The Wall Street Journal is on the warpath today against the non-stimulus stimulus bill. The article lists a litany of spending that appear to have absolutely nothing to do with stimulating economic activity. Scratch that. It's not that it doesn't 'appear to,' it's that it simply does not. In any case, read the whole thing, but here's the wrap up of that article that should make the hair on the back of your neck stand straight up:
The larger fiscal issue here is whether this spending bonanza will become part of the annual "budget baseline" that Congress uses as the new floor when calculating how much to increase spending the following year, and into the future. Democrats insist that it will not. But it's hard -- no, impossible -- to believe that Congress will cut spending next year on any of these programs from their new, higher levels. The likelihood is that this allegedly emergency spending will become a permanent addition to federal outlays -- increasing pressure for tax increases in the bargain. Any Blue Dog Democrat who votes for this ought to turn in his "deficit hawk" credentials.
This is supposed to be a new era of bipartisanship, but this bill was written based on the wish list of every living -- or dead -- Democratic interest group. As Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it, "We won the election. We wrote the bill." So they did. Republicans should let them take all of the credit.
From the article: "While the headlines all blare "Russia suspends missile plans in Kaliningrad," the real news is "Why?" " Read the whole post for a chronological list of events. If true, then this is very bad. (HT:CG)
For those just joining the climate discussion, Dr. James Hansen is the chief climate scientist at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and is the man who originally raised the alarm on global warming in 1988 in an appearance before congress. He is also the keeper of the most often cited climate data.
NASA warming scientist James Hansen, ... is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA.
“Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress,” Theon wrote.
Then the final paragraph wraps up some of the anti-anthropogenic global warming evidence that I have touched on in this blog:
The relationship of the Catholic Church with conservatives and the Republican party is a very conflicted one. The institutional Church is probably second only to academia in glomming onto every new bit of left wing lunacy that comes bouncing down the pike. The Church has, however, as a whole been stalwart on life and family issues. Unfortunately, the opposition to abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage, indeed one could say based on these issues the defense of Western Civilization, places them at loggerheads with their emotional allies: liberal democrats.
In the 2004 election the Heirarchy was taken aback by demands of conservative Catholics and conservative non-Catholics alike that they adhere to their own rules in regards to support for abortion...
Having been burned in 2004, they became too cute by half. In 2007 a pamphlet was issued called Faithful Citizenship. In this document or bishops managed to make voting for any candidate acceptable while appearing to condemn abortion across the board:
34. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.
35. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons.Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.
Essentially, this construction allows you to take any social ill and elevate it above abortion. (emphasis mine)
I never understood the squeemishness of the Catholic heirarchy. Being raised in a Catholic household myself, it was apparent to me pretty early on thta many traditions of the Catholic Church no longer follow anything that the Bible had prescribed. The Church had gone rogue. Happened a few hundred years after JC, then got really bad in the middle ages. They now have no moral authority over anything. Evolution? They bought it. Global warming? Bought that too. Just no bearings whatsover anymore. That being said, they have a few things correct to this day. The trinitarian nature of God. The evil of abortion. But yet, they waiver, and allow for the voting for pro-abort politicians based on other social issues. What exactly could possibly be more grave than killing babies?
In essence, by watering down their standars and not drawing a line in the sand on this one issue, they have allowed politicians to be elected that would like nothing more than to foist FOCA on the 50 states, and have thus become complicit in what is coming down the pike. There is simply no excuse for this. In any case, the article then concludes, similar to my thoughts on the subject:
In a quest to be invited to the right parties and seen with the right people our own bishops stand condemned of being complicit in the abortion of about one million children each year by continuing to allow pro-abort Catholic politicians to receive the Eucharist and by failing to teach the simple truth from the pulpit: that besides the horror of infanticide and euthanasia all other issues pale by comparison.
Sources familiar with the conversation say Vice President Joe Biden telephoned Chief Justice John Roberts last week to apologize for a remark he made about the chief's memory.
"My memory is not as good as Chief Justice Roberts's," Biden said last Wednesday, as he prepared to administer the oath of office to new senior White House staffers. The remark did not appear to go over well with President Obama, who did not smile, though some in the room laughed. Biden's remark came the day after the infamous flub that occurred as Roberts led Obama through the oath of office.
Here's the original video of the offhanded remark by Biden:
I'd say we should expect more of this from Biden. MUCH, MUCH more. Then again, Obama did NOT look happy, did he now? Maybe he told Joe to keep the trap shut?
President Barack Obama is coming to the Capitol this afternoon to curry favor with congressional Republicans. But it appears GOP leaders have already made up their minds to oppose his $825 billion stimulus plan.
Finally some sanity on the Hill? I'm not holding my breath just yet.
This last week marked some ominous events in our nation. January 22 marked the 36th anniversary of the Roe v Wadedecision by the Supreme Court, an act of judicial fiat that foisted upon us murder on demand of any or all of our unborn children, surely the most vulnerable and innocent of us all. Obama released a press release that, in part, read:
"On the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we are reminded that this decision not only protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose."
Never mind that government already intrudes in family matters, forcing most parents to send their children to public indoctrinations centers (a.k.a. public schools), not of the choosing of the parents, that ultimately miserably fail at their supposed basic function (education). Also, try spanking your child these days and see how fast CPS comes to your door. So much for that non-interference platitude.
Then, the very next day, The One signed an executive order forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions overseas. This at a time when our nation is flat broke. Maybe he should watch this short video I posted the other day:
Last October, the Metropolitan Washington region was paralyzed with fear, wondering when and where a cold-blooded killer would strike next. Mobilized into action, law enforcement agencies on the federal, state and local levels were on the case of the “D.C. sniper” 24-7. With a mass murderer on the loose, the media covered the story round-the-clock. Righteous indignation pumped through the veins of red-blooded Americans. When the murderous pair was caught, the whole country was relieved.
Yet, when it comes to the slaughter of unborn children, the nation tarries. Thirteen people were killed in the sniper attacks; 43 million people–over a million a year–have been killed since Roe v. Wade. On March 13, 2003, a Republican Senate spoke loudly and clearly against the slaughter by voting to ban partial birth abortion 64-33.
The bill prohibits doctors from committing an “overt act” designed to kill a partially delivered fetus. The bill legally defines a partial birth abortion as any abortion in which a baby is delivered “past the naval…outside the mother’s womb” before being killed. The Senate-passed version of the bill is on its way to the House of Representatives, where it will likely pass. As expected, House Democrats (like the Congressional Black Caucus), protectors of criminals, perverts, animals, trees and rocks, will fight with their very lives against the ban on infanticide. Liberal lunacy notwithstanding, the bill will be signed into law by President Bush.
Meanwhile, day after day, babies in the womb are cut to pieces, torn apart and chemically poisoned to death all for sacred “choice.” Here’s how a group calling itself the Childbirth by Choice Trust describes abortion to teenagers: “To remove the contents of her uterus, the doctor gradually opens the cervix and inserts a small tube. This tube is attached to a machine which gently suctions the inside of the uterus. The doctor then carefully checks the uterus with an instrument, to be sure no tissue (read: human being) remains. The entire procedure takes about 10 minutes.” No sweat.
Partial birth abortions, unlike the inconvenient “gob of tissue” scraped from the womb in early abortions, are gruesome. To avoid being charged under state murder statutes, the abortion “doctors” pull the baby only halfway out of the womb. In Josef Mengele-like fashion, the abortionist jams the tip of surgical scissors into the base of the baby’s skull, suctioning out its brain through a catheter.
Despite such an appalling scene, infanticide supporter Senator Barbara Boxer said that partial birth abortion is a “political” term, not a “medical” one. According to Boxer, the term is “made up” and “very emotional,” implying that supporters of the ban to stop this carnage actually want to evoke sympathy for babies murdered in the womb. Right-wing nuts!
A society that tolerates child killing is a society doomed for judgment. God warned ancient Israel to refrain from worshipping the Ammonite false deity, Molech. First-born children were “passed through the fire” and burned to death as a sacrifice to Molech under the illusion they’d be given prosperity.
Israel disobeyed God’s laws, resulting in generations of moral decline and severe wrath: Famine, plague, cannibalism, invasion and domination by surrounding pagan nations, captivity into slavery, persecution and death.
Molech must be mighty pleased with America. Millions of children are sacrificed every year for similar motives. Approximately 93 percent of all induced abortions are done for elective, non-medical reasons (read: convenience). Although abortion proponents claim the procedure is rare, it’s not rare enough. Partial birth abortions have more than tripled in the past four years to about 2,200 annually.
The U.S. has been facing its own moral decline for some time, but it has yet to suffer the fate of ancient Israel. While abortion proponents continue to euphemistically refer to infanticide as “intrauterine cranial decompression” or “intact dilation and evacuation,” God has promised that the slaying of the innocent will not go unpunished. He says in Jeremiah 19: “Because they have forsaken Me and have made this an alien place and have burned sacrifices in it to other gods…and because they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent…I will cause them to fall by the sword before their enemies and by the hand of those who seek their life; and I will give over their carcasses as food for the birds of the sky and the beasts of the earth. I will also make this city a desolation.”
