Climategate

After the recent exposure of the communications between several climate propagandists, many people are starting to realize that the wool has been pulled over their eyes for sometime now. Many of us have been shouting from the roof tops what a fraud this whole scandal is, but now we will see the religious fervor that motivates the so called science of climate change. Environmentalists are going to become overt apologetics for there false position and become extremely defensive. They will seek to divert and cover up what has been exposed as they try to maintain the sanctity of the religion of science and the creed of environmentalism.

Gerald Warner wrote an article in the Telegraph this week called "Climategate e-mails sweep America, may scuttle Barack Obama's Cap and Trade laws" in which he said the following:

At this rate, Copenhagen is going to turn into a comedy convention with the real world laughing at these liars. Now is the time to mount massive resistance to the petty tyrants and hit them where it hurts – in the wallet. Further down the line there may be, in many countries, a question of criminal prosecution of anybody who has falsified data to secure funds and impose potentially disastrous fiscal restraints on the world in deference to a massive hoax. It’s a new world out there, Al, and, as you may have noticed, the climate is very cold indeed.

Very cold in deed. At least the secularist is learning the vernacular of those who believe in God. They will soon be expressing the need for hope, faith, belief, sacrifice, and other terms that have been incompatible with the scientific method; but as they have found a golden calf to worship and an alter to kneel at they have clearly abandoned reason and rational thought — the longstanding cornerstones of science. Hopefully this will serve the purpose of opening the minds of those beholden to reason to the acceptance of those things which may only be understood through the spirit — something those with faith in God have understood since the days of Adam (even longer-standing). I won't hold my breath, but I wouldn't be exhaling carbon if I did...

Stand Up for What you Think

Where I Stand

The link above is to an application that asks you to take a stand on what you think and believe. Where I Stand covers all sorts of questions and issues affecting our country (as well as silly questions that don't matter). Our freedom gives us the right to have an opinion, speak out, and debate with others freely and openly. Where I Stand is a great platform to do this.

What about Civil Unions

Princeton Professor Robert P. George said the following in a speech entitled: On the Moral Purposes of Law and Government

Finally, there is the question of civil unions. Some politicians and others say that they are against same‐sex marriage but in favor of legal recognition of same‐sex partnerships, with all or most of the rights and responsibilities of marriage, only falling under a different rubric. If law and policy are at least to do no harm to marriage, it is critical that they avoid treating non‐marital conduct and relationships as if they were marital.

There are clear moral lines—and not merely semantic ones—between what is marital and what is not, and the law should respect them. If they are blurred or erased, the public understanding of the meaning of marriage will erode. Some of the benefits traditionally associated with marriage may legitimately be made more widely available in an effort to meet the needs of people who are financially interdependent with a person or persons to whom they are not married. Private contracts between such people should be sufficient to accomplish all or most of what they consider desirable. If, however, a jurisdiction moves in the direction of creating a formalized system of domestic partnerships, it is morally crucial that the privileges, immunities, and other benefits and responsibilities contained in the package offered to non‐married partners not be predicated on the existence or presumption of a sexual relationship between them.

Benefits should be made available to, for example, a grandparent and adult grandchild who are living together and caring for each other. The needs that domestic‐partnership schemes seek to address have nothing to do with whether the partners share a bed and what they do in it. The law should simply take no cognizance of the question of a sexual relationship. It should not, that is, treat a non‐marital sexual relationship as a public good.

I cannot add much to his articulate explanation of this idea. I would only reaffirm and restate that any particular right of relationship that is to be conferred upon two individuals should be done without regard to the type of relationship it is, and the rights of marriage should be reserved for the marriage relationship — defined as one man and one woman who enter into that blessed arrangement. Marriage should be held up in our society as a standard for all to see. Families are the fundamental unit of society and a nation of strong families requires a nation of strong marriages.

What a Disgrace

Evan Bayh of Indiana, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas are the types of politicians that give politicians a bad name.

The majority of people in the Congress who vote for left wing, ultra liberal, unconstitutional legislation are believers in the cause they support. When you hear them speak, they talk about those beliefs — sure they lie and spin and create all sorts of propaganda, but they are what they are. The people who vote them into office expect them to behave the way they do and everyone is happy.

These four Senators tell the people of Indiana, Louisiana, Nebraska, and Arkansas that they are of a different breed. They tell them they will be fiscally responsible and conservative. Then they go to Washington and march lock step with the likes of Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and Patrick Leahy.

The truth of the matter is that Saturday night anyone of these four could have voted no on the motion to proceed with debate, and in effect kill the Senate healthcare bill. But instead they all said: I do not like the bill, but we should debate it and see if we can change it into something that we can support, but we will not stand in the way and block the debate and amendment process.

The dirty little secret that many people do not understand is that in the Senate a bill requires 60 votes to move forward at this stage and 41 votes to stop it. Once the final bill is voted on it can pass with 50 votes and requires 51 votes to defeat it (the VP casts the deciding vote in the case of a tie). So all four of these Senators bought themselves time so that they can then vote against the final bill and still allow it to pass and then go back to their constituents and say that they voted against it.

This is a display of weasely politics at its best. The other disgraceful thing is that some of these people threatened to vote against the motion to proceed last week, and then after accepting political bribes they announced they would vote yes and thus keep the bill alive. Landrieu of Arkansas was bribed with 300 million dollars of Medicaid funding for her state. And thus 300 million people are sold out for a buck a piece.

Hence, they are a disgrace!

Call the Senate this Week

Say No to Reid Health Care Bill!

Call These Senators & Tell Them to Vote No on Reid’s Health Care Bill (Remember Be Polite)

 

Mary Landrieu of Louisiana

202-224-5824

Ben Nelsonof Nebraska

202-224-6551

Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas

202-224-4843

Evan Bayh of Indiana

202-224-5623

 

Letter to Senator Hatch

Senator Hatch,

I know you have come under a lot of heat for your cloture vote over the nomination of Judge David Hamilton, but I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you and your office what the reasons were for your decision. It appears from your website that you are, "working very hard to end this obstructionism, repair the broken judicial nomination process, and stop the current tyranny of the minority." Do you believe that we can end the unconstitutional filibustering of judges without the support of the other party?

Many people believe that the best way to end this practice is for the Republicans to use it against the nominees of the current administration. What are your thoughts on this?

You mention that, "a few partisan Senators have politicized the judicial confirmation process." But are you more concerned with the politicization of the process or the outcomes?

You say that judicial nominees should be evaluated based on their, "judicial temperament, integrity, intelligence, and experience," but when they are nominated and confirmed for purely political reasons as we can expect most of President Obama's nominees to be, what recourse do we have?

I fear that President Obama is going to follow in the footsteps of FDR and create a judiciary that will support and condone every unconstitutional law, regulation, program, or other act that he will put into place over the course of his tenure in office. If we are debating the constitutionality of different actions then why is filibustering unfit judges wrong, and allowing unfit judges to be seated right - especially when those judges will ultimately undermine the Constitution and set legal precedent by interpreting the Constitution in ways that it was never intended to be interpreted?

I thank you for your time and service to our country and for representing the state of Utah.

Sincerely,
Jeffrey S. Palmer

This is from Senator Hatch's website: HATCH EXPLAINS CLOTURE VOTE ON JUDGE DAVID HAMILTON

Who is David Hamilton? — Another Radical Judge

Roll Call said this: "The White House is quietly urging Senate Democrats to come up with a list of potential candidates for the federal bench, hoping to flood the pipeline with circuit and district court nominees and ratchet up the pressure on Republicans to confirm them." — Obama Looks to Move Judges

Staring Down Tyranny

President Ronald Reagan gave this speech at the Brandenburg Gate by the Berlin Wall on June 12, 1987, during the commemoration of the 750th anniversary of Berlin. Reagan told Secretary Gorbachev with unmistakable emphasis that if he truly sought peace that he would tear down the Wall.

The entire speech can be found here: The History Place. The following is the part quoted in the video above:

And now the Soviets themselves may, in a limited way, be coming to understand the importance of freedom. We hear much from Moscow about a new policy of reform and openness. Some political prisoners have been released. Certain foreign news broadcasts are no longer being jammed. Some economic enterprises have been permitted to operate with greater freedom from state control.

Are these the beginnings of profound changes in the Soviet state? Or are they token gestures, intended to raise false hopes in the West, or to strengthen the Soviet system without changing it? We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace.

General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

I understand the fear of war and the pain of division that afflict this continent-- and I pledge to you my country's efforts to help overcome these burdens. To be sure, we in the West must resist Soviet expansion. So we must maintain defenses of unassailable strength. Yet we seek peace; so we must strive to reduce arms on both sides.

Beginning 10 years ago, the Soviets challenged the Western alliance with a grave new threat, hundreds of new and more deadly SS-20 nuclear missiles, capable of striking every capital in Europe. The Western alliance responded by committing itself to a counter-deployment unless the Soviets agreed to negotiate a better solution; namely, the elimination of such weapons on both sides. For many months, the Soviets refused to bargain in earnestness. As the alliance, in turn, prepared to go forward with its counter-deployment, there were difficult days--days of protests like those during my 1982 visit to this city--and the Soviets later walked away from the table.

But through it all, the alliance held firm. And I invite those who protested then-- I invite those who protest today--to mark this fact: Because we remained strong, the Soviets came back to the table.

Reagan put the Soviets on the defensive and made them choose between liberty and tyranny. He did not back down, he did not try to appease, he did not seek popularity amongst the nay sayers; but in all of his words and actions he was bold, assertive, and confident in standing for liberty and promoting peace through strength!

Learn more about Reagan's efforts to bring down the Wall: The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Library

Full Video of Reagan's Speech:

The 11th Hour

All men who have not known freedom feel a void within themselves; and some feel a stirring in their bosom, which guides them down the dangerous path towards freedom — a path of great uncertainty and immense hope.

Men who are born free must learn the important lesson that freedom is not free and that it will be under assault every day of their life.

The waning moments of freedom are when free men feel the greatest desire for liberty.

Tyranny will cause all men who once knew freedom to shudder because they will realize that they did not do enough to stop it!

Men who are not born free will never amount to the full measure of who they would have become if they had ever tasted freedom.

Many men who are not born free will seek to overthrow tyranny, but the sad truth of history is that most will not succeed.

Live Free or Die

The motto of the state of New Hampshire is taking on a whole new meaning. All the people who champion government intervention in health care and medicine are playing the fool to the false notion that centralized authority is the best way to manage a large and complex industry. Once government seizes power over health care, which they already have to a large degree (and this just so happens to be the main source of most of the ills found in our current health care system), then people will no longer be as free as they were before; and worse yet — many will die who would not have died under our current system.

A Sad Reality

Saying that people will die under government run health care is a statement that many may consider to be extreme or fear based, but I believe that it is the logical opposite of saying that our current private health care system saves lives. Once that system is destroyed then it can no longer save lives and the people whose lives would have been saved will die. But the most fair way to look at this is issue is to ask whose lives will be saved and whose lives will be lost under each system.

In all fairness we will lose lives and save lives under both systems, but the difference will be whose lives are saved and lost and how many. We can only make educated guesses as to what would or could happen if we change our system to what is being proposed in Congress right now, but we can look at some indicators to try and estimate outcomes, but historically outcomes are ALWAYS estimated incorrectly by politicians. This leaves us in a position of great uncertainty, but oddly enough we happen to have quite a few other arguments against socialized medicine...

A Litany of Arguments

Arguing against national health care is better done on the grounds that:

1) It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Period!

2) Government never runs anything well.

3) Medicaid, Medicare, the VA, and health care on the reservations are all disasters.

4) We as a nation cannot afford it.

5) If you think you already have to fill out a lot of forms and go through red tape...you ain't seen nothin' yet!

6) Competition always yields better results - national health care eliminates competition.

7) Things are not even that bad right now to justify a complete overhaul/destruction of the current system.

8) A major shift in this large of a piece of the economy will exacerbate the current recession, create more job losses, and further crack the foundations of free market capitalism that has
served to make America such a prosperous nation.

9) Government run health care will create a massive lever by which politicians will seek to win votes and government bureaucrats will use to control and manipulate society.

10) Access to care will be greatly limited for most people.

11) Innovation, new technologies and procedures, better medications, as well as improved care and treatment methods will all be greatly stifled due to lack of incentives and government inefficiencies.

12) Many physicians will stop practicing and the best talent will no longer be attracted to the health care industry creating a shortage of specialists, doctors, nurses, and every other position in the field.

13) Legal abuse of doctors and health-care providers will escalate.

14) Laws and regulations created to solve problems will only worsen them and/or create new ones.

15) Taxes will increase so dramatically as to choke off the most enterprising and wealth/job creating parts of our society.

16) The costs of health care will rise beyond the point of sustainability or price controls will destroy any semblance of timeliness and quality.

17) People will behave even less responsibly regarding their health.

18) Centralized decision making will further worsen the problems faced in local communities.

19) Out of touch politicians will be empowered to make crucial decisions involving the care and treatment of you and your family — we see right now how they are ignoring their constituencies and the best interests of the people - do you really think that will ever change?

20) Our freedom to choose will be severely limited and the rights of the people will be infringed upon by government like never before.

This list was made off the top of my head and is most likely very incomplete, but the fact of the matter is the idea national health care can be defeated on any one of these points — what can be said about the strength of our position when we incorporate ALL of them!

What Are We Going to Do

The hour has come where we need to stand up and be counted. Every possible political tool we have in our free society must be employed to stop this monstrosity from becoming law. The following is a list of things you can do to get your message through:

• Write your representatives - HURRY


• Call them


• Email them


• Message them on Facebook or Twitter


• Go to Washington DC on Thursday


• Support the opposition


• Sponsor a rally


• Peaceful Demonstration


• Write to others and encourage them to engage


• Express your views in opinion columns and letters to the editor


• Make comments on news sites and blogs


• Donate to any kind of organization that can influence others


• Write to any organization that supports the current health-care legislation and express discontent

Power to the People

We are seeing democracy in action and we all need to exercise our rights in this matter. This nation was instituted upon the principles of liberty and freedom, the free exercise of thought and opinion, the belief that all men are created equal and should be able to live their lives how they choose. No man or woman has the right to force others in matters of how they should live their lives and use their freedom. Government health-care will take away the power of the people in a large measure and the state will dictate and mandate by force of fine and imprisonment many aspects of your life. This is something we cannot allow to happen.

To those who disagree and have not given the matter enough thought or who have personal incentive to go along with this plan that will greatly harm the rest of the nation: You are doing the wrong thing! Reconsider your position or you will live to regret it. Or maybe one day when you are old and happen to be one of the people who would have lived under our current system, you won't live to regret it!

"Live Free or Die" is the official motto of the U.S. state of New Hampshire, adopted by the state in 1945. It is possibly the best-known of all state mottos, partly because it speaks to an assertive independence historically found in American political philosophy and partly because of its contrast to the milder sentiments found in other state mottos.

The phrase comes from a toast written by General John Stark on July 31, 1809. Poor health forced Stark, New Hampshire's most famous soldier of the American Revolutionary War, to decline an invitation to an anniversary reunion of the Battle of Bennington and to send his toast by letter: "Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils."