The Hitler Youth of AGW

Now remember, the Global Warming Goosesteppers always say it’s about “the science” and the “consensus” therein… <wink, wink nudge, nudge…>

If there were any doubt that we’ve entered a witch-hunt era when it comes to global warming, what happened in the state of Washington should remove it. Doug Ericksen, a state senator who represents the people of Ferndale as a duly elected lawmaker, has been the target of a student mob that wanted Western Washington University to revoke his master’s degree from that school because, as Watchdog.org put it, “he’s not radical enough on global warming.”

As chair of his state’s Senate Energy, Environment and Telecommunications Committee, Ericksen “has blocked efforts to force businesses and residents to go green,” though “he supports voluntary compliance.” He does, however, oppose “mandated cap-and-trade programs and low-carbon fuel standards.” All of this was enough for his antagonists to label him a “denier.” The next step is to outfit in him a tunic bearing a scarlet “D.”

The students’ campaign against Ericksen forced a person with a sound mind who has some authority to step in, and one did. Western Washington University President Bruce Shepard said that the school was not going to “penalize a graduate for the positions they express” and found the mob’s objective to be “a disturbing misunderstanding of the intellectual freedoms any university worthy of the name must stand for. And protect.”

“Sen. Doug Ericksen is welcome to have whatever political views he wants, but by misinforming the public on the science of climate change, he is undermining the credibility of our own degrees and reflecting poorly on the caliber of education students receive here,” the students said in a statement to the Herald.

The students acknowledged they weren’t trying to change Ericksen’s mind on the issue.

“We’re framing it in a more radical way,” students said of the effort to revoke Ericksen’s degree. “We’re not just trying to have a conversation with him or hold him accountable. We’re trying to revoke his degree and get people to pay attention.” (Watchdog)

Translation: Fear Us! We want to destroy you if you disagree with us! The typical Leftist tactic on everything, fear & intimidation combined with a desperate need to censor people who disagree with their holier-than-thou views.

“The strength of our democracy is that all citizens, including students and leaders like Sen. Ericksen, have the freedom of expression to take positions with diverse viewpoints,” said Shepard.

This isn’t the first time that Ericksen has been the quarry for those invested in the global warming narrative. Watchdog.org says that billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer has invested “$1 million in the state races, with his primary goal of unseating Ericksen.”

Steyer is free to spend his money however he wants. But we hope that he’ll soon tire of funding environmentalist nonsense and go look for another toy. (IBD)

Let this be yet more evidence how weak the AGW case is that extremists must stoop to this level against those who dare think for themselves and do not march in lock-step with the enviro-nazis. (Midas Milligan, commentor n Watchdog)

Well, it’s about the Leftist control freak politics, they just hide it under “science” but you won’t get them to admit that’s The Agenda, no way. The Narrative has to be what they say it is, and that’s it and censoring and cause fear (and intimidation) are the only thing the weapons they want to use.

They are bullies, not “scientific”, that’s the only real consensus you can reach about them and their need to control you.

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

How I Can Help YOU

Recommendations of Working Group III of the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (whew!):

More regulation from “experts”, technocrats and bureaucrats at supranational organizations, such as the one whose initials begin with U and end with N
More taxpayer subsidies for expensive, inefficient renewable energy (but it make environmentalist and greenie-weenie liberals feel better that poor people are paying more for their energy so that’s why people who produce an income have to pay higher taxes to support that too!!)
More nuclear power (with shale gas used as a transitional fuel to replace coal) The last nuclear Plant built in this country? 1978.
The abandonment of fossil fuels (North Dakota, which has seen a boom on account of the oil and gas industry, had the lowest unemployment rate of 2.6 percent, which has been stable since January. But they are politically incorrect jobs so they don’t count, ignore them.
—Boo Hiss! That’s that “laser like focus” on Jobs the Democrats keep talking about…)

Less meat consumption (Are you now or have you ever been a meat eater! Boo Hiss!)
A single, globally-regulated price for carbon dioxide (hey, you want some black market CO2??) The Air Police!!!
More local-**government-enforced** walking, cycling and public transportation (But hey, who needs freedom after all. Government will control you for your own good!!)
More back-door wealth redistribution from the West to the developing world in the name of “sustainability” (otherwise you “hate poor people” you know!