In the aftermath of September 11, it became chic even for liberals to haughtily exclaim, “God bless America!” Perhaps the more appropriate petition would be: God have mercy on America.
With all of these things happening this last week, I looked at the big picture. Specifically, what liberals think about all the issues surrounding our culture. Abortion of the innocent? Good! Capital punishment for the guilty? Evil! Forcing kids into failing government-run schools? Good! Vouchers that let parents choose private Christian schools? Evil! Judging people by there skin color (aka - affirmative action)? Good! Judging people only by the content of their character? Evil! I could go on and on with this list. The gay agenda, the elimination of personal responsibility, putting as many people as possible under the thumb of big government, etc., ad infinitum. What the U.S. stands for has been turned on its head, and what used to evil is now considered good, and visa versa. At least in liberal la-la land, which is being increasingly imposed on us through many channels, most prominently these days by judicial activism.
This aspect of moder liberalism brings Isiah 5:20 to mind (NIV version):
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter
Now darkness can never win against the light. The only way to impose darkness is to cover up the light. To keep it hidden. It is no coincidence that Christianity is under unprecedented attack at the same time as these evil policies are being imposed on us all. WE THE PEOPLE appear to have less and less say as time goes on, as we are increasingly coming under the tyranny of the black robe.
As a final note, I was thinking of the "good is evil, evil is good" inversion the other day. i have heard it before. It took me a while sifting through my memory banks to find exactly where it was. Here is where I heard it before:
Al Gore is scheduled before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday morning to once again testify on the 'urgent need' to combat global warming. But Mother Nature seems ready to freeze the proceedings.
A 'Winter Storm Watch' has been posted for the nation's capitol and there is a potential for significant snow... sleet... or ice accumulations. "I can't imagine the Democrats would want to showcase Mr. Gore and his new findings on global warming as a winter storm rages outside," a Republican lawmaker emailed the DRUDGE REPORT. "And if the ice really piles up, it will not be safe to travel."
A spokesman for Sen. John Kerry, who chairs the committee, was not immediately available to comment on contingency plans. Global warming advocates have suggested this year's wild winter spells are proof of climate change.
Couldn't have happened to a better con artist! Unfortunately, this article indicates that the hearing will still happen, just later. Maybe they can wait until the hottest summer day? This is simply ridiculousness of the highest order.
On a related note, I would point out that the 'advocates' (whoever they are): "..have suggested this year's wild winter spells are proof of climate change." Note the climate change, versus global warming (hasn't the climate ALWAYS changed?). The changing of the narrative maybe? Wasn't it not long ago that the AP said that the cooling trend is proof of global warming? Why yes. Yes they did! From that article:
Ironically, 2008 is on pace to be a slightly cooler year in a steadily rising temperature trend line. Experts say it's thanks to a La Nina weather variation. While skeptics are already using it as evidence of some kind of cooling trend, it actually illustrates how fast the world is warming.
Pelosi, the mother of 5 children and 6 grandchildren, who once said, "Nothing in my life will ever, ever compare to being a mom," seemed to imply babies are somehow a burden on the treasury. (emphasis mine)
I simply have nothing to add. Good grief! Hope and change!!!
No joke. This from the freep today: The One, in his infinite wisdom, has deemed it necessary to sign another executive order. This time, it targets the automotive industry (you know, the one that is currently thriving?) by allowing each of the 50 states in the union to set emission standards. From the article:
The New York Times reported Sunday evening on its Web site that Obama would clear the way for individual states to exceed national fuel economy and emissions standards. Detroit and foreign automakers have waged a lengthy legal fight against California's rules, which set new limits on vehicle emissions to fight global warming. (emphasis mine)
Such rules would lead to fuel economy targets that automakers and dealers warn would create a patchwork of state laws, drive up costs and limit sales.
Sounds about right to me. So let me get this straight: states should have the right to regulate the naturally-occurring, and vital compound to all surface vegetation known as CO2, but they should have zero say in the murder of countless unborn? FOCA? Hello? Isn't this the same guy that just signed an executive order forcing my hard-earned tax dollars into the bloody hands of the abortion industry abroad? Why yes. Yes he is.
So it appears that Obama's priorities, tracked by his signing of executive orders, is this:
#1: Help the plight of the terrorists over in Gitmo (the ones who, once released, lead efforts of terror once again). Check! #2: Abortion for everyone. With taxpayer dollars. Just have to be overseas. (But that's OK, FOCA is coming to a death dealer near you) Check! #3: Screw the auto industry really bad by letting states make up silly fuel standards based on a non-existent ecological crisis of biblical proportion? Check!
I'm just waiting for #4 to come out soon. Take away kids lollipops? Atomic wedgies for all adults over 21?
So I'm just wondering, how are any of his executive orders supposed to help anyone here in Michigan or nationwide? Do any of these things help the economy? No. Just the opposite. Do they make us safer? No. Just the opposite. This is all red meat for the tinfoil hat-wearing, kool-aid drinking loony fringe left. So much for the era of post-partisanship.
Just remember, the UAW wanted this guy. A guy that despises the auto industry. Sure they'll get more bailout money to keep the racket going a bit longer without any fix to the systemic problems facing the auto industry. But that, along with this exectuive order, may well be the final nail in their own coffin. Can anyone say "thank you sir, may I have another?"
"Instead of state employees working for the people, the people now work for the state employees. As far as the state government is concerned, people in the private sector work merely so that they can be taxed for the benefit of the tax consumers. They’ve entered a condition not unlike like that of pre-industrial serfs.
Of course no one is being whipped, but in effect an ordinary citizen of California cannot get their desires for reduced state spending implemented due to the disproportionate power of the State’s employees and allied interest. It appears now that the government unions will not accept any solution to California’s budget crisis except increased taxes in a declining economy. Ordinary citizens have no choice but to either emigrate or just lie there and take it. "
If you're an ordinary California taxpayer, you might want to think about that emigration possibility. This is the San Diego Union Tribune editorial that prompted her conclusion that they'd passed the tipping point.
"Controller John Chiang, a Democrat who aspires to be governor, is refusing to enforce Schwarzenegger's order that state workers take two unpaid furlough days a month beginning Feb. 1 to ensure the government has enough money to continue to perform its basic functions.
Why? Chiang says it is illegal. To the contrary, established case law gives government bodies considerable leeway during emergencies. The unions challenging the furlough plan are going to need to establish that such an emergency doesn't exist. Good luck with that.
But questions about Chiang's intercession go far beyond the flimsiness of his assertion that the furlough plan is illegal. Even if it were, when did voters pass a constitutional amendment giving the controller power to veto the governor's decisions?
The answer, of course, is that they never did and never would. Voters know there can be only one governor at a time.
Considered in this context, Chiang's actions border on a bureaucratic coup d'état. It looks even more like a coup when you consider that Chiang is about to unilaterally implement his own plan to deal with the cash-flow crunch. When it was announced last week, most of the attention focused on his intention to withhold $1.9 billion in state tax refunds. More attention should have focused on Chiang's move to withhold $188 million in assistance to more than 1 million aged, blind and disabled Californians – money they rely on for food, rent and utility bills.
They are not going to be inconvenienced by Chiang's decision. Their lives will be grossly disrupted. But the controller doesn't care. He's taken care of his top priority: protecting public employees. He knows the unions always will remember this massive favor. "
Adds Betsy: "As more and more taxpayers with opportunities elsewhere move out, how will the state survive with the only ones left being just those "tax consumers?" " I think this relates also to government job growth in the face of private job shedding, which is a nationwide phenomenon, but which is grossly exaggerated in California. California is a case-in-point of what happens when you have a near democrat-hegemony. It already happens in big urban cities (Detroit, anyone?).
This was a classic from a few years ago - a graph purported to prove that anthropogenic global warming was indeed real. This was a centerpiece of Gore's fear-mongering. The researchers that made it refused to disclose their data, even though the study was funded with taxpayer money. In the end, it was proven to be a hoax (Did I mention it was funded by taxpayer money?). This should have been the nail in the coffin for the alarmists. Unfortunately, the controversy went right down the memory hole (surprise, surprise...). In any case, Powerline had a few things to say about it today. Here's the famous graph above climate data in Europe over the same time period (via moonbattery). See any differences? Yeah - me neither. Adds powerline: "The "hockey stick" graph had the virtue, from the alarmists' perspective, of "getting rid of" the Medieval Warm Period, which had always been acknowledged as the predecessor to the Little Ice Age and our own era, in which temperatures have recovered from the Little Ice Age..."
More:
More recent scientific work has thoroughly debunked the Mann "hockey stick" analysis. It has been shown to rest on "collation errors, unjustified truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, incorrect principal component calculations, geographical mislocations and other serious defects," as well as "incorrect mathematics." There are indications, at least, that some of the errors on the part of Mann and his collaborators were deliberate--an instance of the corruption of science by politics and perverse financial incentives that underlies the entire global warming movement.
Andrew Bostom provides an excellent short summary of the significance of the hockey stick and its debunking by more rigorous scientists, which is readily understandable by the lay reader.
If you really want to worry about the climate, consider the fact that we are due for another ice age.
UPDATE: Then there's this bar graph showing 2009 priorities (HT:moonbattery):
My guess is that BHO better be careful with this. It's a hot potato ready to burn him.
Sound pretty small for a sitting President? When I first hear this on Drudgereport, my first thought was "hasn't it been the 90's since Republicans listened to Rush?" Second thought was "that'll do it for getting the fairness doctrine in this term." Right on cue, HotAir has similar thoughts:
Haven’t they already? (stopped listening to Rush) President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.
“You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,” he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package. One White House official confirmed the comment but said he was simply trying to make a larger point about bipartisan efforts.
Smart points in response from Tom Maguire, especially number three. If, contra his campaign rhetoric, The One really does plan on bringing back Fairness, he just made his task of selling it to the public as a nonpartisan measure not aimed squarely at conservative talk radio a lot harder.
The Rush responded:
via Byron York: To make the argument about me instead of his plan makes sense from his perspective. Obama’s plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR’s New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts. It would allow a majority of American voters to guarantee no taxes for themselves going forward. It would burden the private sector and put the public sector in permanent and firm control of the economy. Put simply, I believe his stimulus is aimed at re-establishing “eternal” power for the Democrat Party rather than stimulating the economy because anyone with a brain knows this is NOT how you stimulate the economy. If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of this TRILLION dollar debacle.
Didn't Rush have this happen to him recently, perpetrated by none other than Colin "RINO" Powell? And didn't Rush take Powell to the back of the shed for it? Why yes. Yes he did! (And it was GOOD!)
This will end in tears. The Obama hysteria is not merely embarrassing to witness, it is itself contributory to the scale of the disaster that is coming. What we are experiencing, in the deepening days of a global depression, is the desperate suspension of disbelief by people of intelligence - la trahisondesclercs - in a pathetic effort to hypnotise themselves into the delusion that it will be all right on the night. It will not be all right……
To anyone who kept his head, the string of Christmas cracker mottoes booming through the public address system on Washington’s National Mall can only excite scepticism. It is crucial to recall the reality that lies behind the rhetoric. Denouncing “those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents” comes ill from a man whose flagship legislation, the Freedom of Choice Act, will impose abortion, including partial-birth abortion, on every state in the Union. It seems the era of Hope is to be inaugurated with a slaughter of the innocents.
Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan is like one of those toxic packages traded by bankers: it camouflages many unaffordable gifts to his client state. With a federal deficit already at $1.2 trillion, Obama wants to squander $825 billion (which will undoubtedly mushroom to more than $1 trillion) on creating 600,000 more government jobs and a further 459,000 in “green energy” (useless wind turbines and other Heath-Robinson contraptions favoured by Beltway environmentalists).
It is frightening to think there is a real possibility that the entire world economy could go into complete meltdown and famine kill millions. Yet Western - and British - commentators are cocooned in a warm comfort zone of infatuation with America’s answer to Neil Kinnock. We should be long past applauding politicians of any hue: they got us into this mess. The best deserve a probationary opportunity to prove themselves, the worst should be in jail.
How dazzling is President Obama? So dazzling that he didn’t merely give a dazzling inaugural speech. Any old timeserving hack could do that. Instead, he had the sheer genius to give a flat dull speech full of the usual shopworn boilerplate. Brilliant! At a stroke, he not only gently lowered the expectations of those millions of Americans and billions around the world for whom his triumphant ascendancy is the only thing that gives their drab little lives any meaning, but also emphasized continuity by placing his unprecedented incandescent megastar cool squarely within the tradition of squaresvilleyawneroo white middle-aged plonking mediocrities who came before him.
Ouch! There's more. Read the whole thing (very good). (HT: HA)
This comes as no great shock, since the Arctic has the most ice in its cap since 1979. However, the data tends to support those who theorize that warming and cooling cycles are nothing more than that, and undermine the argument for global warming as a consequence of carbon dioxide. It also explains why the last two winters have gotten longer and colder instead of shorter and warmer.
We've been feeling the colder, longer winters here in Michigan. Especially now. I was surprised that NASA admitted to sensor bias. One of the things you almost never hear about is sensor accuracy/experimental uncertainty in measuring the effect. They tend to only argue about the cause.
I assume that Rod Blagojevich means the movie Pearl Harbor and not the actual attack. The latter killed over 2500 Americans, which would make Blago a ghoul. The movie, however, was almost as embarrassing as Blagojevich himself...
All opinions in this personal blog are my own, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of my employer, companies that I consult for, family, friends, neighbors, acquaintances or my pets.
Email me at theblogprof "at" gmail "dot" com
Adds 
