Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Daniel on Open thread 11/7
- Freebird1971 on Pro-con: Have White House gripes boosted Fox?
- Daniel on Open thread 11/7
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/7
- Boxlock20 on Praeger still optimistic about health reform
- Daniel on Open thread 11/7
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/7
- Daniel on Pro-con: Have White House gripes boosted Fox?
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/7
- BlueJay on Pro-con: Have White House gripes boosted Fox?
147 Comments
Best headline: Midget wrestlers found dead in cheap hotel.
They were probably actually dwarfs.
Never trust the MSM.
Haw, haw, haw.
I’m wondering how the Faux Noise Channel and WE Blog CONs might react if President Obama treated the American flag the way the Moose-Dresser did.
http://www.runnersworld.com/photo/sarahpalin/slide7.html
On this date, Jul 3rd, record setting temperatures for Wichita Kansas
High: 108 °F (1990)
Low: 53 °F (1924)
Police to get tough on Kellogg speeders starting today
Kansas.com
Frustrated by drivers ignoring the law, Wichita police have launched a monthlong crackdown on speeding on Kellogg.
Deputy Chief Darren Moore said Thursday that more drivers are turning the freeway into a speedway. One motorist was ticketed for driving 107 mph on East Kellogg on Monday.
Moore said the primary motivation for cracking down is to reduce the number of crashes, injuries and deaths on the freeway. A total of 145 crashes occurred on Kellogg in the first six months of 2008 and 2009.
Seven people died on Kellogg in 2008, and two have been killed so far this year.
Monkeyhawk
Posted July 3, 2009 at 6:43 am | Permalink
I’m wondering how the Faux Noise Channel and WE Blog CONs might react if President Obama treated the American flag the way the Moose-Dresser did.
http://www.runnersworld.com/photo/sarahpalin/slide7.html
____________________________________________________
Palin gets a pass just like Bush got CON applause for saying the Constitution was “just a GD piece of paper”.
(CNN) — Jenny Sanford, wife of South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, is speaking out in a new statement about her husband’s affair.
“Mark showed a lack of judgment in his recent actions as governor. However, his far more egregious offenses were committed against God, the institutions of marriage and family, our boys and me,” Mrs. Sanford said in a statement. “Mark has stated that his intent and determination is to save our marriage, and to make amends to the people of South Carolina. I hope he can make good on those intentions, and for the sake of our boys I leave the door open to it.”
______________________________________________
Another Republican wimp and victim.
She has lost all credibility.
Rush probably ordered her to reconcile with the faithless man.
I have never seen a runner wearing hose…..
We should attack our current Congress for wimping out of the duties at hand by taking a 4th of July recess!
By God, the original Continental Congress kept on working through the 4th of July to sign the Declaration of Independence… and still had time for beer and bratwursts in Ben Franklin’s backyard after the work was done!
But today’s Libo-Demo-Commo-controlled Congress?! No! They’re taking the day off!
(I should write for Glen Beck.)
Mark Sanford is spending the holiday weekend with his wife and four sons in Florida, with his in-laws.
Awkward!
“Another Republican wimp and victim.
She has lost all credibility.”—-satatom
To forgive, and attempt to repair, take vastly more self-confidence and strength than satatom’s self-centered attitude of vengence.
That woman is quality, and wouldn’t get close to satatom’s stench, ever.
Just demn.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/assets_c/2009/07/stimulus-vs-unemployment-june-dots.php
“To forgive, and attempt to repair, take vastly more self-confidence and strength than satatom’s self-centered attitude of vengence.
That woman is quality, and wouldn’t get close to satatom’s stench, ever.”
Uh huh.
Her husband waxed romantic about his affair, admitted other transgressions, and THEN said he hoped he could fall back in love with his wife. IF she is going to forgive that, she is auditioning for the part of human doormat.
No thread about the Palin emails?
It’s a BIG and developing story.
It seems, Sarah Palin was embarrassed to be confronted with questions about her husbands involvement in the Alaskan secession from the US movement. She TRIED to make that story go away and was quite frustrated when her aides couldn’t get it done.
“IF she is going to forgive that, she is auditioning for the part of human doormat.”
Have you told Hillary what you think of her?
I always look forward to junior’s comments when it comes to the various relationships between married couples.
I’m sure that managing to live his life well into his forties and never making a commitment to a woman that lasted through the night has given him a special insight that he is willing to share with the rest of us.
Tell us, junior, when you find someone of the opposite sex that agrees to be a depository for your sperm, how do you inform her that she’s not allowed to know where you live?
Seems to me it would be a little awkward with most women you try to seduce.
mh is really bored…wondering how people might react IF something happened….sheesh. So full of hate MH is now imagining things that haven’t happened just to spread hatred?
that is beyond pathetic….it is obsessive.
Hey Raptor,
Poor Joe has obviously moved to Iola, they needed a new idiot. It has to be very boring for such a sophisticated metrosexual to be the village idiot in such a small backwater town.
Palin E-mails Show Infighting With Staff
Exclusive: Spat Over Todd Palin’s Membership In Secessionist Party Was Major Distraction On Critical Day In ‘08 Campaign
(CBS) The tension between Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and top McCain campaign aides in the closing days of last fall’s presidential campaign is elucidated in a profile in the new issue of Vanity Fair. CBS News’ Scott Conroy and special contributor Shushannah Walshe, who are writing a book about Palin, reveal just one example of how the mutual frustrations went even further than what has been disclosed so far.
Internal campaign e-mails exchanged three weeks before Election Day offer a rare look at just how frustrated then Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin had become with the manner in which top McCain campaign aides were handling her candidacy. The e-mails, obtained exclusively, also highlight the power struggle and thinly veiled acrimony that pervaded the relationship between Palin and the campaign’s chief strategist, Steve Schmidt.
The episode in question began when an investigative report published on the left-leaning Web site Salon.com raised questions about Palin’s relationship with members of the Alaska Independence Party (AIP) when she was mayor of Wasilla. The AIP’s platform calls for a vote giving Alaskans the option to secede from the United States. It had already been widely known that Todd Palin was a registered member of the AIP from 1995 to 2002 and that Governor Palin had taped a recorded greeting at the party’s 2008 convention.
On the morning of Oct. 15, Palin was aboard her campaign jet and en route to New Hampshire when she happened to catch a disparaging CNN segment that touted the Salon.com story, complete with a provocative graphic at the bottom of the screen reading, “THE PALINS AND THE FRINGE.”
While shaking hands after a rally later that afternoon, someone on the rope line shouted a remark at Palin about the AIP.
The comment set her off. She worried that the campaign was not sufficiently mitigating the issue of her alleged connection to the party, which despite a platform that harkens more to the Civil War than the 21st century, continued to play a serious role in Alaska politics.
Palin blasted out an e-mail with the subject line “Todd” to Schmidt, campaign manager Rick Davis and senior advisor Nicolle Wallace, copying her husband on the message (all of the e-mails are reprinted below as written).
“Pls get in front of that ridiculous issue that’s cropped up all day today – two reporters, a protestor’s sign, and many shout-outs all claiming Todd’s involvement in an anti-American political party,” Palin wrote. “It’s bull, and I don’t want to have to keep reacting to it … Pls have statement given on this so it’s put to bed.”
Her reference to a single protestor’s sign and “many shout-outs” was indicative of Palin’s occasional tendency to take anecdotal evidence of a minor problem and extrapolate it into something far more menacing. The final of the three presidential debates was just hours away, which would mark the unveiling of the soon-to-be canonized Joe The Plumber.
The Joe The Plumber narrative was the Republicans’ secret weapon — the last chance to put a chink in Obama’s seemingly impervious armor. It was not a time for distractions, but the campaign was compelled to deal with the drama that seemed to follow Palin wherever she went.
Schmidt hit “reply to all” less than five minutes after Palin’s e-mail was sent. “Ignore it,” he wrote. “He was a member of the aip? My understanding is yes. That is part of their platform. Do not engage the protestors. If a reporter asks say it is ridiculous. Todd loves america.”
This clear cut response from the campaign’s top dog carried an air of finality, but it did not satisfy Palin. She responded with another e-mail, adding five more names to the “cc” box, all of whom traveled on her campaign plane. They included her senior political adviser Tucker Eskew, senior aide Jason Recher, the lone traveling aide from her Alaska office Kris Perry, press secretary Tracey Schmitt and personal assistant Bexie Nobles.
Palin’s insertion of the five additional staffers in the e-mail chain was an apparent attempt to rally her own troops in the face of a decision from the commanding general with which she disagreed. Her inclusion of her personal assistant was particularly telling about her quest for affirmation and support in numbers, since the young staffer was not in a position to have any input on campaign strategy.
“That’s not part of their platform and he was only a ‘member’ bc independent alaskans too often check that ‘Alaska Independent’ box on voter registrations thinking it just means non partisan,” Palin wrote. “He caught his error when changing our address and checked the right box. I still want it fixed.”
Palin was attempting to bend the facts ever so slightly to fit neatly into her version of events. In truth, the box that Alaskans have the option of checking when registering to vote states the full name of the party, “Alaskan Independence Party,” not “Alaska Independent,” which would make an error by uncommitted voters more plausible.
Clearly irritated by what he saw as Palin’s attempt to mislead her own campaign and apparently determined to demonstrate that the ultimate authority rested with him, Schmidt put the matter to rest once and for all with a longer response to everyone in the e-mail chain.
“Secession,” he wrote. “It is their entire reason for existence. A cursory examination of the website shows that the party exists for the purpose of seceding from the union. That is the stated goal on the front page of the web site. Our records indicate that todd was a member for seven years. If this is incorrect then we need to understand the discrepancy. The statement you are suggesting be released would be innaccurate. The innaccuracy would bring greater media attention to this matter and be a distraction. According to your staff there have been no media inquiries into this and you received no questions about it during your interviews. If you are asked about it you should smile and say many alaskans who love their country join the party because it speeks to a tradition of political independence. Todd loves his country
We will not put out a statement and inflame this and create a situation where john has to adress this.”
Schmidt’s rebuttal to Palin’s suggestion that reporters had asked her about the issue was particularly blunt in that it implicitly questioned her truthfulness. Furthermore, his unwillingness to budge an inch on the matter was a remarkable assertion of his power to pull rank over the candidate herself.
Palin was silent after his second e-mail and the campaign did not issue the statement she demanded.
pssst Junior, the Presidential campaign and election is over.
You can stop lusting after Palin.
To forgive, and attempt to repair, take vastly more self-confidence and strength than satatom’s self-centered attitude of vengence.
That woman is quality, and wouldn’t get close to satatom’s stench, ever.
I remember you saying the same thing about Hillary! Right?
BlueJay has a 24/7 Boehner for Palin.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=232258&title=shut-up,-mark-sanford
An Act of God, Governor Emo and a Confessor saying “Zip it!”
LOL! At least Clinton had the decency to lie!! WHahahhahahaha
I finally figured out the draw of Sarah Palin, she is Lucy Ricardo as a Politician.
A loveable goof who is an accident waiting to happen and everyone Loves Lucy!
LOL! At least Clinton had the LOL! At least Clinton had the decency to lie!! WHahahhahahaha to lie!! WHahahhahahaha
==================
Yes, ‘decency’…
writerdog
Posted July 3, 2009 at 11:00 am | Permalink
I finally figured out the draw of Sarah Palin, she is Lucy Ricardo as a Politician.
=================================
Except she packs a .45
Lucy was scared to pick up a skillet.
Palin will gut a moose.
Not really a comparison, writerdog.
