Maybe it is wishful thinking! Harry Reid is bringing his A-game in attempt to bring a vote before Christmas. I sincerely hope the republicans can stall the vote until after the first of the year. I want the democrats to go back to their districts and have to deal with their constituents. Talk about an ear full. Plus the politicians that are up for re-election will be looking in the rear view mirror, knowing they will be in hot water with their constituents. Howard Dean, former DNC chair & medical doctor, said we should "kill the bill." Wow, that has to hurt. Ben Nelson, D-NE, said he couldn't back the bill and that the misinformation is completely untrue, that he isn't for sale. The SEIU is meeting to discuss if they should come out against this bill, because it will tax them for their Cadillac healthcare plans. Jim DeMint, R-SC, said he will have the whole bill read on the Senate floor in it's entirety. The Tea Party patriots ( me included) have had such an impact on this issue and there is more protest rallies are in the works. Of course, the polls have not been kind to the socialist democrats either, the average is 40% in favor and 56% against reform. What don't they understand, the American people do not want this type of healthcare reform. This is not what we signed up for. Does it seem the democrats are willing to pass anything, no matter how bad of a bill it is, just to make Obama look good at his State of the Union address. They are willing to destroy 1/6th of the economy just for a short lived victory. I saw the President the other day making one of his four speeches a day, threatening the American public with the federal government bankruptcy if we do not pass this reform. And he accuses the right of fear mongering? If I were the President in this predicament, I would jet off to Copenhagen, and not come back. I think the pressure is getting to President Obama and especially, Harry (Dr. Smith) Reid. Pelosi jetted of to Copenhagen right after passing the "stimulus mini me." Why does she need to go there? They have an uncanny self-importance. Of course, Nancy (SanFranGranNan) doesn't worry about her carbon footprint. We have come to a crossroad of beating down this bill. Please keep up the pressure on your representatives in the House and Senate. Let them know if they vote for this bill, we will vote them out of office. Email, call or write an old-fashioned letter. Better yet, go visit them at their office, you own part of it anyway. They work for you. Not the other way around. Be an American, exercise your civic duty. "Save the best healthcare system in the world."
Ben Nelson, I hope he means it:
Big Ben 2:
When to pull the plug on health care:
While the 2010 midterm elections are still about a year away, the two parties’ political narratives are already locked and loaded. Only the firepower of their respective messages remains in doubt. And this is where health care matters.
How the current congressional debate unfolds won’t dramatically change the Republicans’ or Democrats’ underlying rhetorical strategies next year; however, it will affect the clout of their respective messages.
Republicans will stress checks and balances in 2010. One-party rule leads to excesses, and Democrats have been on a binge. They’ve acted irresponsibly. Every major measure, including the economic stimulus, cap and trade and health care, has been done without Republican input or involvement. This dangerous experiment in one-party, partisan and ideological control must end by electing more Republicans.
Democrats, on the other hand, will return to the “change” theme. Americans elected Barack Obama as president because they wanted transformation. Tired of no progress on difficult issues such as health care and energy/environment, as well as too much coddling of greedy bankers and financiers, it was time to face tough choices and move ahead on these issues. Democrats are making progress toward this goal but need more time and even greater numbers.
Health care’s outcome will affect the caliber of these two narratives.
Passage strengthens the Democrats’ hand for several reasons. First, it underscores the change theme and validates the importance of other hard-fought legislative accomplishments. Despite tough odds and various setbacks, they triumphed. Detractors may quibble with the details or the breadth of reform, but a win is a win. Second, passage pre-empts many of the potential horror stories: health care passed, the world didn’t end and the government didn’t replace your doctor with a bureaucrat. Finally, if the bill passes without any Republican support, it reinforces the Democrats’ “the GOP is the party of no” narrative. Taken together, these three factors add accelerant to the spread of the Democrats’ message — assuming the legislation’s enactment.
Republicans’ strategy won’t change a lot either way — with or without passage of the legislation. If health care passes — and the measure remains unpopular — the GOP will point to it as another case of Democratic excess: a nearly trillion-dollar bill that won’t bend the cost curve or make health care more affordable. The measure also appears to generate a substantial amount of opposition from independent voters, a key swing bloc in November’s elections. Unless poll numbers turn around, in strictly electoral terms the legislation looks like manna from heaven for Republicans hungry for victory in 2010. If support for the bill increases after enactment, the GOP’s arguments become less salient. But that’s a bet Republicans are willing to take.
But what if it fails? GOP strategists would view this as a win, as well. They stopped a prime example of liberal excess. Republicans could claim Democrats are both dangerous and incompetent — a toxic combination for Obama’s party moving into the midterm elections. Failure also would allow Republicans to point to all the negative repercussions Americans escaped, thanks to Republicans defeating the health care measure. You can’t prove a negative, and as a result, these arguments become impossible for Democrats to refute.
Democrats must also wrestle with another problem should the reform efforts stall. How long until they pull the plug? Back in 1994, even before President Bill Clinton’s health reform was officially pronounced dead, some White House officials argued the president was “dancing with a corpse.” The longer he waltzed with the dead, the more challenging the pivot to other issues became. Many believed Clinton danced too long. And Obama faces the same timing challenge today.
It’s always hard to begin hammering the last nail in a legislative coffin — particularly when it comes to a signature initiative. But at some point, it’s time to get the mallet. It’s clearly too early for that now. Still, the White House must recognize the natural instinct to wait too long. If health care is indeed moribund early next year, the president needs to acknowledge that and gracefully pivot, lest he, too, gets stuck dancing with a corpse.
The resolution of health care will have a major impact on the power of both the Republican and Democratic narratives next year. Success or failure may not shape the substance of the messages, but it will certainly affect their potency.
Gary Andres, vice chairman for research and policy at Dutko Worldwide, was deputy assistant to President George H.W. Bush and Senate confirmation coordinator for President George W. Bush. Patrick J. Griffin, a partner at Griffin Williams Critical Point Management, served as assistant to President Bill Clinton and director of congressional affairs.
Deep Thoughts by Chuck U. Schummer:
Chucky apologized to the flight attendant he insulted on a U.S. Airways commercial flight. However, it was George W. Bush and the republican's fault. It was the republican stalling of the Seante healthcare reform bill that caused him to be a jerk.
Weather Irony:
Copenhagen is being blanketed with snow, high winds and extreme cold. Yes, it is because of Global warming. More snow on the way. How will they utilize their G-5's and limousines? OMG! Will they be forced to use public transportation with the common folk? Horrid!One of my Christmas wishes is for Copenhagen o have a blizzard and all of the eletists are stuck there for two weeks. They would kill each other. Too many egos.
Grand Scale redistribution of wealth:
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave away the bank today, committing the U.S. and other wealthy countries to give $1000B to developing nations through 2020. Is this constitutional? Can she commit money that will be under other administration's control. Doesn't congress have to vote on this? Will the world end if we don't do this? Obamao said if we don't pass healthcare, the federal government will go bankrupt. So, if we don't redistribute wealth and sell out the U.S. the world will come to an end. (Under his Presidency). Just say no.
Lord Monckton reports on Pachauri’s eye opening Copenhagen presentation:
In the Grand Ceremonial Hall of the University of Copenhagen, a splendid Nordic classical space overlooking the Church of our Lady in the heart of the old city, rows of repellent, blue plastic chairs surrounded the podium from which no less a personage than Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, was to speak.
I had arrived in good time to take my seat among the dignitaries in the front row. Rapidly, the room filled with enthusiastic Greenies and enviro-zombs waiting to hear the latest from ye Holy Bookes of Ipecac, yea verily.
The official party shambled in and perched on the blue plastic chairs next to me. Pachauri was just a couple of seats away, so I gave him a letter from me and Senator Fielding of Australia, pointing out that the headline graph in the IPCC’s 2007 report, purporting to show that the rate of warming over the past 150 years had itself accelerated, was fraudulent.
Would he use the bogus graph in his lecture? I had seen him do so when he received an honorary doctorate from the University of New South Wales. I watched and waited.
Sure enough, he used the bogus graph. I decided to wait until he had finished, and ask a question then.
Pachauri then produced the now wearisome list of lies, fibs, fabrications and exaggerations that comprise the entire case for alarm about “global warming”. He delivered it in a tired, unenthusiastic voice, knowing that a growing majority of the world’s peoples – particularly in those countries where comment is free – no longer believe a word the IPCC says.
They are right not to believe. Science is not a belief system. But here is what Pachauri invited the audience in Copenhagen to believe.
1. Pachauri asked us to believe that the IPCC’s documents were “peer-reviewed”. Then he revealed the truth by saying that it was the authors of the IPCC’s climate assessments who decided whether the reviewers’ comments were acceptable. That – whatever else it is – is not peer review.
2. Pachauri said that greenhouse gases had increased by 70% between 1970 and 2004. This figure was simply nonsense. I have seen this technique used time and again by climate liars. They insert an outrageous statement early in their presentations, see whether anyone reacts and, if no one reacts, they know they will get away with the rest of the lies. I did my best not to react. I wanted to hear, and write down, the rest of the lies.
3. Next came the bogus graph, which is featured three times, large and in full color, in the IPCC’s 2007 climate assessment report. The graph is bogus not only because it relies on the made-up data from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia but also because it is overlain by four separate trend-lines, each with a start-date carefully selected to give the entirely false impression that the rate of warming over the past 150 years has itself been accelerating, especially between 1975 and 1998. The truth, however – neatly obscured by an ingenious rescaling of the graph and the superimposition of the four bogus trend lines on it – is that from 1860-1880 and again from 1910-1940 the warming rate was exactly the same as the warming rate from 1975-1998.
4. Pachauri said that there had been an “acceleration” in sea-level rise from 1993. He did not say, however, that in 1993 the method of measuring sea-level rise had switched from tide-gages to satellite altimetry against a reference geoid. The apparent increase in the rate of sea-level rise is purely an artefact of this change in the method of measurement.
5. Pachauri said that Arctic temperatures would rise twice as fast as global temperatures over the next 100 years. However, he failed to point out that the Arctic was actually 1-2 Celsius degrees warmer than the present in the 1930s and early 1940s. It has become substantially cooler than it was then.
6. Pachauri said the frequency of heavy rainfall had increased. The evidence for this proposition is largely anecdotal. Since there has been no statistically-significant “global warming” for 15 years, there is no reason to suppose that any increased rainfall in recent years is attributable to “global warming”.
7. Pachauri said that the proportion of tropical cyclones that are high-intensity storms has increased in the past three decades. However, he was very careful not to point out that the total number of intense tropical cyclones has actually fallen sharply throughout the period.
8. Pachauri said that the activity of intense Atlantic hurricanes had increased since 1970. This is simply not true, but it appears to be true if – as one very bad scientific paper in 2006 did – one takes the data back only as far as that year. Take the data over the whole century, as one should, and no trend whatsoever is evident. Here, Pachauri is again using the same statistical dodge he used with the UN’s bogus “warming-is-getting-worse” graph: he is choosing a short run of data and picking his start-date with care so as falsely to show a trend that, over a longer period, is not significant.
9. Pachauri said small islands like the Maldives were vulnerable to sea-level rise. Not if they’re made of coral, which is more than capable of outgrowing any sea-level rise. Besides, as Professor Morner has established, sea level in the Maldives is no higher now than it was 1250 years ago, and has not risen for half a century.
10. Pachauri said that if the ice-sheets of Greenland or West Antarctica were to melt there would be “meters of sea-level rise”. Yes, but his own climate panel has said that that could not happen for thousands of years, and only then if global mean surface temperatures stayed at least 2 C (3.5 F) warmer than today’s.
11. Pachauri said that if temperatures rose 2 C (3.5 F) 20-30% of all species would become extinct. This, too, is simply nonsense. For most of the past 600 million years, global temperatures have been 7 C (13.5 F) warmer than today, and yet here we all are. One has only to look at the number of species living in the tropics and the number living at the Poles to work out that warmer weather will if anything increase the number and diversity of species on the planet. There is no scientific basis whatsoever for Pachauri’s assertion about mass extinctions. It is simply made up.
12. Pachauri said that “global warming” would mean “lower quantities of water”. Not so. It would mean larger quantities of water vapor in the atmosphere, hence more rain. This is long-settled science – but, then, Pachauri is a railroad engineer.
13. Pachauri said that by 2100 100 million people would be displaced by rising sea levels. Now, where did we hear that figure before? Ah, yes, from the ludicrous Al Gore and his sidekick Bob Corell. There is no truth in it at all. Pachauri said he was presenting the results of the IPCC’s fourth assessment report. It is quite plain: the maximum possible rate of sea-level rise is put at just 2 ft, with a best estimate of 1 ft 5 in. Sea level is actually rising at around 1 ft/century. That is all.
14. Pachauri said that he had seen for himself the damage done in Bangladesh by sea-level rise. Just one problem with that. There has been no sea-level rise in Bangladesh. At all. In fact, according to Professor Moerner, who visited it recently and was the only scientist on the trip to calibrate his GPS altimeter properly by taking readings at two elevations at least 10 meters apart, sea level in Bangladesh has actually fallen a little, which is why satellite images show 70,000 sq. km more land area there than 30 years ago. Pachauri may well have seen some coastal erosion: but that was caused by the imprudent removal of nine-tenths of the mangroves in the Sunderban archipelago to make way for shrimp-farms.
15. Pachauri said we could not afford to delay reducing carbon emissions even by a year, or disaster would result. So here’s the math. There are 388 ppmv of CO2 in the air today, rising at 2 ppmv/year over the past decade. So an extra year with no action at all would warm the world by just 4.7 ln(390/388) = 0.024 C, or less than a twentieth of a Fahrenheit degree. And only that much on the assumption that the UN’s sixfold exaggeration of CO2’s true warming potential is accurate, which it is not. Either way, we can afford to wait a couple of decades to see whether anything like the rate of warming predicted by the UN’s climate panel actually occurs.
16. Pachauri said that the cost of mitigating carbon emissions would be less than 3% of gross domestic product by 2030. The only economist who thinks that is Lord Stern, whose laughable report on the economics of climate change, produced for the British Government, used a near-zero discount rate so as artificially to depress the true cost of trying to mitigate “global warming”. To reduce “global warming” to nothing, one must close down the entire global economy. Any lesser reduction is a simple fraction of the entire economy. So cutting back, say, 50% of carbon emissions by 2030, which is what various extremist groups here are advocating, would cost around 50% of GDP, not 3%.
17. Pachauri said that solar and wind power provided more jobs per $1 million invested than coal. Maybe they do, but that is a measure of their relative inefficiency. The correct policy would be to raise the standard of living of the poorest by letting them burn as much fossil fuels as they need to lift them from poverty. Anything else is organized cruelty.
18. Pachauri said we could all demonstrate our commitment to Saving The Planet by eating less meat. The Catholic Church has long extolled the virtues of mortification of the flesh: we generally ate fish on Fridays in the UK, until the European Common Fisheries Policy meant there were no more fish. But the notion that going vegan will make any measurable impact on global temperatures is simply fatuous.
It is time for Railroad Engineer Pachauri to get back to his signal-box. About the climate, as they say in New York’s Jewish quarter, he knows from nothing.
Kill Bill Vol. III:
Opposition to Senate Healthcare Bill: Call your Senators!
"We the people" must stop the Obamacare Proposals: I am formally asking (pleading) with you to muster up the initiative and enthusiasm to fight the healthcare bill that will emerge in the end of the year. First, there are 2 bills (proposals) that will somehow be merged into one bill. Liberals are adamant about some form of "Public Option." (Government Run Option) I think the democrats believe they can push this bill through while we are sleeping. The democrats have blocked many bills that would allow the final bill to be posted on the internet 72 hours prior to a vote. Why? you know why. We must oppose this more than we did over the summer. Let them know, we are not against healthcare reform, just not a total makeover. Call and email your representatives. I have emailed and called mine so many times, they are referring to me by my first name. Write an old fashioned letter, it has a lot of importance. Attend your local tea parties and townhalls to voice your opinions and make a overwhelming presence. Below, is a little list how you can get involved. It is our civic duty. "It is our Country."
http://www.congress.org/
http://www.joinpatientsfirst.com/
http://www.freedomworks.org/
http://www.resistnet.com/
http://www.teapartypatriots.com/
http://www.teaparty.org/
http://www.taxpayer.org/
http://www.taxpayer.net/
info@cmpi.org
http://www.fairtax.org/
http://www.conservativeamericansunited.org/
CALL YOUR SENATORS! EMAIL YOUR SENATORS! CALL YOUR SENATORS! EMAIL YOUR SENATORS!
Quote du jour:
"It doesn't make a difference what temperature a room is, it's always room temperature."
Steven Wright
Contact: conservative09@gmail.com
References:
http://www.hotair.com/
http://www.drudge.com/
http://www.thehill.com/
http://www.newsbusters.com/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
http://www.newsmax.com/
http://www.politico.com/
http://www.climatedepot.com/
http://www.junkscience.com/
SPPI
http://www.wsj.com/
http://www.snopes.com/
http://www.quotationspage.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment