Info copied and pasted from http://rightmarch.com/hatecrimes2.htm
ALERT: There's a dangerous bill sitting in the U.S. Senate right now -- one that liberal Senators want to sneak through without anyone stopping them. If this bill that the U.S. House passed isn't STOPPED in the Senate, here's what can happen, according to Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX):
If a mother hears that their child has been raped and she slaps the assailant with her purse, she is now GONE AFTER as a "hate criminal" because this is a protected class. There are other protected classes in here. I mean simple exhibitionism. I have female friends who have told me over the years that some guy flashed them, and their immediate reaction was to hit them with their purse. Well now, he's committed a misdemeanor, [and] she has committed a federal hate crime because the exhibitionism is protected under sexual orientation… You see someone spying on you changing clothes and you hit them -- they've committed a misdemeanor; you've committed a federal felony under this bill. It is so wrong. Rep. Gohmert is right: IT IS SO WRONG! But now, the Senate is ready to PASS that bill and send it to Barack Obama to sign into law -- which means we have to FIGHT HARD TO STOP IT!
TELL CONGRESS TO REJECT THE "PEDOPHILEPROTECTION ACT by calling them. You can find their numbers at this link: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm and then search for them by state.
Whatever happened to "equal justice for all"? As Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) stated, "Under this bill, justice will no longer be equal. Justice will now depend on the race, gender, sexual orientation, disability or other protected status of the victim. It will allow different penalties to be imposed for the same crime. This is the real injustice." Look, we all know that every year, many violent crimes are committed out of hate. But just as many violent crimes, if not more, are motivated by something other than hate – whether it's greed, jealously, desperation, or revenge, to name a few. A person's motivation for committing a violent crime is usually complex, and often we can only guess as to why he or she did it. Every violent crime is deplorable -- regardless of its motivation. Every violent crime can be devastating not only to the victim and their family, but also to the larger community whose sense of safety has been violated. That's why ALL violent crimes must be vigorously prosecuted. But this bill goes MUCH, MUCH FARTHER that simply prosecuting violent crime -- it creates a new "protected class" of people that would now be protected under "hate crimes" definitions. That means that this bill will protect all 547 forms of sexual deviancy or "Paraphilias" listed by the American Psychiatric Association! This would provide a HUGE MASS of "sacred cows" in our society, which includes pedophiles who would be given elevated protection -- giving "the offender" an additional decade behind bars. And that "offender" could be YOU! If a pedophile tries to molest your daughter, or your nephew, or your granddaughter, or some little boy in the street -- if you step in and beat the pedophile to get him away, YOU could spend ten years in prison for your "offense"! I am NOT exaggerating this. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL), who supports this horrendous bill, admitted that the bill would protect all 547 forms of sexual deviancy listed by the APA. Here's what Hastings said on the floor of the U.S. House itself:
This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these "Philias" and fetishes and "isms" that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule. Apparently, supporters of this bill have no problem with sexual deviants, including pedophiles, getting a higher level of protection against you and me! Don't think that some people in the House didn't try to stand up against the Thought Police crowd. The House version of the so-called "hate crimes" bill was adopted on a 249-175 vote, but not before several amendments were proposed by Republicans trying to mitigate the impact of the draconian law. For example, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) offered an amendment that was very simple: "The term sexual orientation as used in this act or any amendments to this act does not include pedophilia." The majority Democrats refused to accept that amendment -- or any OTHER amendment along the same lines! Far-leftist Senators Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) have introduced the bill into the Senate. However, because of the OUTRAGE they're hearing from their constituents -- YOU AND ME -- they're going to try to sneak in through by adding it as an amendment to a completely different bill... and Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid has reaffirmed his plans to have the Senate vote on this dangerous bill before Congress' August recess! And that means WE have to take action NOW!
TELL CONGRESS TO REJECT THE "PEDOPHILEPROTECTION ACT":SEND YOUR FAXES NOW! In George Orwell's classic book, "1984," the State was constantly cracking down on what they called "thought crimes" -- that is, you didn't face prosecution just because of what you DID -- but also because of what you THOUGHT. That is EXACTLY what this so-called "hate crimes" bill will do -- it blurs the lines between violent belief, which is constitutionally protected, and violent action, which is not. If we go down this road, where does it end? With speech monitors and thought police? As Janet Porter of Faith2Action noted, "Pushing away an unwelcome advance of a homosexual, transgendered, cross-dresser or exhibitionist could make you a felon under this law. Speaking out against the homosexual agenda could also make you a felon if you are said to influence someone who pushes away that unwelcome advance. And pedophiles and other sexual deviants would enjoy an elevated level of protection while children, seniors, veterans, and churches would not." Rep. Gohmert warned that this law would be used against pastors -- or anyone else -- who speaks against homosexuality or other alternative sexual lifestyle choices, saying that it provides that anyone who through speech "induces" commission of a violent hate crime "will be tried as a principal" alongside the active offender. Critics say that would allow for prosecutions against pastors who preach on biblical opposition to homosexuality if someone who hears such a message later is accused of any crime. A pastor's sermon could be considered "hate speech" under this legislation if it's heard by someone who then commits an act of violence against someone based on "sexual orientation." The pastor could be prosecuted for "conspiracy to commit a hate crime". Don't think it could happen? It already is. Similar state laws have already resulted in persecution for Christians. In Philadelphia several years ago, a 73-year-old grandmother was jailed for trying to share Christian tracts with people at a homosexual festival. In Canada, which already has severely restrictive "hate crime" laws, government "Human Rights Commissions" review any "suspect" speech or actions that might be perceived as being against any of their "protected classes." So today, Canada has a major national magazine, a federal political party leader and a registered political party, a major Catholic newspaper (Catholic Insight) and an internationally renowned journalist (Mark Steyn) -- all of whom are being investigated by appointed "hate speech therapists" from the commissions. Even Focus on the Family, one of the largest Christian publishing and broadcasting organizations in the nation, has admitted that it has been reviewing, and if necessary editing, its broadcasts to avoid complications with Canadian "hate crimes" laws. THIS IS WHAT WE FACE IN OUR FUTURE -- unless we take action NOW to stop this bill in the Senate! That's why we've set up our website to enable you to send "Blast Faxes" to every single U.S. Senator AT ONCE, demanding that they REJECT this pro-pedophile "thought crimes" bill -- the "Pedophile Protection Act"! For about what it would cost you in time and telephone charges, you can send Blast Faxes to Democrats, Republicans, Independents -- EVERYONE in the U.S. Senate, DEMANDING that they say NO to so-called "hate crimes" legislation!
TELL CONGRESS TO REJECT THE "PEDOPHILEPROTECTION ACT":SEND YOUR FAXES NOW! Please, take action right away to STOP this bill dead in its tracks!
P.S. FBI statistics show that the incidence of so-called hate crimes has actually declined over the last ten years. In 2007, of the approximately 17,000 homicides that occurred in the U.S., only NINE were determined to be motivated by bias. This is a so-called "solution" to a problem that doesn't even exist!!! And what does President Barack Obama say? "I urge members on both sides of the aisle to act on this important civil rights issue by passing this legislation to protect all of our citizens from violent acts of intolerance." THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS -- and it MUST be stopped! Send your faxes right away to make sure these Senators get a STRONG message, to STOP this so-called "hate crimes" legislation NOW -- Thank you!
Okay so thats the extent of the article. Basically, I'm fourteen, I'm american, and I'm getting the crap scared outta me. Please help me out here. ALL OF YOU!!! For your good or at least for mine, stop this bill from getting passed. I had to read 1984 for class a year back and I'm not kidding when I say it CAN give nightmares. I don't believe anyone who'll email and say "Don't worry! There won't be any thought police... Just chill. Its not that bad..." YES IT IS! If I didn't have self-respect I'd be cursing up a storm on here. Call your Senators NOW. You can get their numbers at this link: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Somone WILL answer.
As far as I know... MOST of you are from Florida so here are Mel Marinez's and Bill Nelson's numbers:
Mel Martinez (Republican) - 202-224-3041
and Bill Nelson (Democrat) - 202-224-5274
Friday, July 24, 2009
Healthcare deserves a big N-O
Thought you might be interested, but I watched the conference with Obama last night and then fox news this morning and found out that while Obama named two medical associations that backed up the bill (which they don't really: only part of it) there are still seven medical associations that are firmly against it. Even the New York Times recognizes that Medical and hospital groups also have spoken out against claims made by Obama (Pear/Baker, New York Times, 7/23).
Obama stated that he Americans will have to give up unhealthy habits. One, thats none of his bussiness because we have the right to be unhealthy if we so choose. Two, he's a complete and total hypocrite! He is completely ignoring the fact that HE SMOKES!!! I'd say he lost it but I'm pretty sure he never had "it" - whatever "it" is. Obama stressed the potential dangers of not overhauling the health system, saying, "If we do not reform health care, your premiums and out-of-pocket costs will continue to skyrocket" and "14,000 Americans will continue to lose their health insurance every single day" (Hall/Page, USA Today, 7/23). Hahaha - thats really funny. No, seriously, it is. I mean, you'd have to be a complete idiot not to realize that more than 14,000 people a day will be denied medical care with nationalized healthcare. Last time I checked, there were more than 14,000 elderly.
In fact, according to a 2004 census, 12% of Americans are elderly and that number is steadily rising. By 2050, people 65 and over will comprise an impressive 21 percent of the U.S. population, reports the Census Bureau. Conclusively, 12 percent of 300,000,000 is about 25,000,000 and 25,000,000 is more than 14,000. It would take 5 years to match 25,000,000 with only 14,000 a day. While health care reform is an issue to focus on, nationalization is an obvious NO.
Obama stated that he Americans will have to give up unhealthy habits. One, thats none of his bussiness because we have the right to be unhealthy if we so choose. Two, he's a complete and total hypocrite! He is completely ignoring the fact that HE SMOKES!!! I'd say he lost it but I'm pretty sure he never had "it" - whatever "it" is. Obama stressed the potential dangers of not overhauling the health system, saying, "If we do not reform health care, your premiums and out-of-pocket costs will continue to skyrocket" and "14,000 Americans will continue to lose their health insurance every single day" (Hall/Page, USA Today, 7/23). Hahaha - thats really funny. No, seriously, it is. I mean, you'd have to be a complete idiot not to realize that more than 14,000 people a day will be denied medical care with nationalized healthcare. Last time I checked, there were more than 14,000 elderly.
In fact, according to a 2004 census, 12% of Americans are elderly and that number is steadily rising. By 2050, people 65 and over will comprise an impressive 21 percent of the U.S. population, reports the Census Bureau. Conclusively, 12 percent of 300,000,000 is about 25,000,000 and 25,000,000 is more than 14,000. It would take 5 years to match 25,000,000 with only 14,000 a day. While health care reform is an issue to focus on, nationalization is an obvious NO.
- Call your senators today! You can find your senator's numbers at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Illegal Immigration
Why should we stop Illegal Immigration?
Straight out: More immigrants mean more opportunities for terrorists, drug dealers, and other criminals to enter the country. Immigrants, especially those who are poorer, consume a high amount of government resources that we pay for through taxes and they don’t pay for at all.
Less-skilled American citizens earn less money and have fewer job opportunities because they have to compete with immigrants in the job market. Interestingly enough, I got an email from someone who apparently feels confused about the morality of illegal immigration. Here is an excerpt from the email that he sent me:
“I got laid off my job along with 15 other workers about two weeks ago. Recently, I found out that the majority of those who were still working at my workplace were “illegal aliens.” They weren’t fired because they’re willing to work for less money. Is that fair to me or am I just being a jerk?”
While he wanted to remain anonymous I think you should know he has two kids and worked at his job for the last twelve years. I don’t know about you, but I’m a little more worried about people following a law than people breaking it.
To Anonymous, NO THAT’S NOT FAIR TO YOU AT ALL!!! Just because someone decides to be charity for the world doesn’t mean you have the time, ability, or money to do so. Like you said, would you rather pay for your two children or millions of people breaking the law? Who do you care about more? I know it can be confusing when liberal media tells you one thing and common sense says another. However, don’t let it mix up your priorities.
Next, I’d like to share with you all a bit of information a received from a couple of emails that were forwarded to me.
Next, I’d like to share with you all a bit of information a received from a couple of emails that were forwarded to me.
“If an illegal immigrant is over 65, they can apply for SSI and Medicaid and get more than a woman on Social Security who worked from 1944 until 2004. She is only getting $791 per month because she was born in 1924 and there’s a ‘catch 22’. It’s interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890. Each can also obtain an additional $580 in social assistance, for a total of $2,470 a month. This compares to a single pensioner, who after contributing to the growth and development of America for 60 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012 in old age pension and Guaranteed Home Supplement. Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees!
Sorry this article is so short. Many people never came back with their articles. Don’t worry though. There’s more where this came from. :)
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Anti-goverment run healthcare pettition and 9/11 poem
http://joinpatientsfirst.com/
Nancy Pelosi is at it again. Yesterday, she dropped a 1,018-page bill pushing government-run health care. Sign the petition (link at top of post) above and pass it on to everyone you know so that people will come to recognize that America is not willing to take on such a disastrous bill.
We need to act now to make sure that our worst nightmares don’t come true. This latest bill includes:
- A new government health insurance plan.
- An individual mandate that every one of us must purchase government-defined health insurance or face new taxes and fines. This is a clear breaking of the president's pledge not to raise taxes on Americans earning less than $250,000 per year – at least 8 million Americans and their families will see their taxes go up.
- Employer mandates that will make businesses either provide government-defined insurance coverage or pay a penalty tax.
- Another income tax on households and many small businesses with an annual income of $350,000 to help pay for all this. This is another broken campaign promise. The president had pledged not to increase any American's taxes above the level of the 1990s – and that is just what would happen.
- Did I mention that the government will decide what an “adequate” health insurance package is? A new bureaucracy – the Benefits Advisory Committee – and the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what coverage you have to pay for and what diseases and treatments will be covered.
- Another bailout that will cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars – this time to unions to bail out their retiree health care plans.
- More Comparative Effectiveness Research that could lead to government bureaucrats denying you health care treatment options.
You can read the bill for yourself here (http://americansforprosperity.org/examine-the-bill ). I wonder if Nancy Pelosi has read all 1,018 pages of the bill. I highly doubt it!
Doesn't it seem like common sense that our representatives to Congress, who will cast the votes to make those bills laws, should read them first? Well, apparently only 44 senators and representatives are willing to sign the Responsible Healthcare Reform Pledge to promise to read the bill before voting on it – and to let Americans see it, too.
Are your senators or representative among those 44? Call them today at (202) 224-3121 and ask them if they have signed the Responsible Healthcare Reform Pledge! Is there really any excuse for them not to?
We don't need a health care bill that puts our health in the hands of government bureaucrats. Keep up the pressure!
NOW, I REMEMER THAT I PROMISED EVERYONE I WOULD HAVE AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION POST FOR YOU ALL. UNFORTUNATELY, IT’S NOT READY YET. I’M WAITING FOR A FEW EMAILERS TO RESPOND WITH SOME INFO. YOU CAN LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING IT IN A COUPLE OF DAYS. MEANWHILE, I’D LIKE TO SHARE A POEM THAT I WROTE ABOUT 9/11 AND RADICAL ISLAM. I WAS INSPIRED AFTER RECENTLY WATCHING A DOCUMENTARY TITLED “OBSESSION”. ENJOY!
Nancy Pelosi is at it again. Yesterday, she dropped a 1,018-page bill pushing government-run health care. Sign the petition (link at top of post) above and pass it on to everyone you know so that people will come to recognize that America is not willing to take on such a disastrous bill.
We need to act now to make sure that our worst nightmares don’t come true. This latest bill includes:
- A new government health insurance plan.
- An individual mandate that every one of us must purchase government-defined health insurance or face new taxes and fines. This is a clear breaking of the president's pledge not to raise taxes on Americans earning less than $250,000 per year – at least 8 million Americans and their families will see their taxes go up.
- Employer mandates that will make businesses either provide government-defined insurance coverage or pay a penalty tax.
- Another income tax on households and many small businesses with an annual income of $350,000 to help pay for all this. This is another broken campaign promise. The president had pledged not to increase any American's taxes above the level of the 1990s – and that is just what would happen.
- Did I mention that the government will decide what an “adequate” health insurance package is? A new bureaucracy – the Benefits Advisory Committee – and the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what coverage you have to pay for and what diseases and treatments will be covered.
- Another bailout that will cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars – this time to unions to bail out their retiree health care plans.
- More Comparative Effectiveness Research that could lead to government bureaucrats denying you health care treatment options.
You can read the bill for yourself here (http://americansforprosperity.org/examine-the-bill ). I wonder if Nancy Pelosi has read all 1,018 pages of the bill. I highly doubt it!
Doesn't it seem like common sense that our representatives to Congress, who will cast the votes to make those bills laws, should read them first? Well, apparently only 44 senators and representatives are willing to sign the Responsible Healthcare Reform Pledge to promise to read the bill before voting on it – and to let Americans see it, too.
Are your senators or representative among those 44? Call them today at (202) 224-3121 and ask them if they have signed the Responsible Healthcare Reform Pledge! Is there really any excuse for them not to?
We don't need a health care bill that puts our health in the hands of government bureaucrats. Keep up the pressure!
NOW, I REMEMER THAT I PROMISED EVERYONE I WOULD HAVE AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION POST FOR YOU ALL. UNFORTUNATELY, IT’S NOT READY YET. I’M WAITING FOR A FEW EMAILERS TO RESPOND WITH SOME INFO. YOU CAN LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING IT IN A COUPLE OF DAYS. MEANWHILE, I’D LIKE TO SHARE A POEM THAT I WROTE ABOUT 9/11 AND RADICAL ISLAM. I WAS INSPIRED AFTER RECENTLY WATCHING A DOCUMENTARY TITLED “OBSESSION”. ENJOY!
Radical
Islam Is Here
By: Michael A. Huff
We were attacked on 9/11.
Plane flew into tower.
If only for a little bit,
The killers made us cower.
We never know what’s coming.
We never thought to think
If someone didn’t care at all
It could happen in a blink.
Early in the morning
Day eleven in month nine
Nineteen crazy people
Claimed it was their time to shine
They got up onto airplanes
That were headed to L.A.
But none of them would go there
They planned to kill that day
We start to get some phone calls
From passengers on board
They think they’re being hijacked
Die! The killers roared
A first plane comes. It crashes down.
The second one is here.
Now, the second one has crashed.
We’re crying out in fear.
But it’s not over - Not at all.
This terror’s just begun.
Now, here comes the consequence;
A consequence to stun
People scream in panic now
It’s getting hard to see
They’re trapped up in the 100th floor
As viewers make a plea
We’re hoping for the best now
As the television blares
The awful things occurring
That stands on end; our hairs
People point and shout and run
As rumbling is heard
She’s gonna fall. They backed away
As the tower stirred
A tower falls out of the sky.
It crumbles to the ground.
The second one falls in pursuit.
They’re a shattered, broken mound.
The screams of panic
Get real loud
As smoke comes rushing
Though the crowd.
Firefighters, cops, and troops
Are rushed onto the scene
But everyone was so confused
How could people be so mean?
A thousand people died that day
And yet, a thousand more
Another thousand yet again
Like waves flow off a shore
Never will these people speak
Or utter any phrase.
Nor smile, or wave, or even laugh
They’re lost within the haze.
Now we sit and try at peace
But this is now a war
Peace is not what killers want
What’s next they have in store?
Some people just don’t want to think
Those terrorists are bad
They’re confused and sad and misunderstood
Should they not be mad?
I say no ‘cause they’ve no right
To take away a soul
Those dead are people that we miss
Our time with them, they stole
We can’t make nice. We always try.
But does it ever work?
I wish it did, But it does not.
So don’t be such a jerk.
You can’t tell me; just forgive
Don’t worry, it’s alright
I say killers come again.
They’ll try with all their might.
They’ve said it like a million times
And still we do not hear.
They want to kill America
And they won’t shed a tear.
They say down with the U.K.
They hate the Jewish too
They don’t like Christians much at all
That leaves a lucky few.
Why should they all hate us?
They say we’re of the devil.
We’re western civilization
So we’re below their level
We’re a source of corruption
I’ll have to disagree.
We actually let people think
Not kill them with TV
We don’t shove lies down people’s throats
You think what you would like
But they decide to stop all thoughts
That threatens their great Reich.
We see it every day now.
But nothing’s ever done.
It’s on the news: the little kids
Are taught to use a gun
As soon as they can speak now
They’re chanting deadly words
They’re taught to hate that’s all they know
Huge, ignorant, mean herds.
When they get old it’s honor now
This deed must be fulfilled
It’s time to bomb them suicide
So innocents are killed
But that’s no problem we can’t handle
While its still just small
However, it could get really bad
If we just want to stall
This reminds me of the Nazis
A race before my time
They hated, ranted just like this
Claimed all the Jews were grime.
We were less experienced
It got WAY out of hand
People were dying left and right
By the time we took a stand.
We had won but far too late
6 million Jews had died
And then there were still millions more
But none of them could hide
Is a holocaust what we want now?
‘Cause that’s what’s coming next
It’s not that hard to understand
Why make it so complex?
We tell them “NO!” you have to stop
“Bye, scram, beat it, go!”
What you’re doing’s really wrong.
You’re getting really low.
We won’t keep playing with this game
Stop or die. Your choice
When it comes to our own lives
We’d like to have a voice.
Islam Is Here
By: Michael A. Huff
We were attacked on 9/11.
Plane flew into tower.
If only for a little bit,
The killers made us cower.
We never know what’s coming.
We never thought to think
If someone didn’t care at all
It could happen in a blink.
Early in the morning
Day eleven in month nine
Nineteen crazy people
Claimed it was their time to shine
They got up onto airplanes
That were headed to L.A.
But none of them would go there
They planned to kill that day
We start to get some phone calls
From passengers on board
They think they’re being hijacked
Die! The killers roared
A first plane comes. It crashes down.
The second one is here.
Now, the second one has crashed.
We’re crying out in fear.
But it’s not over - Not at all.
This terror’s just begun.
Now, here comes the consequence;
A consequence to stun
People scream in panic now
It’s getting hard to see
They’re trapped up in the 100th floor
As viewers make a plea
We’re hoping for the best now
As the television blares
The awful things occurring
That stands on end; our hairs
People point and shout and run
As rumbling is heard
She’s gonna fall. They backed away
As the tower stirred
A tower falls out of the sky.
It crumbles to the ground.
The second one falls in pursuit.
They’re a shattered, broken mound.
The screams of panic
Get real loud
As smoke comes rushing
Though the crowd.
Firefighters, cops, and troops
Are rushed onto the scene
But everyone was so confused
How could people be so mean?
A thousand people died that day
And yet, a thousand more
Another thousand yet again
Like waves flow off a shore
Never will these people speak
Or utter any phrase.
Nor smile, or wave, or even laugh
They’re lost within the haze.
Now we sit and try at peace
But this is now a war
Peace is not what killers want
What’s next they have in store?
Some people just don’t want to think
Those terrorists are bad
They’re confused and sad and misunderstood
Should they not be mad?
I say no ‘cause they’ve no right
To take away a soul
Those dead are people that we miss
Our time with them, they stole
We can’t make nice. We always try.
But does it ever work?
I wish it did, But it does not.
So don’t be such a jerk.
You can’t tell me; just forgive
Don’t worry, it’s alright
I say killers come again.
They’ll try with all their might.
They’ve said it like a million times
And still we do not hear.
They want to kill America
And they won’t shed a tear.
They say down with the U.K.
They hate the Jewish too
They don’t like Christians much at all
That leaves a lucky few.
Why should they all hate us?
They say we’re of the devil.
We’re western civilization
So we’re below their level
We’re a source of corruption
I’ll have to disagree.
We actually let people think
Not kill them with TV
We don’t shove lies down people’s throats
You think what you would like
But they decide to stop all thoughts
That threatens their great Reich.
We see it every day now.
But nothing’s ever done.
It’s on the news: the little kids
Are taught to use a gun
As soon as they can speak now
They’re chanting deadly words
They’re taught to hate that’s all they know
Huge, ignorant, mean herds.
When they get old it’s honor now
This deed must be fulfilled
It’s time to bomb them suicide
So innocents are killed
But that’s no problem we can’t handle
While its still just small
However, it could get really bad
If we just want to stall
This reminds me of the Nazis
A race before my time
They hated, ranted just like this
Claimed all the Jews were grime.
We were less experienced
It got WAY out of hand
People were dying left and right
By the time we took a stand.
We had won but far too late
6 million Jews had died
And then there were still millions more
But none of them could hide
Is a holocaust what we want now?
‘Cause that’s what’s coming next
It’s not that hard to understand
Why make it so complex?
We tell them “NO!” you have to stop
“Bye, scram, beat it, go!”
What you’re doing’s really wrong.
You’re getting really low.
We won’t keep playing with this game
Stop or die. Your choice
When it comes to our own lives
We’d like to have a voice.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Cap and Trade
Below is the first of two articles that were sent to me by people on my email list. They illustrate the ill-effects of the cap and trade bill. If Obama allows this bill to go through it will destroy the economy. Thank you Vickie!
The U.S. Senate is lurching onward with Cap-and-Trade legislation - a massive energy tax that will dramatically raise the cost of just about everything you produce or consume, (according to some figures by as much as 3,000 per year for the average household) all to reduce "global warming," which Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) labels "a hoax."
The U.S. House - on a day that shall live in infamy - passed this so-called Cap-and-Trade legislation by the narrow margin of 219-212, with the help of eight Republican-in-Name-Only turncoats.
And now, only the Senate can stop this massive tax increase that goes under the deceptive name of Cap-and-Trade.
And here's an "inconvenient truth." The rationale behind so-called Cap-and-Trade is based solely on a myth called Global Warming. Cap-and-Trade is being sold as the solution to a problem that does not even exist.
"Global temperatures have not risen for a decade, and have been falling since . . . late 2001. Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity [to human causes] is much below [U.N.] estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no 'climate crisis' at all." (Climate expert Viscount Christopher Moncton]
Senators need to wake up and consider Christopher Moncton's common sense solution for the global warming fantasy that he identifies as a non-problem. It is, he says, "To have the courage to . . . do nothing."
To state this "inconvenient truth" another way; Barack Obama, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, and Harry Reid are using the discredited, unscientific global warming myth to justify their mindless drive to wreck the American economy and eradicate our personal freedoms.
We must stop them. We can do so by barraging the president and Senate leadership with blast faxes showing that we're onto their global warming scam - their tax-and-spend power grabs - and that the American people won't tolerate legislatively induced economic suicide.
This article was recommended by an e-mailer and while they wish to remain anonymous, I’d still like to say thanks for the article. You know who you are. You can find a copy of this article at http://www.cincinnatusblog.com/climate-bill/?gclid=CLnM2KiMxJsCFRWbnAodYQHJBg
From Disneyland on the Potomac another ill conceived environmental bill, the “American Clean Energy and Security Act” which will virtually guarantee that global carbon dioxide (CO2) levels increase at faster rate. In the process we will also eliminate over 3 million American jobs.
President Obama has chosen to placate his left wing base by promoting the “Waxman-Markey global warming bill” over his stated goal of creating new jobs. A study by Charles River Associates concluded that if Obama signs off on this Congressional proposal to reduce CO2 emissions, it would have a serious impact on the availability and cost of energy. “By 2025, just 16 years from now, the cost of natural gas would rise 56%, electricity 44% and motor fuel 19%. Annual household purchasing power would annually decline by an average of $1,827. And America will lose 3.2 million jobs.” Obama can only hope and pray that the creation of “Green Jobs” will at least partially offset this loss.
President Obama has chosen to placate his left wing base by promoting the “Waxman-Markey global warming bill” over his stated goal of creating new jobs. A study by Charles River Associates concluded that if Obama signs off on this Congressional proposal to reduce CO2 emissions, it would have a serious impact on the availability and cost of energy. “By 2025, just 16 years from now, the cost of natural gas would rise 56%, electricity 44% and motor fuel 19%. Annual household purchasing power would annually decline by an average of $1,827. And America will lose 3.2 million jobs.” Obama can only hope and pray that the creation of “Green Jobs” will at least partially offset this loss.
Rather than focus on available technological solutions, Obama says let’s burden hard working American consumers with another ill-conceived regressive tax! Who will ultimately pay for this brilliant plan? Consumers of course! This burden, however, will not be shared equally.
The already economically hard-hit middle of the country, which is dependent on coal-fired plants for electricity, will be disproportionately taxed. The White House talks the talk when it comes to helping the economically challenged States of the “Rust-Belt,” but they sure don’t walk the walk.
The goal of the “American Clean Energy and Security Act” is to reduce overall U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 17% from 2005 levels by the year 2020, and 83% by mid-century. In typical Congressional and Obama one-dimensional thinking they seem to have forgotten that it is global carbon dioxide production that we concerned about. American manufacturing which is already uncompetitive in the global market is about to become even less competitive.
Hooray we can reduce U.S. CO2 production by a miserly 17% by 2020. But by increasing the cost of manufacturing in the U.S. we will almost certainly demolish what is left of our manufacturing base and wind up outsourcing it to the least environmentally friendly country in the world, China. China has does not restrict CO2 for fear of making its manufacturing base uncompetitive.
China is by far the largest producer of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the world. A conservative estimate is that for every molecule of CO2 we save in the United States, China, our surrogate manufacturer will incrementally produce 3 CO2 molecules. In net effect by making manufacturing to costly in the U.S. we may technically reduce our CO2 production by 17% but we will have our proxy China incrementally increase their CO2 production threefold - resulting in an real increase in the U.S. related carbon dioxide production of 34%.
America’s biggest oil companies will probably cope with the new U.S. carbon legislation by closing fuel plants, cutting capital spending and increasing imports. Experts predict - “It will lead to the opportunity for foreign sources to bring in transportation fuels at a lower cost, which will have an adverse impact to our industry, potential shutdown of refineries and investment and, ultimately, employment”. Contrary to President Barack Obama’s goal of reducing dependence on overseas energy suppliers, the bill would give U.S. refiners an incentive to import more fuel. With one bold sweep of Obama’s pen he can make us more dependent on foreign energy and cause a further deterioration in our balance of trade.
When the only tool you have is a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail. In other words, there is no problem that a bureaucrat can’t solve, if only we would let them pass another regressive tax. That may well be the sum total of the creative thinking that has gone into the Obama “American Clean Energy and Security Act”. The Obama Administration proposes that companies buy a permit for each ton of carbon emitted, at an estimated cost, to start of approximately $13 to $20 per ton. The permits could then be bought and sold. The theory behind this convoluted scheme is that it will somehow miraculously increase energy efficiency and renewable energy development.
We could solve this problem in any number of ways that would not unduly burden the consumer. Let me give you a few examples. In the United States we emit over 24 metric tons of carbon dioxide per person; in France they emit a little over 6 metric tons per person. So, let’s do it the French way and cut our emissions by nearly 75%. The centerpiece of France’s green strategy is of course clean nuclear power. France generates more than 75% of its electricity from nuclear reactors. All the power you want 24/7 and no carbon dioxide. The excess energy produced in off-peak times can be used to charge electric vehicles at night or generate hydrogen from water as a means to power the future hydrogen economy.
Even the “green” Germans seem to have finally come to the conclusion that wind may be fine as a supportive source of clean energy, but it is limited by both scale and its inherent intermittent nature. This year’s German election will probably result in a reversal of its long standing anti-nuclear policy, as it has become increasingly clear that only dependable nuclear power can generate carbon dioxide free, base load electricity on a nationwide scale. In Europe, the population seems to have finally realized that for 30 years the Germans have talked green but only the French have acted green.
The technology to replace carbon dioxide-belching cars and planes with high-speed inter-city mass transportation has existed for more than three decades. Continuing on our French green theme, there is, of course, the TGV (Train a Grande Vitesse) high-speed train. Following the inaugural TGV service between Paris and Lyon, in 1981, the TGV network, centered in Paris, has expanded to connect cities across France and adjacent countries. TGVs link with Switzerland, and through the French Thalys network with Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands. The Eurostar network links France and Belgium with the United Kingdom.
The key to producing less carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels is to use the fuel with the lowest carbon to hydrogen ratio. Coal is the least desirable because there are roughly 2 carbons for each hydrogen; oil is cleaner because it has the inverse ratio of approximately one carbon for 2 hydrogen molecules; and best of all is methane (CH4), with 4 hydrogen molecules for each carbon molecule. Natural gas is primarily methane. Thus, the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions when natural gas is substituted for gasoline in an automobile is about 25-30%.
Natural gas may not be the perfect solution to our need for a clean transportation fuel but it is certainly a good one and one that can be deployed in tens of millions of standard size vehicles in a relatively short period of time. The perfect solution will take at least a decade or two to be developed for standard size cars and trucks.
Voltaire had it right: Le mieux est l’ennemi du bien or “the perfect is the enemy of the good”. While there are only about 130,000 Natural Gas Vehicles (NGV) in the U.S, there are nearly 4.5 million of these alternative fuel vehicles worldwide, mainly in Argentina, Brazil, Pakistan, Italy, Germany and India. In Italy alone there are more than 400,000 NGV’s, demonstrating that this is not a pie-in-the-sky idea, but one that is easily and quickly implemented.
This essay is too short to detail all of the viable technological solutions that could be applied to reducing carbon dioxide emissions that would be far superior to an unimaginative regressive tax such as the “American Clean Energy and Security Act”. So let me enumerate a few additional thoughts: geothermal energy can play an expanded role, hydroelectric plants should be built not dismantled, coal gasification should be expanded, and tidal power, which unlike wind is not intermittent should be developed, as well as the creation of an energy efficient smart grid.
Unfortunately, politician of both parties appear to have limited ability to think creatively and tend to rely on regressive tax schemes to solve all of mankind’s ills.
Last but not least is a link to YouTube that shows a video created by Courtney on the Cap and Trade bill. Thanks Courtney!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBTNxN8NDcQ&feature
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBTNxN8NDcQ&feature
Monday, July 6, 2009
Man Made Climate Change Hoax
First, before I get to the article, I owe an explanation to all of you who are thinking “wait… I though you were going to go in order.” I AM going in order but in explanation, more and more people are replying with what they think is most important and climate change has shot up to second place right behind abortion.
Please note that when I say “climate change” or “global warming” I am referring completely to the concept that it is man-made.
GLOBAL WARMING: WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE FROM… THE COLD?
Yes, the cold! As of recently, you may have noticed a change in the “politically correct” phrase referring to global temperature change. No longer do liberals refer to temperature change as global warming. They refer to it as climate change. The conclusion one draws from that is fairly intimidating if not a little frightening; they have a schedule and they’re not letting anything stop it. NO SIR!
Soon, I predict that they will ease into telling everyone that the climate is in fact changing and we definitely will die if we don’t follow them but thanks to their sophisticated intelligence and hard work, they’ve come to discover that the life threatening danger that we are letting evil CO2 creators present us with are causing the cooling of earth, not warming.
Unfortunately, the recent liberal attitude is that if we don’t stop doing something then something bad will happen just because they say it will.
I’m no longer here to talk about global warming. Only the most ignorant and stubborn of the democrats still think that global warming exists. I doubt even Al Gore believes in it. They’ve just dug themselves in a hole so deep that they don’t know how to get out. Especially with that ridiculous documentary Al Gore came out with called An Inconvenient Truth (that I ended up watching in school every year throughout middle school). Now as far as liberals are concerned, the documentary is becoming an inconvenient lie.
Yes! Global Warming is gone. The next thing on the liberal agenda to keep up the public’s fears so that the majority of the uneducated population will continue to have people eat out of their hands is here; climate change.
While most liberals get the picture, I was happy enough to receive emails from a guy who was smart enough to come up with arguments that no liberal could answer without avoiding the question, stammering, straying off topic, blaming a republican, or making up statistics. This mailer sent the questions to Nelson, Martinez, Klein, and Crist.
Here are eight of the questions below. Also, so you know, I haven’t confirmed that this mailer wrote these questions but he did say who he sent them to. Whoever wrote them made some very good moves. When making and argument, always be read to cite a source. It was also convenient in making the case by giving the extra information related to the question but not part of the questions that defends the statement the question makes. I emboldened questions for your convenience. If I ever get a list of replies I will be sure to let you all know what they are.
1.) If cap and trade and other global warming laws will fix climate change problems, why did the government of New Zealand decide to suspend their cap and trade program?
"New Zealand's centre-right National Party government last November suspended the planned carbon trading scheme of the former Labor government, which had been due to be phased in from this year. It had criticized Labor’s cap-and-trade scheme as going too far too fast, imposing heavy costs on business and consumers, and being out of step with many of the country's main trading partners such as Australia." (Reuters)
2.) If higher levels of man made CO2 cause Climate Change, why did the earth cool from 1940 until 1975 while CO2 levels rose and why does Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a PhD in meteorology, now express her doubts about man made Global Warming?
"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any funding, I can speak quite frankly. [...] The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models.
We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system. We only need to watch the weather forecasts. [...] The term “global warming” itself is very vague. Where and what scales of response are measurable? One distinguished scientist has shown that many aspects of climate change are regional, some of the most harmful caused by changes in human land use" (Dr. Joanne Simpson)
Hmm, does "funding" influence scientists to not tell the whole truth or tilt the data? (Bonus Question)
3.) Why should we reduce or "cap" CO2, when climate experts, such as Dr. S. Fred Singer, a distinguished research professor at George Mason University, say that solar activity drives climate change?
"Two powerful new books say today’s global warming is due not to human activity but primarily to a long, moderate solar-linked cycle. Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years, by physicist Fred Singer and economist Dennis Avery was released just before Christmas. The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change, by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark and former BBC science writer Nigel Calder (Icon Books), is due out in March." (Center for Global Food Issues on 1/30/2007)
4.) If the increase in CO2 in the air results in better crop yields and healthier plants (Greening Theory), why do we want to cap carbon emissions?
"Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide doesn't just make a plant bigger. Carbon dioxide also makes plants more resistant to extreme weather conditions. In a study discussed in the journal Plant Ecology, a team of scientists subjected the Mojave Desert evergreen shrub to three different concentrations of carbon dioxide - the current level of 360 ppm and at 550 ppm and 700 ppm. The plants, which were being grown in simulated drought conditions, responded more favorably in the carbon dioxide-rich environments. Photosynthetic activity doubled in the 550 ppm environment and tripled at 700 ppm. Increased photosynthetic activity enables plants to withstand drought better." (National Policy Analysis #334 April 2001)
5.) If man -made Global Warming is "settled science" as proclaimed by Al Gore and his minions, why have over 31,000 qualified scientists world -wide publicly stated their doubts that climate change is man -made?
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” -- From the Oregon Petition, signed by over 31,000 scientists.
6.) If the oceans have been cooling since 2003, what is the rush to push an unexamined and unread Cap & Trade bill (ACES) through Congress?
"Two separate studies through NASA confirm that since 2003, the world's oceans have been losing heat." (John Willis, NASA Jet propulsion Lab) “Other studies have suggested that the sun's output has decreased in the past few years." (Examiner.com)
7.) What represents a greater danger to our Country, a potential 1 degree Centigrade temperature increase in the next 50 to 100 years or an Electro- Magnetic Pulse (EMP) attack?
“Let us say the freighter ship launches a nuclear-armed Shahab-3 missile off the coast of the U.S. and it explodes 300 miles over Chicago, creating an electromagnetic pulse. Gamma rays scatter in what is called the Compton effect, and three separate pulses disable consumer electronics, some automobiles, and, most importantly, the hundreds of large transformers that distribute power throughout the U.S. All of our lights, refrigerators, TVs and radios stop running. We have no communication. This is what is referred to as an EMP attack, and such an attack would effectively throw America back into the early nineteenth century. Perhaps hundreds of millions of us will die from lack of food and water and as a result of social breakdown." (Brian T. Kennedy, Claremont Institute- 5/20/08)
Without missile defense and a "hardened" power grid, we are in trouble if a terrorist group gets their hands on just one nuclear missile.
8.) What is the cost of the Cap & Trade bill and what are the resulting benefits especially if China, India and Russia continue to increase emissions of industrial gases?
"An analysis of the Waxman-Markey bill (as reported out of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce) by The Heritage Foundation found that unemployment will increase by nearly 2 million in 2012, the first year of the program, and reach nearly 2.5 million in 2035, the last year of the analysis. Total GDP loss by 2035 would be $9.4 trillion. The national debt would balloon as the economy slowed, saddling a family of four with $114,915 of additional national debt. Families would also suffer, as the bill would slap the equivalent of a $4,609 tax on a family of four by 2035." (Heritage Foundation-web memo #2504)
"Using mainstream models and assumptions, Mr. Knappenberger finds that in the year 2050 with a 83% emissions reduction (the aspirational goal of Waxman-Markey, the beginning steps of which are under vigorous debate), the temperature reduction is nine hundredths of one degree Fahrenheit, or two years of avoided warming. " (Climate Scientist Chip Knappenberger)
Seems like a lot of cost for little benefit, don't you agree?
Now with that said, I know that what I just showed you concerning my mailer’s questions had to do with global warming but I figured that if democrats decided to recess back to their global warming craze for any reason whatsoever, you have these wonderful arguments that will win you the debate.
If these arguments aren’t enough or you feel like you are lacking sources then I’m about to put you in heaven. http://schnittshow.com/pages/globalwarming.html This link as of now has four hundred and twenty three global warming articles. It is constantly updated and presents articles that show the fallacy of this man-made climate change hoax.
Comment! All comments accepted... within reason. No cursing, no hating, and if you disagree list legimant sources.
Please note that when I say “climate change” or “global warming” I am referring completely to the concept that it is man-made.
GLOBAL WARMING: WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE FROM… THE COLD?
Yes, the cold! As of recently, you may have noticed a change in the “politically correct” phrase referring to global temperature change. No longer do liberals refer to temperature change as global warming. They refer to it as climate change. The conclusion one draws from that is fairly intimidating if not a little frightening; they have a schedule and they’re not letting anything stop it. NO SIR!
Soon, I predict that they will ease into telling everyone that the climate is in fact changing and we definitely will die if we don’t follow them but thanks to their sophisticated intelligence and hard work, they’ve come to discover that the life threatening danger that we are letting evil CO2 creators present us with are causing the cooling of earth, not warming.
Unfortunately, the recent liberal attitude is that if we don’t stop doing something then something bad will happen just because they say it will.
I’m no longer here to talk about global warming. Only the most ignorant and stubborn of the democrats still think that global warming exists. I doubt even Al Gore believes in it. They’ve just dug themselves in a hole so deep that they don’t know how to get out. Especially with that ridiculous documentary Al Gore came out with called An Inconvenient Truth (that I ended up watching in school every year throughout middle school). Now as far as liberals are concerned, the documentary is becoming an inconvenient lie.
Yes! Global Warming is gone. The next thing on the liberal agenda to keep up the public’s fears so that the majority of the uneducated population will continue to have people eat out of their hands is here; climate change.
While most liberals get the picture, I was happy enough to receive emails from a guy who was smart enough to come up with arguments that no liberal could answer without avoiding the question, stammering, straying off topic, blaming a republican, or making up statistics. This mailer sent the questions to Nelson, Martinez, Klein, and Crist.
Here are eight of the questions below. Also, so you know, I haven’t confirmed that this mailer wrote these questions but he did say who he sent them to. Whoever wrote them made some very good moves. When making and argument, always be read to cite a source. It was also convenient in making the case by giving the extra information related to the question but not part of the questions that defends the statement the question makes. I emboldened questions for your convenience. If I ever get a list of replies I will be sure to let you all know what they are.
1.) If cap and trade and other global warming laws will fix climate change problems, why did the government of New Zealand decide to suspend their cap and trade program?
"New Zealand's centre-right National Party government last November suspended the planned carbon trading scheme of the former Labor government, which had been due to be phased in from this year. It had criticized Labor’s cap-and-trade scheme as going too far too fast, imposing heavy costs on business and consumers, and being out of step with many of the country's main trading partners such as Australia." (Reuters)
2.) If higher levels of man made CO2 cause Climate Change, why did the earth cool from 1940 until 1975 while CO2 levels rose and why does Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a PhD in meteorology, now express her doubts about man made Global Warming?
"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any funding, I can speak quite frankly. [...] The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models.
We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system. We only need to watch the weather forecasts. [...] The term “global warming” itself is very vague. Where and what scales of response are measurable? One distinguished scientist has shown that many aspects of climate change are regional, some of the most harmful caused by changes in human land use" (Dr. Joanne Simpson)
Hmm, does "funding" influence scientists to not tell the whole truth or tilt the data? (Bonus Question)
3.) Why should we reduce or "cap" CO2, when climate experts, such as Dr. S. Fred Singer, a distinguished research professor at George Mason University, say that solar activity drives climate change?
"Two powerful new books say today’s global warming is due not to human activity but primarily to a long, moderate solar-linked cycle. Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years, by physicist Fred Singer and economist Dennis Avery was released just before Christmas. The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change, by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark and former BBC science writer Nigel Calder (Icon Books), is due out in March." (Center for Global Food Issues on 1/30/2007)
4.) If the increase in CO2 in the air results in better crop yields and healthier plants (Greening Theory), why do we want to cap carbon emissions?
"Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide doesn't just make a plant bigger. Carbon dioxide also makes plants more resistant to extreme weather conditions. In a study discussed in the journal Plant Ecology, a team of scientists subjected the Mojave Desert evergreen shrub to three different concentrations of carbon dioxide - the current level of 360 ppm and at 550 ppm and 700 ppm. The plants, which were being grown in simulated drought conditions, responded more favorably in the carbon dioxide-rich environments. Photosynthetic activity doubled in the 550 ppm environment and tripled at 700 ppm. Increased photosynthetic activity enables plants to withstand drought better." (National Policy Analysis #334 April 2001)
5.) If man -made Global Warming is "settled science" as proclaimed by Al Gore and his minions, why have over 31,000 qualified scientists world -wide publicly stated their doubts that climate change is man -made?
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” -- From the Oregon Petition, signed by over 31,000 scientists.
6.) If the oceans have been cooling since 2003, what is the rush to push an unexamined and unread Cap & Trade bill (ACES) through Congress?
"Two separate studies through NASA confirm that since 2003, the world's oceans have been losing heat." (John Willis, NASA Jet propulsion Lab) “Other studies have suggested that the sun's output has decreased in the past few years." (Examiner.com)
7.) What represents a greater danger to our Country, a potential 1 degree Centigrade temperature increase in the next 50 to 100 years or an Electro- Magnetic Pulse (EMP) attack?
“Let us say the freighter ship launches a nuclear-armed Shahab-3 missile off the coast of the U.S. and it explodes 300 miles over Chicago, creating an electromagnetic pulse. Gamma rays scatter in what is called the Compton effect, and three separate pulses disable consumer electronics, some automobiles, and, most importantly, the hundreds of large transformers that distribute power throughout the U.S. All of our lights, refrigerators, TVs and radios stop running. We have no communication. This is what is referred to as an EMP attack, and such an attack would effectively throw America back into the early nineteenth century. Perhaps hundreds of millions of us will die from lack of food and water and as a result of social breakdown." (Brian T. Kennedy, Claremont Institute- 5/20/08)
Without missile defense and a "hardened" power grid, we are in trouble if a terrorist group gets their hands on just one nuclear missile.
8.) What is the cost of the Cap & Trade bill and what are the resulting benefits especially if China, India and Russia continue to increase emissions of industrial gases?
"An analysis of the Waxman-Markey bill (as reported out of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce) by The Heritage Foundation found that unemployment will increase by nearly 2 million in 2012, the first year of the program, and reach nearly 2.5 million in 2035, the last year of the analysis. Total GDP loss by 2035 would be $9.4 trillion. The national debt would balloon as the economy slowed, saddling a family of four with $114,915 of additional national debt. Families would also suffer, as the bill would slap the equivalent of a $4,609 tax on a family of four by 2035." (Heritage Foundation-web memo #2504)
"Using mainstream models and assumptions, Mr. Knappenberger finds that in the year 2050 with a 83% emissions reduction (the aspirational goal of Waxman-Markey, the beginning steps of which are under vigorous debate), the temperature reduction is nine hundredths of one degree Fahrenheit, or two years of avoided warming. " (Climate Scientist Chip Knappenberger)
Seems like a lot of cost for little benefit, don't you agree?
Now with that said, I know that what I just showed you concerning my mailer’s questions had to do with global warming but I figured that if democrats decided to recess back to their global warming craze for any reason whatsoever, you have these wonderful arguments that will win you the debate.
If these arguments aren’t enough or you feel like you are lacking sources then I’m about to put you in heaven. http://schnittshow.com/pages/globalwarming.html This link as of now has four hundred and twenty three global warming articles. It is constantly updated and presents articles that show the fallacy of this man-made climate change hoax.
Comment! All comments accepted... within reason. No cursing, no hating, and if you disagree list legimant sources.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Conservative Teenager
Hi everyone! This is my first post on Conservative Teenager. I will contribute to this blog as often as I can. I warn you though, I'm not afraid to speak my opinions even if it means hurting the feeling of all you liberals. I will post here regularly and if you want me to update you when I post you can leave your email in a comment or if you want to keep your email private you can email me at conservativeteenager@gmail.com and let me know you wish to be notified.
And now for the pictures of the day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
