James Inhofe claims Obama’s Copenhagen trip will be “dishonest”
Senator James Inhofe, who is calling for an investigation into Climategate, has stated that if the president flies to Copenhagen and announces that the United States will put a cap on its carbon usage that he is being “dishonest.”
He is making this claim based on his belief that there is no way in hell that the senate will take up the cap and trade legislation that was passed earlier this year in the House anytime soon.
The president is poised to tell the world that the United States will reduce its carbon emissions to 17% below what they were in 2005. That is the goal that was agreed to in the House’s version of the cap and trade legislation. Barack Obama will be able to make this claim based on the legislation that is working its way through congress. But James Inhofe believes that this legislation is dead on arrival in the senate, which means that there is no way for Obama to guarantee that the United States will reduce carbon emissions at all.
If James Inhofe is correct in his observation that cap and trade is dead in the senate Barack Obama must also know that this legislation is doomed. Yet he is still prepared to announce to the world that he will meet the goals stated in the legislation. If James Inhofe is correct and Barack Obama realizes that Inhofe is correct, then Barack Obama IS being dishonest if he flies to Copenhagen to announce his intentions.
I think it is dishonest for him to go,” Inhofe told CNSNews.com. “I know that’s a strong word. But if he goes, we have seen what he is going to release there. He’s going to say that the United States of America will commit themselves to reducing our CO2 emissions by 17% by the year 2020. Now, that’s essentially the Markey bill–the Waxman-Markley bill that passed–the same targets. And yet he knows when he says that, that we’re not going to pass it
Barack Obama is more concerned with his perception around the world than he is about what he accomplishes. The world will hear that Barack Obama intends to cap the United States’s carbon emissions and that is what he is most concerned with– the perception that he intends to be environmentally conscientious. But there could be more to Obama’s motives here than the way he is perceived in the world on this issue.
If he flies to Copenhagen and makes this assertion it will put the worldwide pressure back on to the senate to pass cap and trade legislation. I think that is what his goal is. By announcing to the world that he intends to cap carbon emissions he will put himself in a friendly position across the globe on this issue. He will be positioning himself as being a friend to the environment and then will apply pressure to the senate to meet his promises. He is hoping that by forcing the senate’s hand on a worldwide stage that the senate will acquiesce to his desires on cap and trade.
James Inhofe may be correct about Obama being dishonest, and Obama probably knows that cap and trade is dead in the senate but I don’t think that he is being dishonest. I just think that Obama is going to use Copenhagen to put the pressure back on the senate to pass his cap and trade legislation. That is not dishonest, it is using a worldwide forum in an attempt to put his agenda back on the table. Perhaps he sees this as his last offensive on this issue and is attempting to push the senate into the direction that he wants them to proceed.
Two academy members want Al Gore stripped of his Oscar
Roger L. Simon and Lionel Chetwynd are two members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and they want their organization to strip Al Gore of his Oscar.
These two men want Al Gore stripped of his Oscar because of the Climategate scandal in which we have learned that the evidence has been manipulated by climate change scientists to promote a very profitable and now very political agenda– Al Gore’s agenda.
Al Gore should have been stripped of his Oscar last year once it was learned that he had taken a fictional scene from the movie “The Day After Tomorrow” and represented it as a real life example of what was happening in his propaganda documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.” But he was allowed to keep his ill-gotten trophy and this Oscar helped him to win the Nobel Peace Prize. (As sad as that is at least Al Gore did something to win the once esteemed price, I guess, unlike the latest prize recipient.)
Winning the Oscar and the Nobel Peace Prize set Al Gore on the path that has made him the man who has profited the most from this scam. Nobody has profited more from the global warming hysteria than Al Gore has, and now that we have irrefutable proof that Al Gore’s pet project has been based on falsified and deliberately misleading information the least that he could do would be to admit that not only was the science he based his documentary on a lie, but that his whole cause has been a lie from the beginning. He has known that this was a scam from the beginning and he has become a rich man telling people what they must do to save the planet while he has been living the exact opposite lifestyle.
If this man had any conscience whatsoever that is what he would do. I think it is safe to say that it isn’t going to happen. Al Gore has been living a lie and Climategate has exposed him and his radical and faulty agenda.
Why SHOULD Americans care about the Tiger Woods story?
The biggest news of the week is not the news of Obama’s troop surge in Afghanistan and it is not the news of Climategate– although those stories are much more important, the news of the week is the revelation that Tiger Woods is a lying, cheating scumbag and as the revelations keep on pouring in Americans can not get enough of the Tiger Woods story.
The question that I have is not WHY do Americans care about the Tiger Woods story? The question that I have is why SHOULD Americans care about the Tiger Woods story.
I know why many Americans care about the Tiger Woods story. It is because many Americans are celebrity obsessed. In today’s reality television, American Idol based, instant gratification world Americans care more about gossip and trivial issues than they do about issues that can affect not only us but our future generation. If two competing stations run different stories, with one station focusing on Tiger Woods and the other station focusing on Afghanistan or Climategate which station do you think will win the ratings war. The station running the Tiger Woods story, of course.
So I will now attempt to answer my biggest question in the Tiger Woods story; why should Americans care about this story? The answer is simple; because the Tiger Woods story is a very high profile example of the lack of morals and social de-evolution in family values that is becoming more and more common in the younger generations in this country as time goes on.
Tiger Woods, if he was so inclined to be this promiscuous should never have gotten married in the first place. But the fact that he did decide to choose a woman to marry and bear his children tells me that his only reason to marry in the first place was to have a baby momma to raise his offspring while he was out there gallivanting across the world.
My point is that the family structure in the United States has been eroded over the years, and I think that Tiger Woods’s mindset is a pretty good illustration of the point that I am trying to make.
Over the course of time family values in this country have eroded, welfare programs have replaced the father figure in many single parent homes and the government is gaining more control over the way a parent is allowed to raise their children.
We have seen over and over again with the younger generation’s men who have accidentally impregnated their girlfriends, instead of marrying them and trying to be a provider and a father, abandon the woman who is then forced to look to the state to provide for her family as the father is absent. Be honest, most of us know somebody who has broken up with a girl once she became “in the family way.” There was a time when the man would marry the woman and raise the child together in a family setting.
This is much more common than it was twenty or even ten years ago. There was a time when a man felt a responsibility and an obligation tot take care of and provide for his child but those times are gone forever.
Tiger Woods may be able to provide financially for his children, that is not what I am talking about here. Being a father and a good husband is obviously not just contingent on providing financial security, it is being there for your children and setting the best example that you can for them. Being a father is about teaching your children morals and right from wrong. But Tiger Woods was too selfish to provide the basic teachings that a father has an obligation to provide. By this I do not mean that he did not want to teach his children right from wrong but rather that his actions speak louder than his words.
He was more interested in instant gratification than in the gratification of being a good husband. In the long run a father will have the gratification of knowing that he raised good, decent children. That gratification may not be instant but it is much more gratifying and important than the selfish, instant gratification that he was seeking.
I know that I haven’t said what I wanted to say as clearly as I would have liked but my basic point is that there is a moral decay and an erosion of family values in this country and Tiger Woods exemplifies it. And that is why Americans SHOULD care about the Tiger Woods Story.
Darrell Issa calls for an investigation into Climategate, calls Obama’s inaction unconscionable
Republicans are beginning to apply more pressure to the administration to investigate Climategate. The first Republican to call for an investigation was James Inhofe, who has asked Barbara Boxer to open up and investigation and now we are hearing strong words from Representative Darrell Issa, who is also calling for a Climategate investigation.
The White House’s unwillingness to open a similar inquiry could now only be characterized as “a sad abdication of their responsibility to ensure that U.S. policies are not driven by corrupted science and data,” the congressman added.
But that wasn’t all that the congressman had to say:
The very integrity of the report that the Obama administration has predicated much of its climate change policy has been called into question and it is unconscionable that this administration and Congress is willing to abdicate responsibility of uncovering the truth to the United Nations
The University of East Anglia– where the disgraced scientists of the CRU are based– has announced that it is going to open up an investigation into Climategate and the United Nations has also followed suit and will investigate the obvious manipulation of data. Yet Barack Obama is proceeding as if nothing has happened and Darrel Issa finds this to be unconscionable. So do I.
While the United Nations and the University of East Anglia are taking this controversy at least somewhat seriously, here is what Barack Obama’s science czar had to say about the scandal:
It is important to understand that these kinds of controversies and even accusations of bias and improper manipulation are not all that uncommon in science, in all branches of science
It is evident that the administration is not taking this revelation that the science has been manipulated and is fraudulent very seriously at all. Barack Obama’s cap and trade policies are based on the reports or the CRU and the IPCC and he is not only not willing to admit that fraud may have been committed in the writing of these reports, but he is ignoring the scandal altogether as he prepares to fly to Copenhagen to further his global warming agenda.
This is the utmost of irresponsibility. With these two investigations being launch and with at least two members of congress calling for an investigation the president should not only postpone his Copenhagen trip, he should also notify congress that he will not proceed with any cap and trade legislation until the CRU, the United Nations, and the United States have all completed investigations into this matter. He should be asking for an investigation into Climategate.
As Darrel Issa stated, the integrity of the report that Obama has based his policy on is in question, this should be a red flag to an ethical administration yet Barack Obama has decided the best method to combat the allegations that the science has been manipulated is to ignore the scandal completely. He is doing this because he believes in the global warming agenda of taxing and regulating the American people into submission and he doesn’t care if the evidence was manufactured as long as he achieves his desired result.
Reverend claims that abortion is a God given right
Recently in Washington DC there was a pro-choice rally to protest the Stupac amendment– which prohibits the federal funding of abortion. One of the featured speakers was Rev. Carlton Veazey, the president of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. Here is what the reverend had to say:
Don’t let anybody tell you that religious people don’t support choice,” Veazey said at the gathering in the Dirksen Senate Office Building. “You not only have a constitutional right for abortion, but you have a God-given right
Putting aside the fallacy that the right to an abortion appears anywhere in the constitution, does anybody really believe that God would condone a person’s right to kill an unborn baby? This statement would appear to me to be at odds with the teachings of the church and is a little stunning coming from somebody who calls himself a reverend.
The Declaration of Independence does state that the Creator endowed the people with certain rights, and among those rights are LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But somehow this reverend missed the “life” portion of the declaration and has inserted abortion into the mix.
The protestors at this event were protesting the Stupak amendment; this amendment in no way restricts the “God given right” of abortion. It simply does not allow federal funding of abortions. Any women who wants an abortion can still get one, she will just have to pay for it herself. What a novel idea that is– making a person pay for the services they choose to use.
The pro-choice crowd is distorting this issue; they are purposely making the Stupak amendment an indictment on abortion when that is not the intent of the amendment. They are doing this purposely to drum up support for federal funding of abortions. By portraying the Stupak amendment as an attack on the “God given right” of abortion they are hoping to gain support from those pro-choice people who have no idea what the Stupak amendment is or what it represents.
WWII veteran vows to fight to keep flying his American flag
The most decorated living American soldier from WWII, Colonel Van Barfoot, has been told that he must take down his American flag because the homeowners association bans flagpoles where he is living.
The homeowners association claims that this is not an issue of a person flying the American flag, but rather the flagpole itself. The association claims tha Barfoot can still fly a flag from a porch or the side of his house but not from a flagpole. The 90 year old decorated war veteran sees that as unacceptable and vows to take the association to court to fight for his right to fly the flag in all its glory.
This man has won the Medal of Honor, the Silver Star, the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts fighting for the flag of the United States and now he is fighting for the flag of the United States one last time.
This man participated in the invasion of Sicily and Italy, he didn’t cower in the face of the Nazis, he certainly will not cower to the homeowners association.
Good luck Colonial Barfoot, patriotic Americans all across the country are routing for you one more time.
UK University to investigate Climategate scandal
While the Climategate scandal does not appear to be headed anywhere in the United States government and while the United States media is ignoring this scandal, the British news organizations seem to be taking this controversy much more seriously and appear to be giving Climategate the coverage that it deserves.