When Lucy worked in the candy factory with the conveyor bels.. she couldn’t handle the job, either..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wp3m1vg06Q
BJ tries to stir the pot with:
“No thread about the Palin emails?
It’s a BIG and developing story.
It seems, Sarah Palin was embarrassed to be confronted with questions about her husbands involvement in the Alaskan secession from the US movement. She TRIED to make that story go away and was quite frustrated when her aides couldn’t get it done.”
_________
I guess lib progressives creating “sanctuary cities” all over the nation and spitting in the face of the rule of law is “pure patriotism” and love of the Const in its truest form…right?
Boxlock20
Posted July 3, 2009 at 8:11 am | Permalink
“Another Republican wimp and victim.
She has lost all credibility.”—-satatom
To forgive, and attempt to repair, take vastly more self-confidence and strength than satatom’s self-centered attitude of vengence.
That woman is quality, and wouldn’t get close to satatom’s stench, ever.
______________________________________{
Hahahahahahahaha./..aslk you wife what she did while you were gone Boxlicker!
DFB hates the COTUS… He wants to destroy it, and replace it with something else… Just ask… he/she will gladly tell you of his “wish list” — :-)
Hud
Posted July 3, 2009 at 8:46 am | Permalink
“IF she is going to forgive that, she is auditioning for the part of human doormat.”
Have you told Hillary what you think of her?
_________________________________________________
Jennie Sanford is using her husband’s infidelity as a springboard for her own political career (similar to Hillary).
Like I said…Rush is probably advising her as he does all the Republicans.
HLP
Posted July 3, 2009 at 8:49 am | Permalink
I always look forward to junior’s comments when it comes to the various relationships between married couples.
I’m sure that managing to live his life well into his forties and never making a commitment to a woman that lasted through the night has given him a special insight that he is willing to share with the rest of us.
Tell us, junior, when you find someone of the opposite sex that agrees to be a depository for your sperm, how do you inform her that she’s not allowed to know where you live?
Seems to me it would be a little awkward with most women you try to seduce.
______________________________
It must be the holiday. hahahahahahaha Funny postings today!
OK Hank, when is the boy going to bring home that “special guy” he wants to settle down with?
“Palin’s insertion of the five additional staffers in the e-mail chain was an apparent attempt to rally her own troops in the face of a decision from the commanding general with which she disagreed. Her inclusion of her personal assistant was particularly telling about her quest for affirmation and support in numbers, since the young staffer was not in a position to have any input on campaign strategy. …”
—
Wow. I mean, whoda EVER thunk Sarah Palin would be one of those?
lol
I think that’ll cost her the corporate vote. Hers is a behavior that every corporate worker in America has seen and been disgusted by. Sh*t for brains analysis, yet she wants to up the stakes anyway. Oh baby.
It’s also behavior that makes us, those of us who are still employed of course, want to bring a scythe to the meeting that will inevitably follow such an email. A sharp scythe, and an eagerness to use it.
Chas – I’m still waiting for ANYTHING of value, common sense, or simple jr high logic from your argument. Of course you’ve got nothing, but the rantings of a lickspittle…but I’m still waiting…the floor is yours to explain how term limits, fed reserve audit, line item veto, & campaign fin reform is “destroying” the COTUS & “replacing it with something else”….your idiocy truly knows no bounds. According to your logic (or extreme lack thereof), the 27 previously ratified Amendments were done for the same reason. Remind me again why the Founders left 2 ways to amend the COTUS in Art V again??
Palin /Sanford in 2012!!
Bring it on!!
lib progressives creating “sanctuary cities” all over the nation and spitting in the face of the rule of law
heeheehee
satatom
Posted July 3, 2009 at 12:03 pm | Permalink
Palin /Sanford in 2012
===============================
You must be ret@rded.
Join Chas in fellowship.
My ‘job’ calls, again. See you farts later.
BTW, canoe or kayak is the best way to see wildlife near the water.(Get up early!)
Teach your damn kids.
ANTI
Posted July 3, 2009 at 12:13 pm | Permalink
satatom
Posted July 3, 2009 at 12:03 pm | Permalink
Palin /Sanford in 2012
===============================
You must be ret@rded.
Join Chas in fellowship.
_______________________________________________
hahahahahahahahaha…nope ya dope…just a firm believer in the Republican Party that puts Family Values first and foremost (like adultery, teenage sex, and murdering doctors).
There’s nothin’ that spells reconciliation like asking your spouse if you can occassionally visit your mistress.
Almost sounds like emotional abuse.
Looking like we’ll have Sanford to kick around for awhile.
Gosh….who’d have thought that the US would be successful fighting terrorism when under Obama we actually fight terrorists?!?!
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/07/03/afghanistan.offensive/index.html
Forty thousand Americans dead and wounded under Bush/Cheney FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER.
Bush was too smart to go after terrorist flies in Afghanistan, preferring to just move into a different country that didn’t have the flies.
Bush just went in and overthrew a murdering dictator who killed many more than “Forty thousand of… (his own people)” and who once had WMD’s and wanted the world to believe he did. Bust enabled the people of Iraq for the first time is decades were able to vote.
Bush also attracted “the flies” out of the caves and mountains where it’s very difficult fight, onto aN open playing field where our armed forces have a big advantage. More than “Forty thousand” terrorists “were dead and wounded under Bush/Cheney” FOR GOOD REASON.
Some only see the glass as half empty instead of half full.
correction:
Bush enabled the people of Iraq for the first time is decades, to vote.
““IF she is going to forgive that, she is auditioning for the part of human doormat.”
Have you told Hillary what you think of her?”—-Hud
Ha ha ha, beautiful!!!!
I thought BlowJ would need to be medicated or institutionalized when Hillary lost to Little Barry.
Ever notice how BlowJ and satatom always seek out the lowest level of human character no matter what the subject. Everytime!