Now doesn’t that just make your heart flutter and you cheeks flush with pride at how superior you are??

Then you’re not a Progressive Liberal, you planet-destroying, evil , greedy bastard!🙂

Oh and…

But according to the FDA, we don’t pay attention to the calorie counts, and we eat things that are bad for us and regret it later.

If only we knew ahead of time and actually appreciated the impact that food might have on our waist, we’d make better decisions and walk away from the Cheetos that are begging us to buy.

It’s as if the government thinks we don’t already know that a bag of chips or a candy bar — or those really disgusting-but-oh-so-satisfying-frosting-coated cinnamon rolls — aren’t good for us.

Aye, and there’s the rub. We don’t do what bureaucrats and politicians in Washington, D.C., think we should.

That means, according to the FDA, the market has failed.

Yes, when consumers don’t want something and companies aren’t forcing it on us, that’s a market failure.

Funny, but I thought that meant the market was actually succeeding.

Not according to the FDA, which arrogantly thinks it can correct this market failure.

“Although many of the usual market failures that justify regulatory action … do not apply here, the primary support for regulatory intervention is that there are systematic biases in how consumers process information and weigh current benefits (from consuming higher calorie foods) against future costs (higher probability of obesity and its comorbidities). The bias is more directly related to the requirements of this proposed rule: Consumer demand for calorie information does not create incentives for the provision of calorie information at the vending machine. This market failure occurs because at the time of purchase, consumers do not value calorie information as much as they do later, when the effects of excess calorie consumption are evident.” (so we the government must save you from yourself!)

We don’t want to know how much that Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup is going to impact our experience with the weight scale the next morning, and we’re OK with eating it today.

That’s because we’re biased in how we act and government must counter us.

“…(S)tudies suggest that calorie information often lacks salience, or relevance, for consumers at the time of purchase and consumption, even though they may experience regret about their decisions at a later date. This tendency may explain why consumers have not generally demanded calorie and other nutrition information for food sold from vending machines before, or at, the point of purchase, even if they may, at a later point in time, value that information.”

Look at us!  We are so terrible.

Government must save us from ourselves! And liberals must save us all, it’s their holy mission. So they must control every aspect of our lives from birth to beyond death because we are just not competent enough to do it on our own and they are just so vastly superior in every aspect that they must rule over us for our own good!

Thankfully, the government is going to step in. They’re going to make that calorie information so obvious we can’t possibly ignore it. Then we’ll happily do what they want and forgo the barbecued kettle chips.

So what if you crave salt and fat, have some Tofu and soybean paste instead!

Yeah, right.

You’d think that was bad enough — until you read further and find out they don’t know if it will work.

According to the FDA, obesity is a problem and since many Americans get food and snacks from vending machines, putting calorie information on the machines will result in a “significant effect on calorie intake, the prevalence of obesity, and thus the cost of health care and lost productivity.”

But there’s a problem with that theory.

The proposed requirements mitigate the apparent market failure in information provision stemming from present-biased preferences, although not necessarily the tendency of consumers to underutilize that information.”

The FDA admits it “lacks data on how consumers will substitute among caloric sources.”

And doesn’t really care because this makes them feel superior and that “they did something” to fight the even fat merchants!

Getting people off their fat asses on the coach )collecting government welfare) and getting a job doesn’t occur to them, apparently.

That means the administration has no idea if you’ll see the calorie signs and go without your afternoon Snickers only to pig out on gelato after dinner to make up for it.

But at least they warned you! And when you ignore their stern warnings they will have to step it up and ban them next!🙂

The FDA admits it doesn’t know if posting calorie counts will reduce obesity. It didn’t test its theory to see if posting the calories will actually cause people to choose differently. Plus, officials point out, only 5 percent of money spent outside the home goes to food in vending machines.

But it makes them feel better, and to a Liberal, that’s all that matters in life.

This isn’t the market — you — deciding what you want. This is nanny-state government deciding you’re not making the right decisions about the food you eat and imposing costly regulations with the hope maybe you’ll make their choice for you instead.

And what if you don’t? What if you continue to eat chips and candy from a vending machine? What regulation will they come up with next?

Well, that’s where The Food Police come in.🙂

But hey, if the bureaucratic elitists can save just one person from becoming obese, isn’t it worth it? (Ohio watchdog.org)

And you can sit there and pay multiple times more for the energy to light and heat/cool that house of yours as you enjoy that over-price unhealthy snack and the Food Police, The Air Police, and The Health Care Police all come rushing to your door to stop you!

Congrats, Citizen., You’re in Orwell’s world now. Be Happy.

They are the Government and they are here to help you!🙂

Political Cartoons by Steve Breen

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

 

Bless The Reigns Down In Africa

President Obama had some unsolicited advice for Africans on Sunday: Be wary of foreign powers — including the United States. So this is what our $100 million presidential junket is buying us?

In the most mind-boggling statement yet on his latest trip abroad, America’s chief spokesman and the leader of the free world warned the African continent against assuming “folks come here and they’re automatically benefiting Africans. And that includes the United States. Ask questions in terms of what we do.”

It was as patronizing to Africans, who know all about Western aid rackets and do-gooder carpetbaggers, as it was insulting to Americans.

What kind of president goes overseas to warn the locals about the people who elected him? Yet, that was pretty much the message he delivered in Capetown, South Africa, in the same week the nation that has done more to help more people in more countries all over the world celebrates its 237th birthday.

Somehow, in the president’s thinking, Americans are prone to dishonesty and out to cheat Africans even as global rankings show the U.S. is held in the highest regard for honesty and transparency.

Only a leader with deep misgivings about America’s role in the world — evidenced in everything from his own apology tours to the first lady’s admission that she wasn’t proud of America until her husband won the presidential nomination — would say such a thing , anywhere.

Ironically, Obama’s “don’t trust, verify” advice also undercut the big initiative he hopes will leave a lasting legacy on the continent — a $7 billion Power Africa project.

“If somebody says they want to come build something here, are they hiring African workers? If somebody says that they want to help you develop your natural resources, how much of the money is staying in Africa?” the president asked circumspectly.

These are odd questions, because Power Africa is a consortium whose biggest donor is the U.S. Export-Import Bank, which is contributing $5 billion. Ex-Im Bank, in response to criticism of its financing oil development in Brazil, has pointedly defended itself by stating its cash goes to U.S. workers and U.S. exports. (IBD)

Forbes:The president implied that the U.S. government will invest $7 billion in taxpayer money to help bring 10,000 mw of electricity to sub-Saharan Africa. Electricity, he said, is “the lifeline for families to meet their most basic needs and it’s the connection needed to plug Africa into the grid of the global economy. You’ve got to have power.”

Providing that power could be a real boon to American (and global) companies focused on power generation and energy management. Indeed, as the president said, “my own nation will benefit enormously if you reach full potential.”

One of the big partners for the president’s plan is General Electric  Among the private companies that the president said have “committed more than $9 billion in investment” to the Power Africa project, G.E. appears to be front and center. According to the White House statement on Power Africa, “General Electric commits to help bring online 5,000 megawatts of new, affordable energy through provision of its technologies, expertise and capital in Tanzania and Ghana.”

GE, heard that somewhere else with Obama, Oh! right..The Chevy Volt! And GE CEO Jeffrey Imhelt, the former “Job Creation” Czar and big time Obama $$$ buddy.

Federal guarantees will reduce G.E. financial risks in Africa and will help it compete better against Chinese companies, which have been falling over themselves to invest in Africa.

Nope, no crony capitalism here…🙂

And then there’s Symbion Power, which is run by Lord Richard Westbury, a former officer with the British special forces, and which counts former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson (husband of outed CIA agent Valerie Plame) as a director. Symbion has done a handful of power projects in Iraq, and recently completed a 55 mw diesel-powered electricity project in Tanzania.

Some of this investment is already in the works. In late June G.E. signed a tentative deal with the government of Ghana to build a 1,000 mw power plant. This plant would likely be fueled with natural gas sourced from the Jubilee offshore field, a multi-billion-dollar project, in which Texas-based Anadarko Petroleum  has a large stake.

An evil Oil Company, say it ain’t so O! There evil and all must be destroyed!🙂

IBD:“The mandate of the Export-Import Bank of the U.S. is to help create and sustain U.S. jobs by financing U.S. exports,” Ex-Im Bank stressed in a press release during its controversial funding of Brazilian energy in 2009. “This increases the likelihood that American — not foreign — workers will be employed.”

So if African states are to accept Obama’s Power Africa initiative, they’ll have to say ‘no’ to Ex-Im Bank financing if they were to take Obama’s advice, and simply go without electricity.

The propensity of this president to undercut American presence abroad — not just of the private sector, but even his own initiatives — is disturbing. But not nearly as disturbing as his tendency to bad-mouth America every chance he gets.

I guess they will have to build it to find out what’s in it for them? if anything…🙂

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

 

 

A New Set of Jackboots

President Barack Obama will target carbon emissions from power plants as part of a second-term climate change agenda expected to be rolled out in the next few weeks, his top energy and climate adviser said on Wednesday.

And of course, what will that do to energy prices? Skyrocket them. Which won’t be his fault according to the Ministry of Truth.

So the poor, the middle class, everyone that the Democrats pander to and expect to vote for them because they kiss each other ass is going to get socked and socked hard for a Political Agenda masquerading as “science”.

“Our dangerous carbon emissions have come down, but we know we have to do more. And we will do more,” he said in a speech.

Of course, who produces much more than we do?  The Chinese.

Who’s ass was he just recently kissing in Person: The Chinese.

Who benefits the most: The Chinese.

Hmmm…I walks like Peking Duck…Quacks like Peking Duck…It must be GLOBAL WARMING!

And the sauce for the is duck: think of all the jobs lost and the unemployment and dependency that will rise. Certainly a good Democrat outcome.🙂

She said the administration plans to expand energy efficiency standards for appliances, accelerate clean energy development on public lands and use the Clean Air Act to tackle greenhouse gas emissions in the power and energy sectors.

The Environmental Protection Agency is working to finish carbon emissions standards for new power plants. It is then expected to tackle regulations on existing power plants.

The Next Jackboots are being fitted for Big Brother Wardrobe…And of course, this will have no effect on energy prices like what you pay at the pump (After all the government wants everyone to drive an ObamaCar- The Chevy Volt) or at the thermostat (gotta have those solar panels or wind turbines).

What the world needs now is higher energy prices! That’s the ticket!🙂

Remember 1979? That was the year of “We Are Family” by Sister Sledge, of “The Dukes of Hazard” on TV, and of “ Kramer vs. Kramer” on the silver screen. It was the year the Shah was forced out of Iran. It was before the web, before the personal computer, before the cell phone, before voicemail and answering machines. But not before the global warming campaign.

In January of 1979, a New York Times article was headlined: “Experts Tell How Antarctic Ice Could Cause Widespread Floods.” The abstract in the Times archives says: “If the West Antarctic ice sheet slips into the sea, as some glaciologists believe is possible, boats could be launched from the bottom steps of the Capitol in Washington and a third of Florida would be under water, a climate specialist said today.”

Mind you, 4 years earlier it was on the cover of Newsweek about Global Cooling!

By 1981 (think “Chariots of Fire“), the drum beat had taken effect. Quoting from the American Institute of Physics website: “A 1981 survey found that more than a third of American adults claimed they had heard or read about the greenhouse effect.”

So where’s the warming? Where are the gondolas pulling up to the Capitol? Where are the encroaching seas in Florida? Or anywhere? Where is the climate change which, for 33 years, has been just around the corner?

A generation and a half into climate change, née global warming, you can’t point to a single place on earth where the weather is noticeably different from what it was in 1979. Or 1879, for that matter. I don’t know what subliminal changes would be detected by precise instruments, but in terms of the human experience of climate, Boston is still Boston, Cairo is still Cairo, and Sydney is still Sydney.

After all this time, when the continuation of industrial civilization itself is on the table, shouldn’t there be some palpable, observable effect of the disaster that we are supposed to sacrifice our futures in order to avoid? Shouldn’t the doom-sayers be saying “We told you so!” backed up by a torrent of youtube videos of submerged locales and media stories reminding us about how it used to snow in Massachusetts?

Climate panic, after all, is fear of dramatic, life-altering climate changes, not about tenths of a degree. We are told that we must “take action right now before it’s Too Late!” That doesn’t mean: before it’s too late to avoid a Spring that comes a week earlier or summer heat records of 103 degrees instead of 102. It was to fend off utter disaster that we needed the Kyoto Treaty, carbon taxes, and Priuses.

With nothing panic-worthy–nothing even noticeable–ensuing after 33 years, one has to wonder whether external reality even matters amid the frenzy. (It’s recently been admitted that there has been no global warming for the last 16 years.) For the climate researchers, what matters may be gaining fame and government grants, but what about the climate-anxious trend-followers in the wider public? What explains their indifference to decade after decade of failed predictions?  Beyond sheer conformity, dare I suggest a psychological cause: a sense of personal anxiety projected outward? “The planet is endangered by carbon emissions” is far more palatable than “My life is endangered by my personal evasions.” Something is indeed careening out of control, but it isn’t the atmosphere.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: “I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’ In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?”

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the “pollutant” carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere’s life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word “incontrovertible” from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question “cui bono?” Or the modern update, “Follow the money.”

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.

Trade more freedom for security. It will cost you more than money!

Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to “decarbonize” the world’s economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

Princeton physics professor William Happer on why a large number of scientists don’t believe that carbon dioxide is causing global warming.

A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.

If elected officials feel compelled to “do something” about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.

Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of “incontrovertible” evidence. (WSJ)

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

But as I have said many times, to many Global Warming and it’s attendant Authoritarian and Ludite/Hippy views are almost religion and it’s heresy to defend to your death to defend their belief. Science, that agrees with them is only an excuse.

“For Proof Denies Faith and without Faith I am Nothing”– Douglas Adams

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy
 Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel
Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Hi Froggie!

According to the Martin-Niemöller-Foundation the text is as follows:[2]

First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

In the United States, the quotation is more commonly known as:

First they came for the socialists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemöller was a German pastor and theologian born in Lippstadt, Germany, in 1892. Niemöller was an anti-communist and supported Hitler’s rise to power at first. But when Hitler insisted on the supremacy of the state over religion, Niemöller became disillusioned. He became the leader of a group of German clergymen opposed to Hitler.

He was arrested in 1937 for his crime was “not being enthusiastic enough about the Nazi movement”. He was in a concentration camp until the end of World War II.

First, they came for the smokers.

No one would argue smoking is good for you. But it’s legal; growing tobacco is even subsidized by the government. Yet, when governments started limiting the right of people to smoke in places public and private, non-smokers did nothing. They didn’t like smoke; they’d heard second-hand smoke was dangerous. Why should they allow owners of private establishments to choose whether those establishments allowed people to engage in a legal – in fact, subsidized — activity?

Then, they came to “clean up” the healthcare mess. They would take the sick and poor off our hands. We would no longer have to join together as a community to provide for those who can’t provide for themselves; dear, benevolent government would do this for us. First, with Medicare for the old. Then, with Medicaid for the poor. Then, the definition of poor would expand … and expand … and expand … and nobody would speak up because who wants to come out against the old, the sick and the poor?

And then it wasn’t just the poor. It also was the uninsured. Some were uninsured because they were unemployed. Others because their income level didn’t permit them to buy health insurance. Can’t be for allowing them to just hang there. No convincing evidence they were dying in the streets or were significantly underserved by the healthcare system regardless of their health insurance status. And plenty had the money to buy health insurance and chose not to.

But hey, when you’re a Progressive, and you’ve tried for a half-century to take over health care, who are you to let minor details such as this stand in the way? And when you get your chance – so much disaffection with a spendthrift Republican president that Democrats could grab control of both houses of Congress and both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, you grab that chance and you pass the most sweeping Progressive legislation since the New Deal – Obamacare.

And when the rest of us find we can’t afford our health insurance because of all the new requirements placed on it by our Progressive friends and their enlightened legislation, nobody can do much more than complain. Who defends greedy insurance companies? Who defends faceless corporations when costs finally reach the point where they drop their plans, forcing their employers into the Obamacare system where Progressives have wanted them all along, or even drop their employees?

The secret is the impact is felt gradually. It’s like a boa constrictor. By the time you realize you’re in trouble, it’s too late.

Or the old adage about if you throw a frog in boiling water he’ll jump out immediately. But put him in warm water and turn it up you’ll soon have boiled frog…Yum!🙂

Hi, Froggie! How’s the Jacuzzi!🙂

Now, they come for our guns. It’s for our own good. Otherwise, we’ll have more school shootings, such as the terrible incident in Connecticut. Never mind the guns used that day were stolen. We hear about the need Newtown illustrates to limit weapons and ammunition clips that can fire several rounds per minute. We are never reminded the killer at Newtown shot 24 people in 22 minutes. Speed or power of the weapon was not an issue. One person somewhere in that school with a weapon would’ve saved many lives.

But most of us don’t think of those details, and we don’t own guns … particularly the geniuses in Washington who make these decisions. So we don’t complain sufficiently, and the Progressive agenda advances.

They also have come for the rich people. I’m not rich; what do I care if the rich get taxed a little more? Never mind that I might like to be rich one day or that almost certainly a rich person pays my salary. Never mind what it might mean to him paying salaries that his taxes keep going up. He is indefensible. He’s taken more than his fair share. Tax him. And tax him some more. And when that’s not enough, tax the rest of us … but do it in a way we don’t really see it. Not income taxes. Payroll taxes. They’re gone before we even get our checks.

If there’s one thing progressives love it’s a power grab in the name of “doing good,” and the “good” they most often wrap themselves in is “for the children.” When they eventually discover the “good” they sought to accomplish by quashing a little piece of our personal liberty did not come to pass, they never reverse course and retract their government intrusion. Instead, they offer a solution that seizes a little bit more. It’s a never-ending cycle of self-fulfilling prophecies, a Yellow Brick Road that leads to an Emerald Prison of mini-tyrannies populated by a disconnected people who stood by doing nothing because the power government was exerting did not affect them.

But sooner or later government will run out of other people to tax, other things to ban, other choices to regulate and, like a caged tiger, it will turn on the hand that feeds it. It’s its nature.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg doesn’t want his people to be fat. So he tried to ban “sugary beverages larger than 16 ounces” but was rebuffed by a court, at least temporarily. Progressives do not quit, or get deterred, when voters reject their ideas, what chance does a court have?

He’s now going after Styrofoam containers to leave a “better” planet for the children. This will lead to higher costs to restaurants, which will lead to higher prices for customers. Customers will ignore it or blame the restaurants. There’s always another kabuki dance.

What do the non-rich care if taxes were raised on people who were not them? What do those with health insurance care if government enacts a requirement that everyone who doesn’t have it buy health insurance?

Tyranny seldom comes all at once, it comes slowing, incrementally, in small doses cloaked as something else, something good. Each thread appears innocuous and unimportant but is part of a tapestry rarely recognized as what it is until too late.

You may not care about any of the targets progressives are pursuing now or in the near future, but they will run out of things you don’t care about before they run out of will to control. Sooner or later they will come after something you like or do. If you sit by do nothing as the individual liberty of others is continually limited, you’d better hope there are enough people left able and willing to speak up when they get around to you. (Derek Hunter)

Next up your Food. Your Energy (aka “environment”) when will you Boil froggie???

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

 

Does it Matter?

Benghazi Update: Britons and all other westerners were told to leave the Libyan city of Benghazi on Thursday after diplomats received warning of an “imminent” terror threat in the wake of the Algerian hostage siege.

By the way, “Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk last night who decided to kill some Brits? What difference at this point does it make? 🙂

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

A day after President Obama vowed an aggressive global war on global warming, Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman delivered a political hot potato to the White House in the form of state approval of a re-routed Keystone XL pipeline.

Given the pressing domestic need for a) more reliable sources of oil and b) thousands of long-delayed, good-paying jobs, you might think federal approval of the endeavor with our closest neighbor and best friend is a gimme.

Ah, but we are just three days past the middle of the 2,922-day Obama era. So, it’s much more complicated.

The 1,700-mile long pipeline is designed to carry 700,000 barrels a day of Canadian heavy crude oil from Alberta tar sands excavations to Gulf Coast refineries. The project would create thousands of construction jobs and reduce U.S. dependence on unreliable foreign oil sources, often cited by both American political parties as a good thing.

Heineman, a Republican, had rejected Trans-Canada’s original route through important aquifers and the state’s fragile Sand Hills region, a step the Obama crowd cited for its initial parallel rejection of the facility. A new study by the State Department, which must approve pipelines crossing international borders, isn’t due until late March at the earliest.

By that time, of course, the Obama administration will have a new secretary of State in the form of John Kerry. The about-to-be-former senator has fallen hook, line and sailboat for the global warming bunkum, making approval appear iffy.

Environmentalists, who plan a White House pipeline protest next month, claim the extraction and combustion of such oil volumes would contribute catastrophically to global warming.

Unfortunately for that argument, it’s not like a pipeline defeat will keep that oil in Canadian soil. It will just be exported through another pipeline to the West Coast for sale to China, while alienating the United States’ best neighbor, closest ally and largest trading partner.

Both Republican congressional leaders sought to add approval pressure on Obama Tuesday. Said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:

“The President says he’s for an all-of-the-above approach to energy and now it’s time for him to live up to it. Nebraska has taken care of the issues the President raised when he denied the permit, so there’s no more room for excuses or delays and it should be expeditiously approved.”

Added House Speaker John Boehner:

“Nebraska’s approval of a new Keystone XL pipeline route means there is no bureaucratic excuse, hurdle, or catch President Obama can use to delay this project any further. He and he alone stands in the way of tens of thousands of new jobs and energy security.

“Every state along the proposed route supports this project, as does a bipartisan coalition in Congress and a majority of Americans. I recognize all the political pressure the president faces, but with our energy security at stake and many jobs in limbo, he should find a way to say yes.”

In his inaugural address Monday Obama gave numerous nods to his liberal base. “We will respond to the threat of climate change,” he said, “knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.”

His full text and a complete C-SPAN video are available here.

But the Democrat, who has only 1,458 days left in office, also called for large-scale investments in the nation’s infrastructure to stimulate new jobs and rebuild the country after a decade of war-drained finances.

Although Obama has never appeared bothered by adding some $6 trillion so far to the national debt, now north of $16.3 trillion, the job-creating pipeline expenditures would be private.

So, do you think Obama will choose to come down in favor of his jobs vow or his environmental vow?

Given Obama’s long record of, shall we say, flexible vow-keeping, the answer is most likely, Yes. (IBD)

🙂

After all, he raised the payroll tax on everyone but it was the same as 2 years ago so he didn’t “increase” it.
🙂

So expect doublespeak and much gnashing of someone elses teeth and blaming someone else for it.
That is only if they can’t just ignore it all together.
What does it Matter?🙂
Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert
 Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

 Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Progress

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

The Fruits of Obama’s “better relations” and “destruction” of Al-Qaeda:

Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri has urged Egyptians to restart their revolution to press for Islamic law and called on Muslims to kidnap Westerners, the SITE Intelligence Group said Friday.

In a video released on jihadist forums and translated by the US monitoring service, Zawahiri also lashed out at President Barack Obama, calling him a liar and demanding he admit defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan and North Africa.

Criticizing the new Egyptian government — led by a president drawn from the Muslim Brotherhood — as corrupt, he said a battle is being waged in Egypt between a secular minority and Muslims seeking implementation of Shariah law. (france24)

Despite real-time video, emails to the White House and desperate cries for help, our defense secretary says we didn’t send rescue forces to our Benghazi consulate because we didn’t know what was going on.

In a statement bordering on the Kafkaesque, Leon Panetta told a news conference Thursday that four Americans, including our Libyan ambassador Chris Stevens, were left to die without a rescue attempt by nearby U.S. military forces because there’s “a basic principle here, and the basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on, without having some real-time information about what’s taking place.”

