theodore M I R A L D I mpa ... editor, publisher, writer. katherine molé mfa ... art director

Sunday, November 30, 2014

Democrats try to figure out what went wrong

'We don't need a new Coke formula – we've been peddling Tab'
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. and President Barack Obama in happier times

WASHINGTON – Democrats surveying the wreckage of their midterm election disaster are trying to figure out what went wrong, and the question largely has been: Is it the message or the messenger?
Democrats have rarely shown a lack of confidence in their message, or policies, finding the problem instead to be one of marketing. Democrats lack an effective “national advertising campaign,” said former President Bill Clinton after the election.
But some Democrats are beginning to question the message itself, wondering if they have the right policy priorities, with Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and southern Democrats showing particular concern their party has suffered for not making the economy its top priority.
Schumer even explicitly said Democrats need to focus on policies that are “more than just messaging bills.”
As WND reported, much of the criticism from leftists before the election had been directed at the leadership style of the top Democrat, President Obama, who has a reputation among even some of his own supporters for aloofness and finger-pointing.
Among the criticisms:
  • Tina Brown, former Newsweek Editor: “Obama’s like that guy in the corner office who’s too cool for school, calls a meeting, says this has to change, doesn’t put anything in place to make sure it does change. Then it goes wrong, and he’s blaming everybody.”
  • Leon Panetta, former CIA director and defense secretary: “Too often, in my view, the president relies on the logic of the law professor rather than the passion of a leader.”
  • Paul Begala, Democrat strategist: “This is Politics 101: Always make it about the voters, not about yourself … I don’t understand it. It was an unforced error at a time we can ill afford them” (after Obama claimed the election was a referendum on his policies).
  • Pat Cadell, Democrat pollster: “Our president is so disengaged. I mean, it’s all pizza and, you know, pool and political cash. He has checked out as being president, as a leader.”
  • Bob Just, Democrat activist and talk-show host: “It may be that President Obama’s disastrous leadership will be the wake-up call we needed to realize the wrong people are running our party.”
But the Democrats’ self-criticism may be shifting from style to substance.
As WND reported last week, a number of Democrats thought it was a bad idea for the president to grant amnesty to an estimated five million illegal immigrants without the consent of Congress. Among the Democrat lawmakers who felt Congress should have had a hand in constructing immigration policy through the legislative process were: Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.V.; Claire McCaskill, D-Mo.; Heidi Heitkanp, D-N.D.; Jon Tester, D-Mont.; Tom Carper, D-Del.; and Al Franken, D-Minn.
But the greatest introspection appears to be coming from those who believe Democrats have erred in not making the economy their top policy priority.
Clinton campaign strategist James Carville famously warned his staff in 1992, “It’s the economy, stupid,” and now, more Democrats seem to be harkening back to that advice to put the priority on pocketbooks.
Schumer set off a bit of a firestorm among party faithful on Monday when he said in a speech to the National Press Club that Democrats made a mistake in 2010 by passing Obamacare instead of focusing more on improving the economy.
The 2008 election gave Democrats control of both the White House and Congress and the freedom to pass virtually any legislation they desired, but, Schumer regretted, “We took their (voters’) mandate and put all our focus on the wrong problem – health care reform.”
Schumer supports Obamacare, “But it wasn’t the change we were hired to make” in 2008.
Some infuriated Democrats shot back that they had, in fact, addressed the economy first, by passing a $787 stimulus program over a GOP filibuster.
But even Obama admitted last month it was, “[I]ndisputable that millions of Americans don’t yet feel enough of the benefits of a growing economy where it matters most – and that’s in their own lives.”
Many economists say, while the recovery has been good for Wall Street, it has not come to Main Street. They blame that on the proliferation of part-time jobs, stagnant wages and an actual drop in the median income of U.S. household over five years of supposed recovery.
According to a U.S. Census Bureau report issued in September, the household median income was $51,900 in 2013. That’s eight percent lower than in 2007, the year before the recession began, and would appear to go a long way toward explaining why millions of Americans “don’t yet feel enough of the benefits of a growing economy.”
And now, Southern Democrats are joining Schumer and those who say the party has veered off course by ignoring the economy.
“We don’t need a new Coke formula,” Mississippi Democratic Party Chairman Rickey Cole told the Associated Press. “The problem is, we’ve been out there trying to peddle Tab and RC Cola.”
Cole said, particularly in the South, identity issues do not play well. The party’s emphasis on such issues as gay rights, minority voting rights, women’s rights and immigration does not resonate with voters there.
“Those people who don’t see themselves in those groups say, ‘What have the Democrats got for me?’” he observed.
Georgia state Sen. Vincent Ford lamented, “No real economic message got through.”
And, Louisiana state Sen. J.P. Morrell, explained, “You have to articulate why the economic policies we advocate as Democrats actually benefit people on the ground.”
Finding that economic message may prove tricky, especially now that voters have given control of the congressional purse strings to the GOP.
Republicans largely favor reducing regulations, lowering taxes and cutting spending to stimulate economic growth, whereas Schumer offered raising the minimum wage, adding more pro-union labor laws and signing trade agreements.
Whether the Democrats’ problem is the message or the messenger, the party’s disarray has been increasingly on public display and their ire has tended to focus on the man at the top, the president.
Last month, WND published a list of more than 40 prominent Democrats and other leftists who had very publicly expressed everything from outrage to irritation with Obama.
And now, it appears the president’s own right-hand man can be added to that list of those he has upset.
Aides to Vice President Joseph Biden leaked word to the press on Monday that he was “ticked off” by the humiliating way Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel was forced to resign after less than two years on the job.
An administration official told Politico that Biden scowled as he received the news in the State Dining Room.
Biden is widely believed to be considering a run for president in 2016.


Louis Farrakhan calls for violence to 'tear' country apart

While speaking at Morgan State University, a black college in Baltimore, Maryland, Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islamcalled for violence when he said Saturday that if protesters demands aren't met, “we’ll tear this (expletive deleted) country apart!” He also claimed violence is justified because the grand jury chose not to indict Darren Wilson.

“We going to die anyway (sic)," he told the crowd. "Let’s die for something.”
Farrakhan, however, wasn't finished. He instructed parents to teach their children how to throwMolotov cocktails. “Teach your baby how to throw the bottle if they can. Fight,” he added. He imitated throwing the explosive device after making his comments, Scott Greer said.
According to Farrakhan, white people -- who he classifies as "the enemy" -- will only listen if blacks rise up in violence. He also claimed violence is justified by a “law of retaliation” he claims is in both the Bible and the Koran.
“In this book, there’s a law for retaliation,” he said, holding what appeared to be the NOI version of the Koran. “A law for retaliation," he repeated.
“As long as they kill us and go to Wendy’s and have a burger and go to sleep, they’ll keep killing us,” he said. “But when we die and they die, then soon we’re going to sit at a table and talk about it! We’re tired! We want some of this earth or we’ll tear this (expletive deleted) country up!” The crowd reacted with wild applause and cheers.
Farrakhan also criticized black religious leaders, the Obama administration and Attorney General Eric Holder for engaging in what he called "compromise." In his view, the administration is doing the bidding of white people by telling protesters to stay calm.
“Tonight in Ferguson everybody is on edge. White folks have never been on edge after they killed a black man. Tonight they’re on edge; so on edge that our president has come out from behind the curtain to ask young Black people: ‘Cool it. That’s not our way.’” he said. “I heard you, Mr. President; and I asked myself a question: What brings you out of the shadows?”
"And you preachers," he added. "Your day of being the pacifier for the white man’s tyranny upon black people, you got to know they’re not going to hear you anymore,” he continued.
Since the grand jury decided not to indict Darren Wilson, the officer who shot Michael Brown, supporters have called for genocide of white people and others have demanded that Wilson be murdered. The radical Islamist group ISIS has also offered to send fighters if protesters accept Islam and pledge loyalty to its leader. As we reported Saturday, Ferguson protesters let it be known the real goal is a Communist revolution.
Wilson, the St. Louis Post Dispatch said, has resigned his position with the Ferguson Police Department. "It was my hope to continue in police work, but the safety of other police officers and the community are of paramount importance to me," he said in his resignation letter. "It is my hope that my resignation will allow the community to heal." It seems, however, that for some, healing will only come about through violence and revolution. Video of Farrakhan's comments can be seen above.

U.S. CEOs threaten to revolt Obamacare support

By Sharon Begley

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Leading U.S. CEOs, angered by the Obama administration's challenge to certain "workplace wellness" programs, are threatening to side with anti-Obamacare forces unless the government backs off, according to people familiar with the matter.
Major U.S. corporations have broadly supported President Barack Obama's healthcare reform despite concerns over several of its elements, largely because it included provisions encouraging the wellness programs.
The programs aim to control healthcare costs by reducing smoking, obesity, hypertension and other risk factors that can lead to expensive illnesses. A bipartisan provision in the 2010 healthcare reform law allows employers to reward workers who participate and penalize those who don't.
But recent lawsuits filed by the administration's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), challenging the programs at Honeywell International and two smaller companies, have thrown the future of that part of Obamacare into doubt.
The lawsuits infuriated some large employers so much that they are considering aligning themselves with Obama's opponents, according to people familiar with the executives' thinking.
"The fact that the EEOC sued is shocking to our members," said Maria Ghazal, vice-president and counsel at the Business Roundtable, a group of chief executives of more than 200 large U.S. corporations. "They don't understand why a plan in compliance with the ACA (Affordable Care Act) is the target of a lawsuit," she said. "This is a major issue to our members."
"There have been conversations at the most senior levels of the administration about this," she added.
Business Roundtable members are due to meet Obama in a closed-door session on Tuesday, where they may air their concerns.
It is not clear how many members of the group, whose companies sponsor health insurance for 40 million people, are considering any action. It is also not clear if the White House can stop the EEOC from challenging wellness programs.
A threat of a corporate backlash comes at a time when Obama faces criticism even from his Democrats' ranks that he had devoted too much political capital to healthcare reform.
Such action could take the form of radical changes in health benefits that employers offer. It could also mean supporting a potentially game-changing challenge to Obamacare at the Supreme Court next year and expected Republican efforts to eviscerate the law when they take control of Congress in 2015.
Obamacare allows financial incentives for workers taking part in workplace wellness programs of up to 50 percent of their monthly premiums, deductibles, and other costs. That translates into hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars in extra annual costs for those who do not participate.
Typically, participation means filling out detailed health questionnaires, undergoing medical screenings, and in some cases attending weight-loss or smoking-cessation programs.
One of the arguments presented in the lawsuit against three employers is that requiring medical testing violates the Americans with Disabilities Act.
That 1990 law, according to employment-law attorney Joseph Lazzarotti of Jackson Lewis P.C. in Morristown, N.J., largely prohibits requiring medical tests as part of employment.
"You can't make medical inquiries unless it's consistent with job-necessity, or part of a voluntary wellness program," he said.
The lawsuits are based on the view that it is no longer voluntary if employees face up to $4,000 in penalties for non-participation, loss of insurance or even their jobs.
Employers, however, see the lawsuits as reneging on the administration's commitment to an important part of the healthcare reform.
On Nov. 14, Roundtable president John Engler sent a letter to the Labor, Treasury and Health and Human Services cabinet secretaries who oversee Obamacare asking them to "thwart all future inappropriate actions against employers who are complying with" the law's wellness rules, and warning of "a chilling effect across the country."
Asked for a response to the letter, an administration official told Reuters that it supported workplace health promotion and prevention "while ensuring that individuals are protected from unfair underwriting practices that could otherwise reduce benefits based on health status."
In practical terms, large corporations have several ways to undermine Obamacare if they decide to.
One is to support legal challenges to the subsidies given to low-income individuals who buy health insurance on the federal exchange established under the law. Neither the Business Roundtable nor any of its CEO members have done this so far. The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments in the case in 2015.
Another option is to make top executives available for hearings on repealing or diluting Obamacare. "We never did this before," said the person familiar with the executives' thinking. "But they could turn up the noise. I don't think the White House would want the CEOs turning on them and supporting these efforts on the Hill."
The nuclear option would be to radically change employer-sponsored health insurance. Large corporations are highly unlikely to eliminate it, but they might give workers a fixed amount of money to buy coverage on a private insurance exchange. That would allow employers, almost all of which pay workers' medical claims out of their earnings, to cap their healthcare spending.
(Reporting by Sharon Begley; Editing by Michele Gershberg and Tomasz Janowski)

‘I,’ ‘Me,’ ‘My’—Obama Uses First Person Singular 91 Times in Speech on Immigration

President Barack Obama in Chicago
President Barack Obama speaking on immigration in Chicago on Nov. 25, 2014. (AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast)

By Terence P. Jeffrey

Leaving aside passages in which he quoted a Chicago pub owner and a letter from a citizen from Georgia, President Barack Obama used the first person singular—including the pronouns “I” and “me” and the adjective “my”—91 times in a speech he delivered in Chicago Tuesday to explain his unilateral action on immigration.
But as often as Obama used “I,” “me” and “my” in Chicago this week, it was no match for the speech he delivered in Austin, Texas, on July 10, when he used the first person singular 199 times.
In that Texas speech, however, Obama had not focused specifically on immigration policy. In that speech, Obama had explained his intention to act unilaterally wherever he could.
“It is lonely, me just doing stuff,” Obama said then.
“I don’t have to run for office again, so I can just let her rip,” he said.
On Tuesday, in Chicago, Obama said: “This isn’t amnesty, or legalization, or even a pathway to citizenship--because that's not something I can do.”
The number of times he resorted to the first person singular was significantly expanded by his decision to engage a group of hecklers in the crowd, who apparently did not believe he had gone far enough in his unilateral actions on immigration.
“I understand,” Obama told the hecklers, according to the White House transcript and video posted by C-SPAN.
“Here, can I just say this?” Obama said. “All right, I've listened to you.  I heard you.  I heard you. I heard you.  All right?  Now, I've been respectful.  I let you holler.  So let me--all right?  Nobody is removing you.  I've heard you.  But you’ve got to listen to me, too.”
“But what you're not paying attention to is the fact that I just took action to change the law,” Obama boasted to the hecklers.
“Some have said it was a mistake for me to act. But then others remind me why I had to,” Obama said later.
“The day I sign a comprehensive immigration bill into law, then the actions I take will no longer be necessary,” he said. “But in the meantime, I'm going to do what I can to make this system work better.”
Obama’s speech, according to the White House transcript, was approximately 4,200 words and lasted 33 minutes. That means that on average Obama used the first person singular every 46 words—or every 22 seconds.
President Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, in which he presented his understanding of the moral significance of the Civil War, was only 696 words long. In that speech, Lincoln used the first person singular once.

Republicans should query Obama in public

President Obama tries to quiet hecklers as he addresses the crowd after meeting with community leaders about his executive actions on amnesty Tuesday, Nov. 25, 2014, in Chicago. (AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast)

President Obama tries to quiet hecklers as he addresses the crowd after meeting with community leaders about his executive actions on amnesty Tuesday, Nov. 25, 2014, in Chicago. (AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast)

By Judson Phillips

There is one question the Republicans will not ask.
They should.
What is the question?
Whose side is Barack Obama on?
The left loves to scream anytime real Americans question their patriotism. As Ann Coulter has pointed out, patriotism is not something that cannot be measured or judged. It can be.
It is plainly obvious Mr. Obama is not on the side of real Americans and it is long past time that the Republicans start calling him on this.
Shortly after the election, the Republicans in Congress began working with the Democrats in Congress to resolve a bill that is known in Washington as the “Tax Extender” package. A compromise was in the works so that this bill that allows tax breaks for businesses and special interests could be completed and presented to the White House.
Mr. Obama objected to provisions the Republicans wanted that would prevent illegal aliens from receiving the Earned Income Tax Credit. The EITC is given to taxpayers whose income falls below a certain level. It is a welfare program.
But Mr. Obama had just granted illegal aliens executive amnesty and he demanded that they be allowed to take advantage of the EITC, which would cost real Americans billions of dollars. When the GOP balked at this, Mr. Obama scuttled the deal.
Mr. Obama’s priorities were illegal aliens over real Americans.
At the same time, the Pentagon announced even more terrorists would be released from the U.S. prison in Guantanamo, Cuba. These prisoners are not being released because the threat from radical Islam is over. They are not being released because they are repentant and rehabilitated.
These prisoners are simply being released because Mr. Obama cheers for the enemy and not for real Americans.
According to Sen. John McCain, 30 percent of the Guantanamo detainees released have returned to the battlefield. That should make Americans feel much better. Radical Islamists want to kill Americans and Mr. Obama wants to release some of the most dangerous ones.
The list of Mr. Obama’s actions that go against America and real Americans is almost endless. Is there a single action he has taken that can even be argued to be something to help America? Even his recent “green house gas” agreement with China is a joke. The agreement says America will destroy its economy with insane environmental regulation while China has 15 years to think about whether it will do anything.
Republicans saying anything.
In 2014, the Republican candidates for the Senate and the House for the most part ran content-free campaigns. Their motto seemed to be, “We suck less than they do!”
The GOP won thanks to a combination of good political demographics and a nation that was totally fed up with the Party of Treason. And what has the Republican Party doing since then?
Gone totally silent. Does the GOP have a plan for 2015 and 2016? If there is one, it would certainly be nice for them to tell us what it is. More importantly, Republicans are violating the first rule of politics. The first rule of politics is you define your opponent. You never let your opponent define you.
Republicans have an incredible opportunity. Most Americans are real Americans. They love their country and want to see this nation remain the greatest, freest nation on the planet.
That clearly is not Mr. Obama’s ambition for America.
So why don’t Republicans have the courage to point out that everything Mr. Obama does he does because he hates this nation?

Where a Liberal Thinks Abortion a Happy Ending

John Ransom

JimScott wrote:“God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life,”In the Italian Pope Francis said "demiurgo" which looks to me like "demiurge". So this should read "God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life".Yeh message to this sad misguided wannabe NYT reporter (i.e John Ransom) the Gnostic heretics of old believed in two gods the "good" god of the New Testament and the evil lesser god of the Old (i.e demiurge).-- --Can the Pope Shut Up Too?
Dear Comrade Scott,
I'll take a lot of criticism, but calling me a "wannabe NYT reporter"?
That's really low, even for a liberal. Talk about hate speech.
Once again in typical liberal fashion you are anxious to display that you, the Liberal, are an expert on everything while conservatives can’t even use a dictionary. That’s fine if you can back it up, but as Reagan said the problem with liberals is that they know so much that’s just not true.
The various wire service reports that came out on this story were based on an English translation that was provided by the Vatican Press office itself. Someone from the Vatican, who works for the pope-- likely a native Italian-- decided to translate the word "demiurgo" into the English phrase “divine being.”
So you can rap me with not understanding, but that’s because you know so much that upon closer inspection just isn’t true.
Can’t blame you: You’re a liberal.
Ah, but that’s not all.
Because Francis also said that God couldn’t just do whatever he wanted, like a magician with a magic wand.
"When we read about Creation in Genesis,” said Francis, “we run the risk of imagining God as a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so.”
Again, I don’t know if Francis, who gave this speech in Italian, and is not a native Italian speaker, doesn’t understand the subtleties of verbs in Italian and meant to say something else. But I do know that when you say God is not able to anything he wants that by definition you are limiting his power, that is his divinity.
So yeah: I think the pope ought to sit in the corner and be quiet for a little while rather than having to issue clarifications on what he meant. This isn’t the first time under this pope where he’s been misunderstood either deliberately or on accident.
Just months ago the Vatican had to retract an English translation of a report that dealt with welcoming gay people into the church:
In the English translation provided by the Vatican, this is rendered as: “Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?”
The key word “valutando,” which has sparked controversy within the Church, was translated by the Vatican as “valuing.”
Italian's “valutando” in fact means “evaluating,” and in this context would be better translated with “weighing” or “considering.”
While that’s true apparently—I’m not conversant in Italian-- one wonders how such important statements by the church can be released without someone in charge actually verifying the original intent of the language.
All the more reason for Francis to shut up right now.
IsraelFirsterSecond wrote: applaud you, John, for starting to wake up to the lie that is Catholicism. Get ye to a non denominational church asap!! --Can the Pope Shut Up Too?
Dear Comrade Firster,
Screw off.
I mean that in the original English translation of the phrase too.
It’s bad enough that I have deal with the intolerance of atheists, but I don’t have to put up with your bigotry.
Of all the organizations in the world, the Catholic Church has been one of the most long-lasting, civilization-building and unchanging. It will survive for a long time after we are gone. It represents, as do Christian faiths everywhere, the one immutable truth of creation.
We are not prefect, yet we can be saved.
Yes, even you can.
ericynot1 wrote: The most fascinating aspect of the Republican Party is its cannibalistic nature. - From the Great Emancipator to the Mental Masturbator
Dear Comrade Y,
Republicans are no more cannibalistic than other parties.
There is a difference though: In the GOP we have lively debate. Democrats are always after settled science, and want to shout everyone down.
The most appalling example of that was when the media showed such obvious bias to toward Obama when debating Hillary Clinton. A national disgrace that would be noteworthy but for the continuing disgrace the media represents.
They have been making new lows ever since.
I think the most fascinating aspect of the GOP is how relevant conservative ideology is today as technology takes a bigger, more important place in the world.
Democrats are trying to deny people freedom at the very time that technology allows them to have unparalleled access to information. Instead Democrats are turning technology into an instrument of slavery and oppression by the use of data snooping, the IRS, drones and the usually appurtenances of those looking to deny justice.
The GOP, like it or not, is the most obvious candidate to successfully rally liberty lovers.
trufare wrote: If anybody plays with themselves, it's Ransom. Just look at his pathetic right wing face and you know he isn't getting any from the opposing team. - From the Great Emancipator to the Mental Masturbator
Dear Comrade Fare,
One question: As a liberal do you even know who the opposing team is anymore? Think about it.
sclaus wrote: This column is disgusting and obscene. Easy to see why Anne Coulter doesn't want to be associated with Town Hall any longer. - From the Great Emancipator to the Mental Masturbator
Dear Comrade Evil Claus,
I didn’t know you and Ms. Coulter were so close.
But I will observe that disgusting and obscene is what liberals do best.
I know, I know: You’re offended that I didn’t throw in an abortion or two at the end to give it a happy ending you’d approve off.
mdibrezzo wrote: This column and web site is largely unworkable, unacceptable and worthless, just another part of the problem like the Republican Party. America is gone the contract abandoned, the trust betrayed. Save yourself and your family as best you can. You owe no larger loyalty other than those you yourself choose to affirm going forward. Over and out. - From the Great Emancipator to the Mental Masturbator
Dear Comrade Brezzo,
Medication can be adjusted. Do not stop any medication abruptly as discontinuation could bring unwanted side effects like tremor, delusions, hallucinations, liberal thought patterns, hot dog finger, sudden gender confusion, manscaping, zombie voting, inability to take criticism, Palin derangement syndrome, historical revisionism. These or other side effects should be considered serious and should not be combined with radical theories of constitutional law.
charlesmartel1 wrote: Coarsening the dialogue with a headline like that does not advance anyone's cause. I didn't bother to read the article. - From the Great Emancipator to the Mental Masturbator
Dear Comrade Charles,
That’s too bad Charles because I mentioned you very favorably in the article.
svirk wrote: Ransom: "Anyway, casualties by the American military are a pittance to what Muslims do to each other." First, Americans are responsible for a million deaths in Iraq in the last quarter century. That is not a pittance. However, even if Ransom is so evil that he imagines the deaths of tens of thousands or a few hundred thousand innocent Muslims is no big deal his comment is still cruel, barbaric and false.Could I say:Anyway, casualties by police shootings of innocent Black men are a pittance to what Black men do to each other.
or perhaps. Anyway, casualties by Muslims killing innocent Americans are a pittance to what Americans do to each other. Killing innocent people and then dismissing it in such a manner is pure evil. - Yankee Go Home
Dear Comrade Virk,
Once again you, the Liberal, are making false accusations.
There is no way that I’m pure evil. The FDA would be very upset if they knew you were going around falsely labeling me like that.
I might be “mostly” evil or have “more artificial evil than the leading brand,” but to say I’m pure evil isn’t just technically incorrect. It’s a violation of Michelle Obama’s new law about product labeling.
Hopefully this comment will help teach you a thing or two about undermining a duly inscribed law promulgated by our First Lady.
sclaus wrote: Too many dead conservatives ignored
smoking/lung-cancer scientific reports - Cool the World by Firing Fake Scientists
Dear Evil Claus,
Maybe you should tell Obama not to smoke then.
dhensley813 wrote: When the World Bank takes global warming seriously, that's wrong because they aren't scientists...or so our author says.When insurance companies demand much higher premiums for coverage against heat waves, and offer discounts on insurance against cold snaps, that means that they think the scientists may be on to something. Not that they shouldn't meddle in matters best left to scientists. - Cool the World by Firing Fake Scientists
Dear Comrade Hensley,
When insurance companies do anything it’s motivated by profit and loss. If they are embracing “Climate Change” it’s likely they have found a way to charge premiums while not paying claims. Sounds like the perfect insurance related scam.
Of course the only organization stupid enough to insure crops against drought is the federal government. They provide subsidies for over 60 percent of the premiums farmers pay.And then pay the overage if losses exceed premiums.
Mendicatn wrote: This article is a good example of why non-scientists should listen to the scientists. They are far from perfect. But their theories and experiments for better or worse, formed the modern world whose benefits created our modern civilization.
Below is a clip from an article appearing on the website.
"A surge of Arctic air has left much of the continental U.S. shivering in unusually bitter November cold. But this early foray into winter weather is just a small blip in the overall global picture, which is of a warming world that is still on track to see 2014 set the mark for hottest year on record, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Thursday.” - Cool the World by Firing Fake Scientists
Dear Comrade Mendican’t,
The world stopped warming 19 years ago.
Plus, saying any year is the warmest ever on record doesn’t mean much when you have only been keeping records for 100 years.
I’m sure that the satellites they had 100 years ago for compiling temperatures were calibrated in the same manner as today’s more modern satellites.
Here’s the deal, based on this “science” the UN met in 2010 and agreed to cap the amount of warming at 2 degrees Celsius.When you explain to me scientifically how the hell they are going to do that when they don’t even know why the earth stopped warming, then I’ll be ready to follow the scientists.
chrisr wrote: Too dumb for words. He is totally clueless.- Cool the World by Firing Fake Scientists
Dear Comrade Chris,
I take that as a declarative statement. You are too dumb for words, true.
And I am totally clueless as to how a science that has clearly no predictive model can claim to control the weather.
That’s it for this week,