LOL
BlowJ and satatom are birds of a feather! Most BLOGs only have one social misfit, we’re honored with two!
satatom found the need to carry water for scooter up thread and he did it with the implication that homosexuality was somehow shameful
So very tolerant of him!
nitwit
Gosh….who’d have thought that the US would be successful fighting terrorism when under Obama we actually fight terrorists?!?!
__________________________________
Hush!
Didn’t you get the memo? We don’t call them terrorists anymore!
HLP posted June 29, 2009 at 6:49 am
Polar bear expert barred from conference by Warmists
————————–
‘Christopher Booker’s misinformation about the Polar Bear Specialist Group‘
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/christopher_bookers_misinforma.php
Hank enjoys believing everything that Christopher Booker tells him.
HLP posted June 29, 2009 at 6:49 am
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2009/06/open-thread-629-3/#comment-612183
Polar bear expert barred from conference by Warmists
. . .
“Chas
Posted July 3, 2009 at 11:49 am | Permalink
DFB hates the COTUS… He wants to destroy it, and replace it with something else… Just ask… he/she will gladly tell you of his “wish list” — :-)”
Chas — Why don’t you try to put forth some sort of argument AGAINST what DFB says, instead of a bunch of mindless drivel and nonsense attack…. Ya know, Put up an opposing concept??? Ya think you can do that???
Polar bear expert barred from conference by Warmists
No dissent from the Warmist Gospel allowed: Mitchell Taylor, who has studied the bears for 30 years, was told his views ‘are extremely unhelpful’
Over the coming days a curiously revealing event will be taking place in Copenhagen. Top of the agenda at a meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group (set up under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature/Species Survival Commission) will be the need to produce a suitably scary report on how polar bears are being threatened with extinction by man-made global warming.
This is one of a steady drizzle of events planned to stoke up alarm in the run-up to the UN’s major conference on climate change in Copenhagen next December. But one of the world’s leading experts on polar bears has been told to stay away from this week’s meeting, specifically because his views on global warming do not accord with those of the rest of the group.
Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.
Dr Taylor agrees that the Arctic has been warming over the last 30 years. But he ascribes this not to rising levels of CO2 – as is dictated by the computer models of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and believed by his PBSG colleagues – but to currents bringing warm water into the Arctic from the Pacific and the effect of winds blowing in from the Bering Sea.
He has also observed, however, how the melting of Arctic ice, supposedly threatening the survival of the bears, has rocketed to the top of the warmists’ agenda as their most iconic single cause. The famous photograph of two bears standing forlornly on a melting iceberg was produced thousands of times by Al Gore, the WWF and others as an emblem of how the bears faced extinction – until last year the photographer, Amanda Byrd, revealed that the bears, just off the Alaska coast, were in no danger. Her picture had nothing to do with global warming and was only taken because the wind-sculpted ice they were standing on made such a striking image.
Dr Taylor had obtained funding to attend this week’s meeting of the PBSG, but this was voted down by its members because of his views on global warming. The chairman, Dr Andy Derocher, a former university pupil of Dr Taylor’s, frankly explained in an email (which I was not sent by Dr Taylor) that his rejection had nothing to do with his undoubted expertise on polar bears: “it was the position you’ve taken on global warming that brought opposition”.
Dr Taylor was told that his views running “counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful”. His signing of the Manhattan Declaration – a statement by 500 scientists that the causes of climate change are not CO2 but natural, such as changes in the radiation of the sun and ocean currents – was “inconsistent with the position taken by the PBSG”.
So, as the great Copenhagen bandwagon rolls on, stand by this week for reports along the lines of “scientists say polar bears are threatened with extinction by vanishing Arctic ice”. But also check out Anthony Watt’s Watts Up With That website for the latest news of what is actually happening in the Arctic. The average temperature at midsummer is still below zero, the latest date that this has happened in 50 years of record-keeping. After last year’s recovery from its September 2007 low, this year’s ice melt is likely to be substantially less than for some time. The bears are doing fine.
Monckton summarizes the skeptical case
The warming effect of greenhouse gases is less than one-tenth the UN’s central estimate.
Spencer et al. (2008, cloud albedo); Douglass (2008, tropical mid-troposphere temperature change); Lindzen & Choi (2009 in press, outgoing long-wave radiation); and Armstrong, Green & Soon (2009 in press, zero-change benchmarking of climate forecasts) empirically confirm theoretical demonstrations (Schwartz, 2007; Monckton, 2008; Monckton & Evans, 2009 in draft) that climate sensitivity – the warming effect of all greenhouse gases, not just of CO2 – is less than one-fourth of the UN’s current central estimate. A CO2 doubling would cause just 1.5 Fø warming, not the 5.9 Fø imagined by the UN.
`Global warming’ is nothing new.
It was 10 Fø warmer than today in each of the past four interglacial periods; 2-3 Fø warmer for most of the past 10,000 years; warmer in the Minoan, medieval, and Roman warm periods. The rate of warming is nothing new either: the warming rate equivalent to 2.9 Fø/century from 1975-1998, when humankind might have had a small influence, was exactly the same as the warming rates from 1860-1880 and from 1910-1940 (House of Lords Written Answer, 2009).
There has been no statistically-significant `global warming’ for almost 15 years.
In fact, for almost eight years, on all measures, there has been global cooling at 3.4 Fø/century. Oceans have also been cooling ever since 3300 automated bathythermographs were deployed in 2005. The ocean cooling definitively proves the UN wrong about “global warming”: if there were any, 80% of it would have to show up in the top 400 fathoms of the world’s oceans, but it is not happening. It follows that all recent reports that “global warming” has caused adverse weather events must be incorrect, because there has not been any. The UN’s central estimate, on its “business-as-usual” scenario, is for 6 Fø warming in the 21st century, but in the 30 years since accurate satellite temperatures became available in 1980 the warming rate has averaged just 2.7 Fø/century – less than half the UN’s prediction.