That would seem to sum up the Obama administration’s assessment of and story line about the Middle East — it has no real-time clue about what’s going on. Osama bin Laden is dead, but Islamofascism is very much alive, and to send an ambassador and his diplomatic mission into harm’s way without so much as a Marine security detachment with bayonets is unconscionable.

Excuse us, Mr. Secretary, but your administration had a drone over the consulate on Sept. 11, and you and President Obama had a meeting that included Vice President Joe “Nobody Told Us” Biden in the Oval Office at 5 p.m. Washington time, a little more than an hour after the onset of the attack. There were at least 50 minutes of real-time video of the attack as the battle was sent streaming directly to the Situation Room in the White House.

Real-time emails were also pouring into the Situation Room detailing that 20 armed terrorists were attacking our Benghazi consulate, that Ambassador Stevens was crouched in a safe room waiting for help as the al-Qaida terrorist group Ansar al-Sharia was taking credit for the attack. Most claims of responsibility for a terrorist attack come days after the event. This was, as they say, in “real-time.”

If indeed you had insufficient knowledge concerning the attack itself, you certainly had knowledge of the threat. Ambassador Stevens had been begging for even the most basic security, and all his requests for additional security were denied. And how about this little factoid: the Benghazi consulate was and is sovereign U.S. territory that you and President Obama had a responsibility and duty to defend. (IBD)

But the only thing they want to defend is Barack’s political ass.

A Famous  Quote from our Dear Leader:

“I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”

An Even Better one for all of us:

“The punishment which the wise suffer who refuse to take part in the government, is to live under the government of worse men.” — Plato

So If you want better, VOTE. If you want Obama out, VOTE. If you want Democrats defeated, VOTE.

It’s that simple. If you don’t vote, don’t Bitch.

I vote. I really bitch!🙂

His ALL-IN (the shit) Energy Policy:

It’s not that Obama necessarily hates profits. What he’s really concerned about is where they end up.

“Greater profits,” he said in February 2011, “have to be shared by American workers.” So rather than letting profits accrue to those who earned them, the president wants them to be “shared” in a way that he approves.

Profit-loathing isn’t limited to the White House. It’s partywide. Democrats from top to bottom are agitated when corporations profit, especially oil companies.

This couldn’t have been more clear than when earlier this year, six House Democrats — Reps. Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), John Conyers Jr. (Mich.), Bob Filner (Calif.), Marcia Fudge (Ohio), Jim Langevin (R.I.), and Lynn Woolsey (Calif.) — proposed a Reasonable Profits Board that would levy a 50% to 100% tax on oil company earnings that exceeded a “reasonable profit” limit.

Former House speaker and current Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was not among those who put together the totalitarian-sounding Reasonable Profits Board. But she’s been known to spit out phrases such as “record profits,” “profiteering,” “highly profitable,” when describing oil companies’ earnings.

On the other side of the Capitol, Sen. Harry Reid, who still runs the Senate for the Democrats, has similar ill feelings toward health insurance companies.

In Reid’s mind, the “profit motive” of insurers has “almost destroyed our economy.” He’s complained — incorrectly — “they make more money than any other business in America today,” implying that there is something wrong with making more than everyone else and forgetting that some industry has to come out on top.

Unless, of course, we live in a nation in which the government uses its force to even all outcomes. Could it be that’s what the Democrats are really trying to achieve?

The Democrats’ war on profits is just as shameful at the grass-roots level. Peter Schiff, CEO of Euro Pacific Capital, discovered just how intense the animosity is when he spoke to Democrats at their convention this year in Charlotte, N.C. He was told that Washington should mandate “corporate losses,” ban corporate profits, “limit” corporate profits and put a “cap” on them.

Predictable. And so, unfortunately, was the response of a woman who initially said she didn’t know enough about banning corporate profits to offer an opinion, only to later say she would favor a ban if Obama approved of one. Why? Because, she gushed, “I will support anything my president wants to do.”

There is an ugly jealousy and spitefulness that runs deep and wide through today’s Democratic Party.

It shows in the desperation of the Obama re-election campaign. It’s supposed to be the party of peace and unity. But it’s become a party of division and disunity. (IBD)

I would add Disrespect, distraction, disgust, and Disharmony.