The director of CRU has already stepped down pending an investigation and today it has been made public that the University of East Anglia– where the CRU is based– os going to open up an investigation into whether the organization did indeed purposely embellish the threat of global warming.
East Anglia said its review will examine the e-mails and other information “to determine whether there is any evidence of the manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice.”
I think the evidence contained in the leaked emails prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the CRU did “manipulate and suppress the data” to forward their agenda. The evidence is overwhelming and the fact that the university threw away all of the raw data that was used to come to the global warming consensus is further proof that these scientists were hiding something.
The investigation is scheduled to be completed by early next year, in time for the United States congress to act appropriately if the investigation does find that the scientists have been fudging the data for the last ten years.
This scandal has the potential to undo the years of deception and indoctrination that have led many people to believe that global warming is a crisis.
We just saw the cap and trade legislation that was voted on in Australia go down in defeat following the news of the Climategate scandal and if this investigation is legitimate it should lead to the cap and trade legislation that is working its way through congress go down in defeat also.
The media may be ignoring this story right now, but if this investigation confirms wrongdoing by the CRU and the IPCC I don’t think that the media will be able to ignore it for long. The tide is beginning to turn on the global warming alarmists and it isn’t coming a moment too soon. I just hope it isn’t coming too late.
James Inhofe asks Barbara Boxer to investigate Climategate, but Boxer claims the leaker is the criminal
Senator James Inhofe– who is a member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works– has asked the chairman of that committee, Barbara Boxer, to open up an investigation into Climategate in an effort to get to the truth about the scandal.
Here is what James Inhofe had to say:
Inhofe said the recent disclosure of emails between several prominent climatologists reveal “possible deceitful manipulation of important data and research used by the US Global Change Research Program” and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
He suggested “a possible conspiracy by scientists, some of whom receive or have received US taxpayer funds, to stifle open, transparent debate on the most pressing issues of climate science.”
If these scientists have manipulated data and if they have purposely ignored data that was contrary to their agenda while they were receiving taxpayer money, as it now appears they did, than a crime surely must have been committed. It seems to me that these scientists had to keep promoting this foolish notion that man is causing the earth to warm, when in fact the earth has been in a cooling period for ten years, in order to keep the money coming in to their agencies.
If the scientists ever admitted that global warming did not exist, the money to study this hoax would have been cut off because there would be no reason to study it any longer. So these scientists made the decision to manipulate the evidence to ensure that the money was not cut off.
Barbara Boxer agrees that a crime has been committed, and she just may open up an investigation into the matter. The problem is that she believes that the actual crime is the fact that these emails were leaked in the first place.
You call it ‘Climategate’; I call it ‘E-mail-theft-gate’
She continued:
We may well have a hearing on this, we may not. We may have a briefing for senators, we may not,” Boxer said. “Part of our looking at this will be looking at a criminal activity which could have well been coordinated.
“This is a crime”
She also said that if she did open up the investigation that James Inhofe is asking for that the investigation would also look into what she considers the true crime as well.
What she calls “’email-theft-gate,” (that just rolls off the tongue, doesn’t it?) I call whistleblowing. And when the stimulus bill was passed and signed into law by Barack Obama, the laws protecting whistleblowers was strenghtened in an amendment that was added to the legislation. Needless to say, but I will say it anyway, Barbara Boxer voted in favor of the stimulus package. When she did so she voted to strengthen the protections against the same type of activity that she now calls criminal.
I suppose that if it takes expanding the investigation into the area of how the emails were hacked and leaked that would be acceptable just as long as the investigation also focused on whether the scientists have manipulated the data for personal reasons, but I just don’t think we can trust these global warming alarmist to seek a truth that would undermine their agenda. The investigation will just slowly be manipulated to gravitate toward investigating and punishing the whistleblower and less focus will be given to the crime that these scientists have committed. If the original crime had not been committed the whistleblower would never had to have come forward in the first place.
Climate change is already a huge money-making industry, there are plenty of people who are already capitalizing on the fear that these scientists have spread and we are getting ready to commit billions, if not trillions, of dollars to combat this crisis. The responsible thing to do here would be to at least make sure that the evidence used to justify this expenditure was gained by legitimate means. We are owed at least that much.
Barack Obama announces a troop surge of 30,000 in Afghanistan
Barack Obama has finally made a decision on the Afghanistan war. In his speech tonight he made official what we had heard his decision was; he will be sending an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan.
Once it was learned the General McChrystal believed that the war would be lost without a troop surge there were only two options that I thought would be justified; either go all in or get out.
If Barack Obama was not willing to send in the troops that were needed to win this war than it was time to begin the withdrawal. The war would have been lost and any more bloodshed would have been in vein.
If Barack Obama believed that withdrawal was not an option than the only acceptable response, in my opinion, would be for him to give the general the troops that he needed to bring home victory.
To do nothing and to tell the general to make do with what he had was the one option that I could not have supported.
Tonight Barack Obama announced he was willing to send General McChrystal the troops that he needed. General McChrystal had requested 40,ooo troops and Barack Obama has committed an additional 30,000 troops, not quite the number that the general requested but I am not sure that the troop differential is a big deal. I am willing to concede that General McChrystal may have been aiming high with his number knowing that the eventual number would be lower. A standard negotiating tactic.
It is not often that I give the president credit but this is one such time, I am glad that he listened to his general on the ground and has committed the troops that he believes is necessary to win this war. Let us hope that the additional troops will make all of those who are already over there more safe and let us hope that this will be the final push needed before we bring our troops home victorious.
Michael Moore to Obama: “We fuckin’ hate these generals”
Michael Moore has sent a letter to the president stating his opposition to the troop surge in Afghanistan that Barack Obama appears poised to announce in a few short minutes. I have to give Michael Moore just a little bit of credit; he opposed a troop surge under President Bush and he opposes a troop surge under Barack Obama. At least he is consistent, unlike people like John Kerry, who opposed the Bush surge but agrees with the Obama surge. He is being consistent with his beliefs regardless of who the president is.
That is where my defense of this man ends.
Michael Moore, who voted for Barack Obama, must have missed Obama’s pledge during the campaign to increase troop levels in Afghanistan. Or else he just ignored Obama’s position on the Afghanistan war. Either way, here is what Michael Moore had to say in his letter to the president:
It is not your job to do what the generals tell you to do
Very true, however it is Barack Obama’s job to listen to the general’s opinion during a war, take into account his assessment, and then make a decision based on those requests. Sure it has taken Barack Obama way too much time to make a decision, but he has finally made one. Much to Michael Moore’s dismay this is one campaign promise that Barack Obama is going to keep.
Michael Moore’s letter continued:
Let me be blunt: We love our kids in the armed services, but we f*#&in’ hate these generals
To this I would ask Michael Moore why he places the blame on the generals in the field. Why does he disdain the generals while claiming to love “our kids in the armed services.” These generals, much like “our kids in the armed services” are doing the jobs that they were called upon to perform.
In this aspect these generals are no different than the others who are fighting in this war. Sure they hold a higher rank and decisions fall on them. They have choices and decisions to make and responsibilities that Americans can never fully comprehend. The pressure on the generals is great, as it is on all of the troops. These generals are over there for the same reasons that the troops are. They were sent there to do a job and that is what they are trying to do. To focus anger on them seems unjustified to me. It is misplaced anger.
Michael Moore can oppose the war and the surge if he wants to, that is his prerogative. But he should focus his anger on the man who sent them over there, and the man who is now continuing to send them over there, and not on the generals who are trying to succeed in an effort that they did not choose. This is where Michael Moore becomes two-faced, while he blamed Bush for the Iraq troop surge, he is blaming the generals for the Afghanistan troop surge and not Barack Obama.
These generals deserve our utmost respect, not unwarranted hatred such as Michael Moore displays. Michael Moore would do well to remember that ALL of those who chose to answer the call to keep us safe and secure deserve our respect– these generals included.