CO2 concentration is rising at less than half the UN’s predicted rate.
The UN’s central estimate is that CO2 concentration will grow exponentially to reach 836 parts per million by volume this century, but in fact it is growing linearly towards just 575 ppm. This factor alone demands a halving of all UN temperature predictions. Methane concentration stopped rising in 2000 and has hardly changed since.
Contrary to reports, the climate is doing just fine:
Global Sea-ice Extent A steady heartbeat for 30 years.
Arctic Sea Ice Normal in winter, down a little in recent summers, but well within natural variability.
Arctic Temperature Warmer in the 1930s and early 1940s than today.
North-West Passage Amundsen sailed through it in 1903. It was also open in the mid-1940s.
Greenland Mean ice-sheet thickness grew by 2 in/yr from 1993-2003 (Johannessen et al., 2005).
Polar Bears Population up fivefold since the 1940s.
Antarctic Sea Ice Growing for 30 years.
Antarctic Temperature Little change in 50 years.
Antarctic Peninsula Ice-shelves about 1/55 the area of Texas have gone, but were not there in the Middle Ages.
Sahara Desert Greening so fast that 300,000 km2 has become vegetated, allowing nomadic tribes to settle where they haven’t been seen in living memory.
Droughts and Floods Variable as usual. Hurricanes and Other Tropical Cyclones Lowest activity for 30 years.
Sea Level Rising at 1 ft/century since satellite measurements began in 1993, compared with average 4 ft/century over the past 10,000 years. No sea-level rise in the last three years. UN High-end Forecast Slashed from 3ft to <2ft sea-level rise by 2100: UN best current estimate 1 ft 5 in.
Bangladesh Has gained 70,000 km2 land area confounding UN sea-level forecasts.
Pacific Atolls Not at risk: corals can grow towards the light at 10x the rate of sea-level rise, which is why so many atolls are just above sea level.
Maldives No sea-level rise in 1250 years (Morner, 2004).
Ocean acidification is a scientific impossibility. Henry’s Law mandates that warming oceans will outgas CO2 to the atmosphere (as the UN’s own documents predict it will), making the oceans less acid. Also, more CO2 would increase calcification rates. No comprehensive, reliable measurement of worldwide oceanic acid/base balance has ever been carried out: therefore, there is no observational basis for the computer models’ guess that acidification of 0.1 pH units has occurred in recent decades.
There is no economic case for costly measures to mitigate greenhouse-gas emissions. To prevent 1 Fø of warming, 1-10 trillion tons of CO2 emission would have to be foregone – the equivalent of shutting down the entire US economy for 170-1700 years. The Waxman/Markey Climate Bill would cost $160 billion/year (White House estimate) and, even if implemented fully, would cool the climate by just 0.0005-0.005 Fø/yr.
Secretary Chu’s grand plan to paint the world white would cool the climate 0.2 Fø at the very most, at a cost of $200 trillion.
Overtaxing & overregulating US fossil-fuel industries would increase the world carbon footprint. Not that the carbon footprint matters (see point 1). However, if the US kills its own fossil-fuel industry, US corporations and jobs will move to China and other third-world economies, where carbon emissions per unit of output are higher than in the US. China and India will not be cutting their emissions
Hank,
Thank you for proving my point at 1:49 pm.
‘Christopher Booker’s misinformation about the Polar Bear Specialist Group‘
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/christopher_bookers_misinforma.php
THE ADMINISTATION, GENIES, AND BOTTLES
There are signs that the administration might have realized what it has done with all its talk of regulating greenhouse gases. First, there was the surprising decision last Friday not to reverse the Bush administration’s rules surrounding its listing of the Polar Bear under the Endangered Species Act, causing the Center for Biological Diversity to call the rule an “extinction plan” which the administration had “made its own.”
Second, there surfaced an interagency memo circulated by OMB which said that the EPA’s finding that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare could inflict severe harm on the U.S. economy while itself being based on shaky grounds. The memo specifically says:
Making the decision to regulate CO2 under the CAA for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities and that there is a concern that EPA is making a finding based on (1) ‘harm’ from substances that have no demonstrated direct health effects, such as respiratory or toxic effects, (2) available scientific data that purports to conclusively establish the nature and extent of the adverse public health and welfare impacts are almost exclusively from non-EPA sources, and (3) applying a dramatically expanded precautionary principle.
This is pretty strong stuff, but of course it’s exactly the same sort of warnings that were presented in the Bush administration, but were decried as part of a “war on science.”
Now, today, confronted with the memo by Senator Barroso, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson somehow managed to say that an endangerment finding “does not mean regulation.” The EPA was unable to clarify what that meant, probably because it is is nonsense under the clear meaning of the Clean Air Act and its interpretation by the Supreme Court in Mass. v EPA. A coalition of free-market groups pointed this all out in its submission to EPA on the finding.
What this all suggests is that sober voices somewhere in the administration have realized just what an economic disaster regulating greenhouse gases will be. The timing of these remarks also suggests that the White House is withdrawing cover from the extremists pushing the Waxman-Markey bill. It also means that the well-funded CBD’s $17 million* that they have for litigation is going to be well-used as they tie up the administration with legal challenges.
If Obama wants to get himself out of this mess, he should sponsor legislation expressly excluding greenhouse gases from the purview of the ESA and CAA.
Hmmmmm
Palin not running for re election as Alaska Governor.
Probably knows she can’t win now that people know her better.
chas pre-judges anyone who doesn’t share his political ideology regardless of their religious beliefs.
If the devil is a liberal, they’d be best buddies.
Cui bono?
By libertarian writer L. Neil Smith
Recently, a reader of mine named Holly wrote:
“Can I ask how you made the judgment on which scientists to believe? I am interested in climate science and just started reading RealClimate, thanks in part to your post. To be honest, I respect your literary work and was surprised to hear you, as a science fiction author, naysay what I thought was serious and substantial scientific study. So I’d like to know whether you have favorite information resources to recommend. Thanks!”
Hello, Holly: My initial doubts about manmade global warming weren’t scientific, but … I guess you might say social. I am a novelist, and—when I’m not conversant on a particular subject—I’m inclined to depend on my judgement of the character of the actors involved. To some, I know, that may seem like a terrible confession, but others who write for a living will understand. The real question, after all, is “Am I being conned?”
That’s a social question, not a scientific one.
So,lacking other data, I looked at the character of those pushing the idea of Global Warming. They included leftist politicos I knew to be opportunistic liars in other contexts—particularly gun ownership—along with movie stars and other brain-dead celebrities that flock to any cause that attacks private industrial capitalism and individual liberty. Some may criticize me for ad hominem thinking, but when you don’t have reliable scientific information (which I didn’t back then), what else can you rely on but your understanding of the personalities involved?
There was also my experience with previous predictions of disaster (some which I listed in the blog entry “The Badguys” that we’re discussing ), and of conspiracy theories that seemed to me to have a similar structure. The whole “Paul is dead” thing comes to mind. I know a lot about this because I spent a lot of time in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy “movement”. At least two shooters, maybe more, Kevin Costner to the contrary, notwithstanding.
I suppose my perception of precisely who stood to benefit from the spreading fear about Global Warming comes into it. Anyone who hates technology, of course, or the present economic system. Also, hordes who will get rich from all of the asinine proposals to reduce Global Warming—anyone who makes solar panels or water heating systems or nasty little cars that go short distances very slowly, carrying almost nothing.
Most persuasive, I suppose, was an anthropological understanding I have (that being my principle field of interest and study in college) of what constitutes a religion. The planet gets transmogrified into a goddess in the minds of the faithful, and all of the entities upon it, the birds and bees and flowers and trees (to quote an old song)—all of the entities, that is, except humans—become sacred objects. Exhaling carbon dioxide becomes Original Sin. Better that a thousand human babies should die than one single snail darter or a furbish lousewort. In fact, what the Earth needs, they often say, is a good plague.
This religious interpretation helped explain the fact that Global Warming skeptics were increasingly being persecuted. They couldn’t be refuted, so university professors were being denied tenure or actually having it taken away. Government employees concerned with the weather were being reprimanded or threatened with firing. The new media were full of that kind of thing. (If academia—or science itself—ever recover from this debacle, it will be thanks to people who had retired or were just about to and didn’t have anything to lose by telling the truth.)
Of course the “mainstream” media somehow failed to report lunacy like this. And when hundreds of scientists who had literally signed on with the Global Warming hoax managed to learn more, had second or third thoughts, and withdrew their sanction, that didn’t get reported, either, except by those on the net like Matt Drudge who care about the truth.
I guess the final social fact that made me suspicious was the way people—especially legislators—were being pushed, rushed along, encouraged only to believe and act, not to think, “Because it’s too late for that, and even if it weren’t, we can’t risk not doing something.”
There were, by now, lots of physical data to support skepticism. It turns out, for example, that some of the first readings that seemed to indicate increasing world temperatures came from a weather buouy in the Pacific Ocean that was defective and had to be repaired or replaced. My suggestion was that they preserve it as a monument to Al Gore. Similarly, official weather stations—those little white-painted structures with the louvred box on top—were increasingly being photographed where they had been placed near heat sources like factory smokestacks, the backs of restaurants, and industrial heat exchangers.
I thought for a while that the whole house of cards was going to collapse when it was realized that most of the temperature readings used to support the fraud were taken in “municipal heat islands”, tiny pinpricks on the map where human activity had indeed managed to raise temperatures, usually by pouring concrete and asphalt over everything that didn’t move fast enough to avoid it. My hometown, for example, is at least ten degrees warmer in the summer now than I remember as a boy.
Then came the ice core evidence showing that a relationship did, indeed, exist between changes in the mixture of atmospheric gases and global heat fluctuations, but exactly in reverse of what was expected: there was an average 800-year lag between a rise in temperatures and increases—which followed the increasing temperatures—in carbon dioxide.
I wouldn’t want to leave out the thorough discreditation of the fraudulent “hockey stick” model, a dramatic graphic presentation by academic warmistas which, largely by means of ignoring the established climate history of the past thousand years—including the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age, both of which are exceptionally well-documented by the actual people living in those times—produced the desired results on paper, but bore no resemblance whatever to reality.
Sort of like Keynesian economics.
I just heard about a nuclear submarine in the Arctic in the 1950s that had no trouble poking its nose through the ice at the North Pole, something, I gathered from the conversation, that can’t be done easily today. For all of you Obama and McCain voters out there, this means the ice is thicker than it was half a century ago, not thinner as is claimed.
Most interestingly—remember seeing those spectacular photos from the Dustbowl era in which whole towns are about to be swallowed by a wall of airborne dust?—according to weather service records, the hottest 20th century decade was not the 1990s, as constantly advertised, but the 1930s, with the highest temperatures recorded in 1935.
The 2008-2009 winter handed one public humiliation after another to Algore and his warming wonks, as their lectures, meetings, and rallys had to be postponed or cancelled due to record cold and heavy snowfalls. It was their attribution of these lower temperatures to Global Warming that confirmed my suspicion we are dealing with a new religion.
The final nail in the coffin of manmade Global Warming was the “inconvenient truth” that Mars and Jupiter are also warming up. I knew for damn sure that my Durango wasn’t responsible for that, nor were anybody’s cows. The sun was in a relatively sunspot-free period and was shining a little more brightly on the many rocks whirling around it.
