous business owners, the next day all their assets have mysteriously disappeared and they are paupers whose lawyers must be paid by the state, yet (simultaneously) "money is no problem," provided that this serves their case and that American taxpayers keep paying Mohamed and Aysha's lawyers to spread paperwork (except immigration documentation) all over court systems in two states. A mental projection that has worked well for them, thus far. American taxpayers keep paying for their legal representation, and they haven't even needed to show a green card.

Until now.

So is Rifqa doomed or is she saved?

Or, to put it another way, will Rifqa turn 18 before her parents find their immigration papers?

To learn more (much more) about Rifqa's struggle, read Pamela Geller's research at Atlas Shrugs. To view Rifqa's situation through the eyes of another Muslim apostate woman from Sri Lanka, listen to this moving interview by Pamela Geller: Download apostate.mp3 (5520.9K).
__________

Update 1:

ATLAS EXCLUSIVE BREAKING Mohamed Bary's Missing Immigration Documents: Status ILLEGAL


Update 2:

Recommended reading: Wax Lips pertinently wonders what happened to Hillary Clinton and the rest of the Children's Defense Fund.
__________

Related Posts: