To our son, his excellency, Mr. Barack Hussein Obama. I have said to you before, that even if Libya and the United States of America enter into a war, god forbid, you will always remain a son.
— Muammar Gaddafi
Representative Mike Kelly, Republican, Pennsylvania, unscripted and off the cuff:
We should require everyone seeking public office to first spend a career in the private sector.
I’ve been involved in several discussions recently about rights. The right to low or no cost healthcare, the right to have an abortion, the right to receive public assistance, the right to an environment free of discrimination, etc.
When I hear people advancing those views, one question always comes to me: Who grants those rights and by what authority?
I’m not sure that anyone has a right to something that requires someone else to fulfill the obligation and I’m pretty sure that taking a human life, in whatever stage of development, is not a right in any sense of the word as I understand it.
It seems to me that all those examples of rights are disingenuous. They are actually a trampling of the fundamental rights we all enjoy. The right to the quiet enjoyment of the fruits of our labor, the right to associate with whomever we please and the complimentary right of non-association, the right to life and the right to free speech. None of the superficial rights so many people feel they deserve can be granted without over-ruling the fundamental rights a well-developed society should enjoy.
I’ve decided that it is my duty to strenuously resist those people who mis-represent their motivations. I would hope that all lovers of liberty would do the same.
The latest news on the environmental regulation front is that the average household’s energy costs will increase by 40 to 60 percent by 2014 as a result of EPA environmental regulation.
These rates will “necessarily skyrocket” in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions caused by coal-fired generating plants.
We’ve been told that greenhouse gas emissions are the leading cause of Anthropogenic Global Warming and that anyone would have to be a total flat-earther to deny the threat. Wouldn’t they?
Well, maybe not. Even though we are currently producing greenhouse gas faster than we previously expected, the planet doesn’t seem to be warming as all the models predict. As a matter of fact, the planet hasn’t warmed at all during the past decade, even though we continue to spew greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at higher levels than ever before.
I think there must be something else behind our insistence on rationing energy through governmental interference. Maybe we should be looking at who benefits from this manipulation.
There’s been a bit of an uproar in the media the last few days about Sarah Palin’s remarks that “Paul Revere warned the British” by “ringing those bells.” (Consider this from the New York Daily News.)
The ridicule and derision they, along with the left-wing blogosphere, have put her through is completely understandable. You see, the Henry Wadsworth Longfellow poem doesn’t mention warning the British or the ringing of bells. Seemingly, if it’s not in the poem it cannot be part of the historical record.
How could she be so stupid about such a significant event in our history?
If you were to look at her comments in their entirety, and compare them to the historical record, another possibility emerges, that her words were correct.
What she actually said about Paul Revere:
“And, you know, he who warned the British that they weren’t gonna be takin’ away our arms by ringing those bells and making sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free.”
Now, compare this to the historical record which shows that months before his most famous ride, Revere took part in the “Powder Alarms” whereby American patriots devised an early warning system consisting of lanterns, bells and gunshots to warn neighboring towns that British troops were en route to seize their gunpowder, in order to deny the use of arms by potential rebels. Once activated, gunpowder would be liberated from armories and hidden for the patriot’s later use.
This system was so effective, the British tried to quarantine Boston in hopes of preventing its activation. Revere acted as one of the organizers of the warning system and acted as a courier during it’s usage, well before his famous “midnight ride”.
Judging from the media’s reaction to her comments, I’d suggest that “journalists” add a few American History courses to their English major curriculum. Perhaps then, they wouldn’t look so foolish.
As the Memorial Day weekend comes to a close, I think it’s fitting to share Ronald Reagan’s remarks at Arlington National Cemetery on May 26th, 1986:
Today is the day we put aside to remember fallen heroes and to pray that no heroes will ever have to die for us again. It’s a day of thanks for the valor of others, a day to remember the splendor of America and those of her children who rest in this cemetery and others. It’s a day to be with the family and remember.
I was thinking this morning that across the country children and their parents will be going to the town parade and the young ones will sit on the sidewalks and wave their flags as the band goes by. Later, maybe, they’ll have a cookout or a day at the beach. And that’s good, because today is a day to be with the family and to remember.
Arlington, this place of so many memories, is a fitting place for some remembering. So many wonderful men and women rest here, men and women who led colorful, vivid, and passionate lives. There are the greats of the military: Bull Halsey and the Admirals Leahy, father and son; Black Jack Pershing; and the GI’s general, Omar Bradley. Great men all, military men. But there are others here known for other things.
Here in Arlington rests a sharecropper’s son who became a hero to a lonely people. Joe Louis came from nowhere, but he knew how to fight. And he galvanized a nation in the days after Pearl Harbor when he put on the uniform of his country and said, “I know we’ll win because we’re on God’s side.” Audie Murphy is here, Audie Murphy of the wild, wild courage. For what else would you call it when a man bounds to the top of a disabled tank, stops an enemy advance, saves lives, and rallies his men, and all of it single-handedly. When he radioed for artillery support and was asked how close the enemy was to his position, he said, “Wait a minute and I’ll let you speak to them.” [Laughter]
Michael Smith is here, and Dick Scobee, both of the space shuttle Challenger. Their courage wasn’t wild, but thoughtful, the mature and measured courage of career professionals who took prudent risks for great reward—in their case, to advance the sum total of knowledge in the world. They’re only the latest to rest here; they join other great explorers with names like Grissom and Chaffee.
Oliver Wendell Holmes is here, the great jurist and fighter for the right. A poet searching for an image of true majesty could not rest until he seized on “Holmes dissenting in a sordid age.” Young Holmes served in the Civil War. He might have been thinking of the crosses and stars of Arlington when he wrote: “At the grave of a hero we end, not with sorrow at the inevitable loss, but with the contagion of his courage; and with a kind of desperate joy we go back to the fight.”
All of these men were different, but they shared this in common: They loved America very much. There was nothing they wouldn’t do for her. And they loved with the sureness of the young. It’s hard not to think of the young in a place like this, for it’s the young who do the fighting and dying when a peace fails and a war begins. Not far from here is the statue of the three servicemen—the three fighting boys of Vietnam. It, too, has majesty and more. Perhaps you’ve seen it—three rough boys walking together, looking ahead with a steady gaze. There’s something wounded about them, a kind of resigned toughness. But there’s an unexpected tenderness, too. At first you don’t really notice, but then you see it. The three are touching each other, as if they’re supporting each other, helping each other on.
I know that many veterans of Vietnam will gather today, some of them perhaps by the wall. And they’re still helping each other on. They were quite a group, the boys of Vietnam—boys who fought a terrible and vicious war without enough support from home, boys who were dodging bullets while we debated the efficacy of the battle. It was often our poor who fought in that war; it was the unpampered boys of the working class who picked up the rifles and went on the march. They learned not to rely on us; they learned to rely on each other. And they were special in another way: They chose to be faithful. They chose to reject the fashionable skepticism of their time. They chose to believe and answer the call of duty. They had the wild, wild courage of youth. They seized certainty from the heart of an ambivalent age; they stood for something.
And we owe them something, those boys. We owe them first a promise: That just as they did not forget their missing comrades, neither, ever, will we. And there are other promises. We must always remember that peace is a fragile thing that needs constant vigilance. We owe them a promise to look at the world with a steady gaze and, perhaps, a resigned toughness, knowing that we have adversaries in the world and challenges and the only way to meet them and maintain the peace is by staying strong.
That, of course, is the lesson of this century, a lesson learned in the Sudetenland, in Poland, in Hungary, in Czechoslovakia, in Cambodia. If we really care about peace, we must stay strong. If we really care about peace, we must, through our strength, demonstrate our unwillingness to accept an ending of the peace. We must be strong enough to create peace where it does not exist and strong enough to protect it where it does. That’s the lesson of this century and, I think, of this day. And that’s all I wanted to say. The rest of my contribution is to leave this great place to its peace, a peace it has earned.
Thank all of you, and God bless you, and have a day full of memories.
![]()
Yesterday, President Obama signed the guest book at Westminster Abbey. As you can see above, his date was a little off. Three years off!
I can only assume that since he’s trying to mend broken fences with this tour of England, he subconsciously reverted to a period just before he began snubbing the country at every opportunity. Or maybe he’s just reliving his glory years, everybody loved him in 2008. But that was before he had a record to stand behind.
At any rate, I still gotta wonder, just what was he thinking?
Anthropogenic Global Warming has been a hot button topic over the past several years. The concept, as “settled science”, has been a major factor in the worlds political climate, the regulatory structure of many countries, as well as being the subject of much debate within the academic and scientific communities.
Over time, some former AGW alarmists have begun to change their positions on the issue. David Evans, a former full-time consultant for the Australian Department of Climate Change from 1999 to 2005, who modeled Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products, is the latest scientist to discount the affect of carbon dioxide on our climate.
“The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was once on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic…
The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.”
Evans says that he understands that CO2 is indeed a “greenhouse gas” and if all things were equal then more CO2 in the air would mean a warmer planet. He asserts that the science goes wrong when it fails to account for the planets reaction to that increased CO2 in favor of computer models which have been proven false.
“The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas.”
He says that the official climate models are based upon the premise that the extra moist air would amplify the level of warming by a factor of three, while carbon dioxide accounted for one third of their projections.
“That’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements and misunderstandings spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism….
Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.”
Most of our recent cap & tax initiatives, investment in green energy, demonization of carbon based energy production, and our enhanced regulatory environment is based upon this flawed climate model and the results it predicts.
We’ve had every reason to doubt it since the mid 1990′s. I wonder what makes us continue on that path?
According to Reuters:
“A stash of pornography was found in the hideout of Osama bin Laden by the U.S. Commandos who killed him, current and former U.S. officials said on Friday.”
Odd, I thought that was one of the things Muslim extremists pointed out as proof of western decadence.
I’m sort of hard pressed trying to imagine what would constitute “jihad porn”. I can only assume it’s something along the lines of “Bare Kneecaps” or “Hot Elbows” or maybe even “Bellybutton Unplugged”.
Who knows? And better yet, who cares?