First Post in New Era: Post Trump Election

I had stopped posting several years ago because Blogspot (now Blogger) changed their method of editing posts and I was too busy to figure it out.  This is a test post to see how their many updates to the system work.

 Last week, January 20th, Donald Trump was inaugurated as the 44th president.  (Not the 45th as is usually noted because that would be counting Grover Cleveland twice.  There was an intervening president, Benjamin Harrison, between Cleveland's two terms but I don't see that as a reason to count him twice.  Incidentally, probably the last small government, low spending Democrat president.  Because he lowered tariffs, he lost his first re-election attempt, and was not supported by unions. The second time around, tariffs were not as publicly popular.  There was a major recession in his second term.)

Since Trump's inauguration, the left has lost what was left of its mind.  There have been riots, marches, and protests all with the usual hallmarks of the left: property destruction, real or threatened violence, massive littering, and illegal interference with the rights of anyone trying to drive or walk anywhere.  Their speech is reminiscent of the obscene yelling, spitting, and twitching of a tourette's patient, and that's just the Democrats in congress.  They have been saying since the election that he is not their president and they will oppose him in whatever he tries to do.  This demonstrates the principle that liberals are always doing what they accuse the right of doing.  In point of fact, there was never anything remotely resembling this when Obama was elected.

Stewart Woods wrote a book a few years ago in which a fictional group of Republican congressmen held a secret meeting in which they agreed to oppose the newly elected Democratic president.  When this was leaked by a shocked attendee, it was seen by the left as an unspeakable abomination and the worst possible destructive partisanship.  The president, his staff, and ranking Democrats were figuratively shaking their heads for hours when they found out.  To them it was almost the end of the union.  One of the meeting organizers was so fearful of exposure that he murdered the leaker, thus the rest of this very thinly plotted suspense novel.  Now the left opposes the newly elected president in the most repugnant fashion and they see nothing wrong with it.  This exemplifies the above principle and the famous observation of William F. Buckley , that liberals say they want to hear other views, but are shocked and offended to find that there are other views.  I am here to say that there are other views, and they should be respected as any legitimate opposing view.

By the way, Stewart Woods is the de facto chronicler of the Democrat, liberal, progressive, globalist elite, much as F. Scott Fitzgerald was of the elite when they were Republicans.  Woods lacks the literary talents of Fitzgerald but that can't be held against him since he puts out one or two books a year While Fitzgerald only wrote five or six in his lifetime.  I have sworn off Woods several times.  Currently, I am waiting to see his fictional take on the Trump election.  (In his most recent books, he already had the Hillary surrogate in office.)

Given the large scale of the repugnant and reprehensible  (though not deplorable - that's taken) behavior of the left, the name of this blog will remain unchanged for the time being.

Global Warming: I doubt it, so should you

The following is all a quotation from: "The Myth of the 98% By Joseph L. Bast Last updated: May 1, 2012" ...... "Why Alarmists Publish More Anderegg et al.’s assertion that “he who publishes the most must be the most credible” is implausible. There are at least four reasons why skeptics appear in print less frequently than do alarmists, and none of them has to do with credibility or expertise. They are: Publication bias. Articles that “find something” – such as a statistically significant correlation that might imply causation – are much more likely to get published than those that do not. Such “findings” are newsworthy and important to other researchers, while experiments that do not “find something” are less so. Even though falsifying hypotheses with experimental data is the essence of true science, it is the experiment that seems to generate or support a hypothesis that gets all the attention and is most likely to be published, even if that experiment had a small sample size, limited duration, or other defects that increased the odds of a false positive finding. Publication bias is also caused by heavy government funding of the search for one result, but little or no funding for other results. In the case of climate change, hundreds of millions of dollars in government grants have gone to scholars who say they are trying to find a discernible human impact on climate, or of climate change on plants, animals, fish, human health, or a litany of other things. Much less funding is available to scholars who say they are seeking to find natural causes for climate change, or explanations of natural phenomena that don’t involve climate change. Publication bias helps explain why most published research findings are false, not only in climate science but in all disciplines. Thousands of researchers are being paid to “find something,” and they publish whenever they think they might have found something, no matter how slim the evidence. We seldom read that other scholars have tried and failed to replicate their findings, but it happens all the time. Resumé padding. Climate scientist Phil Jones, before the Climategate scandal revealed that he was hiding data and illegally blocking FOIA requests, was identified as a coauthor on articles appearing in science journals an average of once a week, an astounding pace if the findings he was reporting were being carefully vetted. (As reported by Fred Pearce in The Climate Files). His data are still being cited in footnotes for scores of other published articles every week or month. This extraordinary productivity is a function of several things, but one is the practice of having large numbers of coauthors on scientific papers, so that a dozen or even two dozen writers get to list the paper in their resumé. This makes objective peer review difficult or impossible, helping to ensure publication. This practice became pervasive in climate research only in the past decade, and it is entirely a phenomenon of alarmist scientists. Most skeptics continue to publish alone or with only a few coauthors. Age and academic status. Climate scientists who are skeptics tend to be older, and more are emeritus, than scientists in the alarmist camp. This could be the result of two things: Either they are willing to speak out because they either have tenure or are retired and do not fear retaliation for taking an unpopular stance, or they are less impressed by the current fixation on computer models. These “old school” scientists recognize that computer models’ outputs are not data but hypotheses that must be tested by data (empirical observation) – a relationship that many younger scientists, accustomed to working constantly with computers and far less with observations of the natural world, tend to get exactly backward. These older scientists also were considered respected and successful if they published once or twice a year and devoted time to classroom teaching, if they are not fully retired. Climate alarmists tend to be younger, trying to get tenure by appearing in academic journals, and more likely to team up with other scientists to appear more frequently in those journals. Alarmists also are more likely to be environmental activists, drawn to the field by their interest in environmental issues rather than by pure interest in science itself. This again makes them more likely to write and publish articles specifically on the hot topic of climate change. Editorial bias. We know from the leaked Climategate emails that a small clique of influential government scientists worked behind the scenes to get academic journal editors to reject papers that would otherwise have qualified for publication. These scientists even arranged for editors who dared to publish such papers to be fired or pressured into resigning. This is gross editorial bias and likely contributed to some of the disparity in publishing numbers between skeptics and alarmists. More subtle bias, which might not be apparent even to the editors who exercise it, probably accounts for still more of the disparity. ....... For more research and commentary on the dubious claim of a “scientific consensus” on the causes and consequences of climate change, Google “You Call This Consensus?” by this author." Environmentalism (in its current form) is the greatest threat to prosperity and liberty.

The Reagan Revolution v. Fundamental Change

"Ronald Wilson Reagan was the 40th President of the United States, serving from 1981 to 1989. Prior to that, he was the 33rd Governor of California from 1967 to 1975 and a radio, film and television actor." - Wikopedia.... If you are too young to remember Ronald Reagan, you may wonder why his name is always brought up. Here is a link to a discussion of President Reagan with a few clips from when he was running for re-election in 1984. His message was a lot different from what we hear today. Go to the site and click on the audio rewind for 6/11/12..... http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930

Link to Phil's Gang

Phils Gang


For the best economic and political common sense listen to Phil Grande.


Phil is heard in Tacoma and Seattle on AM Radio 1300 at noon and a replay at 9 PM, or go to archived programs on the web site.

Needed: Separation between Government and Economy

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/npr.php?id=154579423


Today, at one of his rare press conferences, the president said that the private economy is doing fine. A few hours later, when no one could believe that statement, he said, "it is absolutely clear that the economy is not doing fine." He went on to say, "That's the reason I had a press conference. That's why I spent yesterday, the day before yesterday, this past week, this past month and this past year talking about how we can make the economy stronger.
"There are too many people out of work, the housing market is still weak and too many homes underwater, and that's precisely why I asked Congress to start taking some steps that can make a difference," Obama said.
Unfortunately, his policies will not help the economy. Billions of federal tax payer dollars and printed money were spent on stimulus packages much of which went to states and local governments to pay government employees and hire more. Because this did not stimulate the economy, tax revenue did not go up enough for the states to continue to pay the new employees or many of the original ones. Therefore they had to lay some off. They could have limited layoffs by reducing salaries but they hardly ever do that.
The federal government's base line spending has increase by the amount of earlier spending but even that is not enough for the current administration. Government regulation inhibit business creation and growth by increasing costs.  Government spending strangles business even more by competing with private enterprise for recources.

Time for a change.

Vasco da Gama Day May 18

Vasco da Gama, commissioned by the king of Portugal, sighted India on May 18, 1498. He commanded the first European ships to make that voyage. Their purpose was to out flank the Moslem powers that had had cut off Europe from the East. At the time there was no land or sea route between Europe and India (or China for that matter) that was not controlled by Arab traders. Spices had become so popular and expensive in Europe that a significant amount of European gold went to the Arab middlemen. This was as politically unpopular as spending on Middle Eastern oil is today. The Egyptian and Turkish empires had recaptured Jerusalem, driven the crusaders out of the Holy Land, and in 1453 had captured Constantinople, thus ending the Eastern Roman Empire. The road to further conquests to the West was open to the Moslem powers. The power of Christian nations was at a low point. Da Gama's mission was seen as an extension of the Crusades. By opening a trade route around Africa and across the Indian Ocean to India, where the spice markets were, the West would avoid financing the Moslems. Unlike Columbus, who had a similar goal in mind, Vasco da Gama succeeded. The Portuguese had recently developed into a seafaring nation through their explorations down the West African coast. Portugal, like Spain, had recently ended the Moorish rule in the Iberian Peninsula. While the rest of Europe had grown weary of the crusading spirit, the Portuguese were just adopting it. The eventual goal of a sea route to the east was to regain the Holy Land by an invasion from the rear. Many times during Vasco da Gama’s first Indian voyage, and latter in several naval battles, the Portuguese felt that they were protected and aided by God. Indeed their feats were remarkable. However, their luck seemed to run out. With the success of its eastern trade, Portugal lost its crusading ardor and instead, in the next hundred years, ruthlessly built a commercial empire extending to the East Indies, where the spices grew, and as far as to China. Then as the secrets of their sailing routes became known, Portuguese power in the East gradually declined. Moslem power also declined as European nations slowly began to dominate world trade. The story of Vasco da Gama and how he brought about the shift of power to Europe, is told in a new book, Holy War, published last year. This brings to mind a book published this year, American Covenant by Timothy Ballard. This is the story that starts with Columbus’ voyages and explains how his crusader goals were eventually accomplished through the birth of the United States, when it was instrumental in re-establishing a Jewish state in Israel. Who was the chief agent of God’s purposes in bringing all that about? According to the Mr. Ballard it was George Washington. Annuit coeptis.

Barney Franks, Maxine Waters, and the Useful Idiots

Barney Franks will not be running for re-election to a 17th term as a US Representative from Massachusetts. If you have ever heard him or know anything about his history, you must agree that this is a good development. The bad news is that Representative Maxine Waters will replace him as head Democrat on the House Banking Committee. If Democrats should take the house in the 2012 election, she will head that committee.

This is bad news because she has disdain for the free market. She loves government control and, for all intents and purposes, is a communist. In one of her most famous sound bites, she states something to the effect that “this liberal” would socialize, that is, have the government take over and run all businesses.

She hates business and loves big government projects. At various times over the last few years, she joined in the opinion of other banking committee Democrats and praised the success of the Community Reinvestment Act and of Fannie May and Freddie Mac. She took the lead of Barney Franks responding to concerns of President Bush, Senator McCain, and others, by stating before congress that Fannie May and Freddie Mac were totally sound, that there was no problem with the housing market, and that the government would never have to take them over. (Which of course it did, when they collapsed because the housing market was far from sound.) Maxine Waters stated that The Community Reinvestment Act was quite successful in doing exactly what it was designed to do, which was to force banks to make mortgage loans to poor credit risks to increase home ownership among lower income people. 1

Now Maxine Waters is saying that the crash of the housing market was caused by “greedy Wall Street bankers.” [That is, GWSB’s for short.] Now GWSB’s may indeed be greedy but they did not have the power to create the housing market meltdown of 2008. [See the book, Meltdown.] Democrat talking points were that there was “plenty of blame to go around.” At the time, Rush Limbaugh pointed out when a Democrat says that, you can be sure that the Democrats own about 95% of the blame.

But now, to listen to Democrats,the media, and the Occupy Wall Street movement, it was the GWSB’s and not the Democrats and big government policies at all that caused the housing and all other economic woes. The Occupiers believe this sort of mush because they are 99% mush brains. They are useful to the 1% of the occupiers who are communist agitators who want to bring down the financial system because they have a Marxist replacement all ready to go.


Note 1, Activist ACORN lawyer, Barak Obama, won a Chicago court case obliging banks to lend billions under the Community Reinvestment Act to borrowers who probably could not repay. Housing Secretary Cuomo admitted that this was what banks were forced to do and he thought it was great. Maxine Waters now says that the banks and the GWSB’s tricked the intercity poor into these loans by "predatory lending."

Another Obama Speech, more Shenanigans

I have not been writing my comments on current events lately, partly because I am too busy, but also because there has not been much new. Current political events are merely elaborations on the themes of one or two years ago. For instance, see my post of August 11, 2009, Mixed-Up Economy: We Are All Blood Suckers Now. The war of ideas between the Keynesian outlook and the Free market/Small Government school rages even more today.

Another theme of this blog, which has never been as obvious as now, is the observation that generally liberals accuse conservatives of doing exactly what they do, or plan on doing soon. (Such as their accusations of "uncivil" remarks from conservatives.) Today, Obama waved a newspaper and stated that the Republicans oppose his so-called jobs bill because it is to their political advantage, without regard to the damage to the country of not going along with his latest scheme. In actuality, it would seem to me very politically courageous to oppose Obama's proposal to hand out more stimulus money. For conservatives, who believe that less government intervention in the economy will ultimately bring the best results, it could be political suicide to advocate abandonment of bailouts and other government largess.

On the other hand, it may not be difficult to make the point that the "jobs bill" would not save any jobs, and is intended primarily to save Obama's job. He asks that our congressional representatives pass the bill right away, presumably before they have time to read it, just as they passed the other masterpieces of the Harry Reid bill writing factory. Those bills are never what we are told they are. We have to pass the bill "to see what is in it," as Nancy Pelosi tells us. (For instance, we just learned that if congress does not adopt the suggestions of the super-committee of bipartisan spending cutters, we will automatically get cuts to the military and cuts to what medical providers are paid by medicare. It was advertised that there would be cuts to medicare but it was not explained how the cuts would come about. Doctor fees are already cut to the bone.) No telling what will be lurking in the hundreds of pages of the latest Obamination.

What does seem obvious is that the new bill is the same as the old bill. It is a way of looting the treasury and giving the proceeds to his constituents, i.e. to serve Obama's political ends. The primary constituents to be rewarded are, as usual, the unions, especially government unions. There was little or no economic stimulant effect the first time. The Austrian school of free market economics, as well as the Gods of the Copybook Headings, would explain that only the free market can allocate recourse's to fill our most urgent needs. Government intervention only makes things worse with unintended consequences. Bailing out state government workers, for instance, only prolongs the problem of wages and benefits being too high. A 5% cut in government salaries would be a better way to avoid government layoffs. Longterm changes in government pension systems also are needed as soon as possible.

Glenn Beck had a guess the speech segment this morning. He played cuts from Obama's speech advancing the 2009 stimulus bill and his speech the other day pushing the "jobs bill'" You had to guess which speech was which. The only difference that I heard was the new strident, almost threatening tones of the president. He seemed to be ordering congress to pass this latest bill. I guess he was desperate, and ought to be.

The Continuing Non-Debate Debate

In 1993 President Clinton established the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, headed by Al Gore. If I ever heard of it, I took no notice, as was probably intended. When I started trying to learn about global warming, I was surprised at the almost total lack of objective scientific debate. This policy statement explains what happened to the debate we were promised:

"The Council should not debate the science of global warming, but should instead focus on the implementation of national and local greenhouse gas reduction policies and activities, and adaptations in the U.S. economy and society that maximize environmental and social benefits, minimize economic impacts, and are consistent with U.S. international agreements."

Why Al Gore Refuses to Debate Anyone

I heard a commentator speculate recently that he thought there could be credible opposition to President Obama for the Democrat nomination. He thought that the most likely contender would be Al Gore. I cannot think of anyone else who would cause me to wish for four more years of Barack Obama.

Atlas Shrugs said it first: We Are All Birthers Now

Your Papers, please, Mr. President

FEC Commission, Requesting Obama Birth Certificate Investigation UPDATE: SIGN THE PETITION:

A New Twist in Obama Birth Certificate Mystery

All you ever (or never) wanted to know about the "Birth Certificate" controversy:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/obamas_birth_certifcate_forgery/

The first three links are to three of 63 posts dating to before the presidential election on the website of "Atlas Shrugs." The last link is to the entire article where Atlas discusses the various posts and ties some of the issues together. This goes into scrubbing the internet and possibly altering official records by BHO operatives, and even to the murder of a witness. This is a whole lot more that a few second rate burglars breaking into the Watergate. The official reaction and the press reaction, that is the cover-up, is the story, not the birth certificate. It gets more bazaar and intresting all the time.

Why the Barack Obama Birth Certificate Issue Is Legitimate

The Obama birthplace, i.e. birther question is a bit of a sticky wicket and a can of worms. There are many subtle issues. My bottom line is that it is an interesting story for historians to discuss, but it is not something that will get Obama out of office, so why bother.

However, there are two types of birth certificates and Obama presented a copy on line of one but not the other. The birthers ask, "where is the other one(the original one) on which the certified, computer generated one, is based?"

The question is: Are there two types of Hawaiian birth certificates. The answer is yes, The actual original (usually signed by the doctor) and A computer generated certified copy containing, "the contents of any certificate." (The validity of the certificates is a different, more complex question.) (See HRS §338-13 Certified copies;

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0013.htm )

A detailed discussion of this is at:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Discuss:Is_a_certification_of_live_birth_the_same_thing_as_a_birth_certificate_in_Hawaii#ixzz1J0WTZrjb .

A summary along the same lines, also addressing other birther issues, is at:


Why the Barack Obama Birth Certificate Issue Is Legitimate

Atlas Shrugs Food for Thought

We are getting a strong dose of socialism along with the expected results: depressed, stagnant economic activity. In addition we are getting increased government spending, borrowing, and printing of money, which is the usual socialist fix to economic stagnation, which as usual, only make the problem worse.


We have riots and wars throughout the Middle East, all of which we should have kept our nose out of, except the Iranian pro-democratic riots, which were the only ones the our government did not support.

I usually feel better when I listen to Atlas Shruggs (Pam Geller) or Sarah Palin, so here is Atlas talking about Sarah:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ycPSsERhbo&feature=related


and on Ann Coulter

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xz8VbtHJp3M&feature=related


Atlas gets quite serious discussing radical Islam:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkiqzpXKNVQ


lastly, Atlas on Obamacare, Tea Parties, Climate Justice...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEmlye62sfw&NR=1


Fabulous News: The movie Atlas Shrugged comes out in a few weeks.

Truth Links

New lights of truth and common sense.

http://www.larryelder.com/

Mr. Elder filling in for Mark Levin on Wednesday March 30:

http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930#


To hear Off The Wall Street economics commentary, the stock market, and who is a liar and who should be in Jail:

http://www.philsgang.com/

Government Salaries must be Reduced

Any fool can see that this is obvious, except the fools in congress, our state legislatures, and the press. After proposals for modest benefit cuts, Wisconsin government workers are literally marching in the streets. We have heard cries from our liberal Democrat legislators that cuts are an attack against wage earners, the middle class, and American families. The liberals, as always, renew their attacks against the 'wealthy.' They do not say that government workers already earn, on the average, twice what non-government workers earn. That is, we the people are forced to pay our public servants twice as much we make ourselves.

The liberal reaction is akin to the accusations of racism we heard when conservatives objected to government mandated home loans to low income borrowers. In that instance, the conservatives backed down and cowered in the corner. Now the original proponents of those loans, such as Barney Frank, blame the Republicans for the ultimate financial melt-down caused by those loans. He said its not his fault because the Republicans were in power at the time.

What is the lesson? Republicans should stop backing down. (And they should keep reminding us that it was Frank, Dodd, Raines, Cuomo, Obama (as an ACORN lawyer), et al, who caused the financial crisis. Bank insolvencies were a direct result of their own activities under the auspices of government.) Lesson two – only government can cause the really big problems, private industry can’t do it on their own.

Current government expenditures should be controlled by reducing wages and benefits of employees, including pensions. Bigger structural changes to Medicare, Social Security, etc. can follow. If cuts are not made, state governments will need federal bail-outs and the federal government, which is also broke, will have to print more money. When all this results in government lay offs and extreme inflation, the liberals will then blame failure of the free market, as they always do. I do not think the public is composed of big enough fools to be taken in this time.

Is Obama Going to Play Nice?

According to the popular press, the country has now come together to transform the nation, including the Republicans. The evidence, they say is that the Republicans and Democrats will sit together at the president's State of the Union address. Presumably, the Republicans will also stand to applaud with the Democrats. Although there was never any strict practice, the two parties usually sit on opposite sides of the isle and the opposition party usually keeps it's seat during the frequent standing ovations. In point of fact, this is merely another public relations ploy of the Democrats and the Party sponsored press. It will be informative to see which Republicans keep their seats after some of the more provocative statements that are sure to come from Barack Obama. In other words, we will see which Republicans are not sell-outs and which ones are.

Much of the recent discussion regarding a more 'civil discourse,' is pre-election positioning by the Democrats. As usual, they claim to be moderate as an election approaches. Unfortunately, the left, the Democrats, and certainly BHO never change their plans and policies. When they are ideologically radically liberal and far left, they rarely if ever change, especially while in power. What we are hearing is a public relations, propaganda campaign for two purposes. First, to get more moderate, independent votes. Second, to intimidate the Republicans so that they will become more moderate or even moderately leftist. Republicans, especially those who claim conservatism, have to learn to ignore the press. We have our own press now and need not depend upon the discredited 'lame-stream' press. (See the New York Times' recent attack of Glen Beck. Their article is not only uncivil, it is based upon entirely untrue premises. Glen Beck has consistently and conscientiously discredited the left only by playing their own words. His long clips of the likes of Harry Ried, Nancy Pelosi, Frances Fox Piven*, George Soros, and Barack Obama himself are not played out of context. His presentations are carefully analysed and fairly presented, unlike the 'news' stories on MSNBC and The New York Times. The Democrats, even Colin Powell, have the audacity to accuse talk radio and Fox News of doing precisely what they themselves do constantly as a conscious policy -- chickenshit.

*Piven, who wrote, "The ultimate objective of this strategy—to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income—will be questioned by some. Because the ideal of individual social and economic mobility has deep roots, even activists seem reluctant to call for national programs to eliminate poverty by the outright redistribution of income." See Wikipedia, Coward and Piven, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy

(Note: In case you don't know, Frances Fox Piven and George Soros are two of Glen Beck's favorite radical progressive leftists, after Commissar Cass Sunstien and Communist Van Jones.)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,591374,00.html

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29967/

Great Hate Catalogue

This link might not be available for long:


http://www.marklevinshow.com/goout.asp?u=http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/


See all the usual suspects at their best.

If the link does not work, Google -- the-progressive-cimate-of-hate-an-ilustrated-primer

Toxic Talk

The president in his celebrated speech commemorating those who died in the Arizona shooting, said that their death were not caused by any one's speech. Nevertheless, he did call for more civility in political discourse. It appeared that most news commentators on the left and right agreed with the president. Listening to a Sunday replay of one of the radio commentators, it is obvious that this view is not unanimous.


Left wing commentator and radio talk show host, Bill Press, wrote a book called, Toxic Talk. He says that the purpose of his book is to expose the hate speech of right wing radio talk show hosts. His thesis would have more credibility if he didn't indulge in so much hate speech himself. On his Friday show he launch a non-stop vicious attack against Sarah Palin. He was especially critical of her recent video in which she addressed accusations against her of inciting violence. He said that, coming so soon after the killings that she incited, the fact that she dared to defend herself was disgusting. His diatribe went on and on and I will not repeat it here. His hate speech against Ms. Palin is certainly on various websites and he will certainly continue it in future programs for anyone who is interested.

Before Bill Press' show, Bobbie Kennedy, Jr. had a show in which he renewed the accusations against Sarah Palin and conservative talk shows. Apparently, the left has no intention of listening to President Oboma's call for civility. There was little if any discussion of issues on these two programs, only vilification of the right.

If the left has any interest in improving the tone of debate, they can start by reforming their constant expression of hatred for Sarah Palin. After that, they can open a dialog on the issues they have "deemed" to be settled. These issues, such as health care, global warming, financial reform, etc. were never debated. The only dialog from the left was vilification of anyone who disagreed with them. If they could not ram through their thousand-page laws, they got what they wanted through unconstitutionally broad rule making by the bureaucratic agencies. Certain right wing talk show personalities have been complaining about just that. In fact, they have been crying like stuck pigs. Their vehement denunciation of the methods of the left is, I guess what the left calls hate speech.


Bill Press on his book, (along with comments that say that he's pretty toxic himself) Toxic Talk:

http://www.billpressshow.com/2010/05/25/toxic-talk-how-the-radical-right-has-poisoned-americas-airwaves/

Link to media matters with some Mark Levin and Michael Savage quotes regarding matters that the left finds objectionable, but for the most part refuses to discuss:

http://mediamatters.org/research/201101120041

Conservatives Loaded for Bear

That is, they are well stocked with hi-caliber ammo and they are fighting back. Their arrow points are sharpened and their quivers are full. They are keeping their powder dry. Conservative storm troopers are hitting the ground running, only stopping to reload or fix bayonets. Yes, that describes the conservative backlash against the liberal accusations that they are inciting violence. The Conservatives are figuratively counterattacking in force, the real conservatives that is. Some Republicans in Congress are apparently already fearful of the leftist media onslaught of misrepresentations following the attempted assassination of an Arizona congresswoman.

The way that the conservative talk show host are fighting back is by presenting the truth and exposing the liberal so called journalists for the party propagandists that they have become. The conservatives are well armed with audio clips of the most vile remarks and reprehensible threats imaginable coming from the leftist radio and TV media figures, such as Keith Oberman, Bill Mar, Joy Bajar, Ed Schultz, and Chris Matthews. (Some of these may not be journalist; I realy don't know who they are but their language was certainly vile. They may be senators from Minnesota for all I know.) They also have clips of liberal politicians openly wishing violence to befall conservatives. Barack Obama is one of those politicians. (e.g. BHO's comment regarding a supporter who will "tear-up Sean Hanity." Metephorically, with argumentation he meant, just as other have spoken metephorically about politics for centuries.)

The liberals are making a big thing over some hunting and shooting metaphors of Sarah Palin with respect to Democrat candidates in the last election. Her metaphorical cross hairs were no more conducive to violence that the Democratic National Committees bulls-eyes on conservatives. On the other hand, liberals are also seen on video decapitating President Bush in effigy. On audio, they are wishing on him, vice president Cheney, and Secretary of Defense von Rumsfeld, all forms of unspeakable horrors.

The conservatives who are on the counterattack are Mark Levin, Michael Savage, Lew Dobbs, Lars Larson, Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham, and many more who I haven't heard yet. Essentially, what is happening is the liberals in congress are being aided and abetted by these dishonest journalist in their attempt to sensor their opponents, that is us, the people. The conservative media, the target of this propaganda are quite effectively fighting back with no other weapon but the truth. Glenn Beck will be joining the fray as well as soon as he gets on the Full Armour of the Lord.


For the fine invective oratory of Mark Levin, go to audio rewind for 1/11/11:

http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930#

Regarding the proposition that conservative radio talk shows and Fox television said anything that led to the shooting by the deranged individual in Arizona, I have only the remark of Frederick Bastiat:

"This is the way an opinion gains acceptance in France [and in the modern USA]. Fifty ignoramuses repeat in chorus some absurd libel that has been thought up by an even bigger ignoramus; and, if only it happens to coincide to some slight degree with prevailing attitudes and passions, it becomes a self-evident truth."

Name Calling: Liberal Forte

Yes race baiting is getting old. So is calling conservatives stupid or mentally ill. If the liberals have any logical arguments, they should make them. Instead they continue to call names. Someone on NBC just called the Republicans bastards. He said that Republicans want to control minorities. President Obama told Latin American supporters that Republicans were their enemy. Ed Schults, Howard Dean, Reverend Al, and even Barack Obama seem to always fall back on the race card and other forms of name calling.

This blog was started to give scientific arguments refuting the arguments of the Man-made Global Warming proponents. Unfortunately, it is hard to find their scientific arguments. They have explained how the greenhouse effect works. However that theory was originally advanced to explain the warming of the early earth, hundreds of millions of years ago when the atmosphere was chiefly CO2. Now the atmosphere is far less that 1% composed of CO2. They do not give their figures and their assumptions to prove their theory that minuscule amounts of extra CO2 will have drastic affects. They have not attempted to advance any explanations because they cannot do it. Instead they call anyone who doubts them idiots, fools, or crooks.

The tea party and other conservatives give economic arguments to advance the proposition that a free market, without government involvement, is the only economic systems that improves the human condition and allows everyone to improve their lot. Instead of answering with arguments in favor of government control, socialism, or other economic system, they call the tea party racist.

The same thing happens with anyone who expresses opposition to governmentalized healthcare. Supposedly intelligent, educated people in the news media are the worse. Insults and verbal abuse of conservatives is considered to be a fine and appropriate response. After the last election, 'stupid' was the most common term in the liberal editorial pages describing the voters who put the Republicans in office. It goes on and on.

Some years ago, many newspapers ran headlines stating that polls show that most Americans support the war in Iraq. The journalists who wrote the stories found it hard to believe that people could be so dumb. After all, the journalists had been writing against the war steadily for a year or so. Why wasn't the public falling for their propaganda? So the journalists turned up the volume. A lot of their new propaganda centered around overblown accusations of corruption and atrocities. They never grew tired of calling George Bush and his supporters liars. They eventually got their own way and the country turned 180 degrees against George Bush and 'his' war. Since then the liberals, the left, and the progressives have focused on ungrounded accusations and name calling because it seems to work. The biggest name caller of all, Al Franken, was elected as their Senator by Minnesotans.

To liberals, the conservative view does not qualify as an 'alternative opinion" worthy of debate. And the Tea Party, they talk about silly, irrelevant things like founding fathers and the constitution. They are really stupid. Google "conservatives are stupid," "conservatives are Nazis," or "Tea Party shit." There will be plenty to read but little or nothing offered in the way of discussion of issues. Try it.

Investors' Tempered Giddiness

Stock markets are up on the first day of trading of the new year. Investors seem as optimistic as the financial 'experts' in the press. Today's headline of the Seattle paper is, "Happy days may be near again." (Note the 'may') Explanations for this enthusiasm range from belief that 1) Obamanomics is working, 2) vast infusions of printed money will go into the market, and 3) Republican control of the House of Representatives will put us on a pro-business course. Only time will tell.

Unbridled exuberance is normally a sign for pros to get ready to sell everything. What gives me confidence is that all of the enthusiasm has been tempered by scepticism on just about all sides. Many of the experts who advise buying also council extreme caution. They are saying buy now but be prepared to get out. It looks like another bubble ahead, but not just yet. The problem they are seeing is the high levels of debt of corporations, banks, cities, states, and of course the US government. In other words, the profits shown by companies, especially banks, are based upon low interest borrowing and transfusions of government stimulus (QE2) money. Given the high unemployment and sinking housing market, the boom looks more like another make-believe bubble.

Personally, I have a small SEP-IRA with Vanguard Funds. This is in a fund of dividend paying stocks and a precious metal mining fund. Both of these did well, although the stock fund, heavy in hi-tecks, underperformed the S&P. I will maintain this mix. Dividends may be seen as a replacement for bond interest. Bonds will be weaker with climbing interest rates and the increasing default risk with municipals. Also, companies faced with bleak outlooks for investment, may put their money (whether borrowed or earned) into their own stock and into dividends. Gold and silver continue to look good because of all the uncertainty. (I have heard that there was weakness today that predicts at least a temporary pull-back in gold.)

If and when the bubble bursts, everything including gold could go down. Unfortunately, the small investor can't go short in Vanguard Funds.