Sometime shortly after that, the warmoids felt a need to change the name of the supposed phenomenon from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change’, the same way they’d stopped calling themselves “liberals” and begun calling themselves “progressives”. In both cases, with one lie after another, one outrageous assault on life, liberty, property, and reason after another, they’d dirtied their original brand name, left it reeking on some fencepost somewhere, and found themselves a new one.
Many unanswered questions still remain, among other things, about the benefits of rising temperatures. In many ways, the Earth would be a far better place to live if it averaged five or ten degrees warmer. The fact that there has been no great land rush among the warming faithful to Alaska or Greenland sort of gives the whole game away, I think.
And now, despite careful selection (and misrepresentation) of movies of icebergs “calving” in the Arctic and Antarctic, and phony shots of polar bears swimming vainly in search of ice, it turns out, according to a very recent satellite survey by the British government (which stands to gain absolutely nothing by telling the truth) that the icecaps either end of the world don’t seem to be shrinking, after all.
I am not a footnote kind of a guy—think of me as a 21st century replacement for a newspaper columnist. But every factual thing I’ve said here can be confirmed in a few minutes perusing the Internet. Ironically, the one genuine world-ending catastrophe we face as a species—being struck by a wandering asteroid—the warmers ignore, because it doesn’t serve their economic and political interests, even though there’s a great deal that could be done, right now, to prevent it.
But that’s a subject for another time—and for my novel, CERES.
And Hank posts some brain f@rts from Monckton, at 2:11 pm.
Global warming alarmists out in cold
Comment from Australia by Andrew Bolt
IT’S snowing in April. Ice is spreading in Antarctica. The Great Barrier Reef is as healthy as ever. And that’s just the news of the past week. Truly, it never rains but it pours – and all over our global warming alarmists.
Time’s up for this absurd scaremongering. The fears are being contradicted by the facts, and more so by the week. Doubt it? Then here’s a test.
Name just three clear signs the planet is warming as the alarmists claim it should. Just three. Chances are your “proofs” are in fact on my list of 10 Top Myths about global warming. And if your “proofs” indeed turn out to be false, don’t get angry with me. Just ask yourself: Why do you still believe that man is heating the planet to hell? What evidence do you have? So let’s see if facts matter more to you than faith, and observations more than predictions.
MYTH 1 THE WORLD IS WARMING
Wrong. It is true the world did warm between 1975 and 1998, but even Professor David Karoly, one of our leading alarmists, admitted this week “temperatures have dropped” since – “both in surface temperatures and in atmospheric temperatures measured from satellites”. In fact, the fall in temperatures from just 2002 has already wiped out half the warming our planet experienced last century. (Check data from Britain’s Hadley Centre, NASA’s Aqua satellite and the US National Climatic Data Centre.)
Some experts, such as Karoly, claim this proves nothing and the world will soon start warming again. Others, such as Professor Ian Plimer of Adelaide University, point out that so many years of cooling already contradict the theory that man’s rapidly increasing gases must drive up temperatures ever faster. But that’s all theory. The question I’ve asked is: What signs can you actually see of the man-made warming that the alarmists predicted?
MYTH 2 THE POLAR CAPS ARE MELTING
Wrong. The British Antarctic Survey, working with NASA, last week confirmed ice around Antarctica has grown 100,000 sq km each decade for the past 30 years. Long-term monitoring by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports the same: southern hemisphere ice has been expanding for decades.
As for the Arctic, wrong again. The Arctic ice cap shrank badly two summers ago after years of steady decline, but has since largely recovered. Satellite data from NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Centre this week shows the Arctic hasn’t had this much April ice for at least seven years. Norway’s Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Centre says the ice is now within the standard deviation range for 1979 to 2007.
MYTH 3 WE’VE NEVER HAD SUCH A BAD DROUGHT
Wrong. A study released this month by the University of NSW Climate Change Research Centre confirms not only that we’ve had worse droughts, but this Big Dry is not caused by “global warming”, whether man-made or not. As the university’s press release says: “The causes of southeastern Australia’s longest, most severe and damaging droughts have been discovered, with the surprise finding that they originate far away in the Indian Ocean.
“A team of Australian scientists has detailed for the first time how a phenomenon known as the Indian Ocean Dipole – a variable and irregular cycle of warming and cooling of ocean water – dictates whether moisture-bearing winds are carried across the southern half of Australia.”
MYTH 4 OUR CITIES HAVE NEVER BEEN HOTTER
Wrong. The alleged “record” temperature Melbourne set in January – 46.4 degrees – was in fact topped by the 47.2 degrees the city recorded in 1851. (See the Argus newspaper of February 8, 1851.) And here’s another curious thing: Despite all this warming we’re alleged to have caused, Victoria’s highest temperature on record remains the 50.7 degrees that hit Mildura 103 years ago. South Australia’s hottest day is still the 50.7 degrees Oodnadatta suffered 37 years ago. NSW’s high is still the 50 degrees recorded 70 years ago.
What’s more, not one of the world’s seven continents has set a record high temperature since 1974. Europe’s high remains the 50 degrees measured in Spain 128 years ago, before the invention of the first true car.
MYTH 5 THE SEAS ARE GETTING HOTTER
Wrong. If anything, the seas are getting colder. For five years, a network of 3175 automated bathythermographs has been deployed in the oceans by the Argo program, a collaboration between 50 agencies from 26 countries. Warming believer Josh Willis, of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, reluctantly concluded: “There has been a very slight cooling …”
MYTH 6 THE SEAS ARE RISING
Wrong. For almost three years, the seas have stopped rising, according to the Jason-1 satellite mission monitored by the University of Colorado.
That said, the seas have risen steadily and slowly for the past 10,000 years through natural warming, and will almost certainly resume soon. But there is little sign of any accelerated rises, even off Tuvalu or the Maldives, islands often said to be most threatened with drowning.
Professor Nils-Axel Moerner, one of the world’s most famous experts on sea levels, has studied the Maldives in particular and concluded there has been no net rise there for 1250 years. Venice is still above water.
MYTH 7 CYCLONES ARE GETTING WORSE
Wrong. Ryan Maue of Florida State University recently measured the frequency, intensity and duration of all hurricanes and cyclones to compile an Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index. His findings? The energy index is at its lowest level for more than 30 years.
The World Meteorological Organisation, in its latest statement on cyclones, said it was impossible to say if they were affected by man’s gases: “Though there is evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date, no firm conclusion can be made on this point.”
MYTH 8 THE GREAT BARRIER REEF IS DYING
Wrong. Yes, in 1999, Professor Ove Hoegh-Gulberg, our leading reef alarmist and administrator of more than $30 million in warming grants, did claim the reef was threatened by warming, and much had turned white. But he then had to admit it had made a “surprising” recovery.
Yes, in 2006 he again warned high temperatures meant “between 30 and 40 per cent of coral on Queensland’s Great Barrier Reef could die within a month”. But he later admitted this bleaching had “minimal impact”. Yes, in 2007 he again warned that temperature changes of the kind caused by global warming were bleaching the reef. But this month fellow Queensland University researchers admitted in a study that reef coral had once more made a “spectacular recovery”, with “abundant corals re-established in a single year”. The reef is blooming.
MYTH 9 OUR SNOW SEASONS ARE SHORTER
Wrong. Poor snow falls in 2003 set off a rash of headlines predicting warming doom. The CSIRO typically fed the hysteria by claiming global warming would strip resorts of up to a quarter of their snow by 2018. Yet the past two years have been bumper seasons for Victoria’s snow resorts, and this year could be just as good, with snow already falling in NSW and Victoria this past week.
MYTH 10 TSUNAMIS AND OTHER DISASTERS ARE GETTING WORSE
Are you insane? Tsunamis are in fact caused by earthquakes. Yet there was World Vision boss Tim Costello last week, claiming that Asia was a “region, thanks to climate change, that has far more cyclones, tsunamis, droughts”. Wrong, wrong and wrong, Tim. But what do facts matter now to a warming evangelist when the cause is so just?
And so any disaster is now blamed on man-made warming the way they once were on Satan. See for yourself on http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm the full list, including kidney stones, volcanic eruptions, lousy wine, insomnia, bad tempers, Vampire moths and bubonic plagues. Nothing is too far-fetched to be seized upon by carpetbaggers and wild preachers as signs of a warming we can’t actually see.
Not for nothing are polar bears the perfect symbol of this faith – bears said to be threatened by warming, when their numbers have in fact increased.
Bottom line: fewer people now die from extreme weather events, whether cyclones, floods or blinding heatwaves.
Read that in a study by Indur Goklany, who represented the US at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: “There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk.”
So stop this crazy panic. First step: check again your list of the signs you thought you saw of global warming. How many are true? What do you think, and why do you think it? Yes, the world may resume warming in one year or 100. But it hasn’t been warming as the alarmists said it must if man were to blame, and certainly not as the media breathlessly keeps claiming.
Best we all just settle down, then, and wait for the proof — the real proof. After all, panicking over invisible things is so undignified, don’t you think?
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is expected to announce Friday that she will not seek a second term, a Republican source close to Palin tells CNN.
Palin has scheduled a 3 p.m. ET news conference at her home in Wasilla. The governor’s office offered no further details about the subject of the news conference.
The source tells CNN that Palin will announce her decision to forgo another run.
As the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, Palin is considered one of the front-runners for the GOP nomination in 2012. Her decision not to seek another term as governor is sure to stoke speculation that Palin is seriously eyeing a run for the White House.
I have about 50 more examples of how stupid the Goracle is to use the Polar Bear as a symbol to scare little children.
When do you want them cosmos?
nitwit
Palin/ Sanford in 2012.
Family Values like adultery, teen sex, and murdering doctors!
Go Republicans go!
And Hank copy/pastes at 2:14 pm a rant from a writer who seems to believe that the U.S. (lower 48 states) equals “global”
HMMMMMMMM
Palin to announce she is stepping down as Alaska Governor?
People will be so fed up with the chosen one by 2012 that the republicans will be able to win with anyone.
Be afraid, be very afraid.
HLP posted July 3, 2009 at 2:18 pm
I have about 50 more examples of how stupid the Goracle is to use the Polar Bear as a symbol to scare little children.
When do you want them cosmos?
nitwit
——————
Post all 50 of them now, and every day, Hank.
I enjoy seeing you prove that you’re a ex-Navy “liason”(sic) “nitwit”.
#
cosmos_originally
Posted July 3, 2009 at 2:14 pm | Permalink
And Hank posts some brain f@rts from Monckton, at 2:11 pm.
______________
cosMo, thinks “brain f@rts” are a major cause of global warming only if they come from skeptics.
He collects the warmers a$s “f@rts” in plastic bags and huffs them to get high.
Palin is quitting as governor of Alaska.
The Repjublicans are certainly dependable aren’t they?
Disappear to Argentina over Father’s Day to commit adultery in front of your three boys…
Quit being Governor of the largest state in the union (hee hee)
What will America do without Palin to guard us from Russia!?!
#
HLP
Posted July 3, 2009 at 2:21 pm | Permalink
People will be so fed up with the chosen one by 2012 that the republicans will be able to win with anyone.
Be afraid, be very afraid.
____________________
Hank, considering the accuracy of your political predictions(or lack of) over the past few years, I find your post comforting.
I work all morning, run some errands and come back to an “HLP” cut-and-post-fest.
I think I may have seen the boy at the check-out stand. The guy had a big tub of Vasoline, two boxes of Keenex, and a Miley Cyrus video.
Stocking up for the holiday, I guess.
Hud – Why didn’t I remember that brilliant utterance!! Good pull!
“Chas — Why don’t you try to put forth some sort of argument AGAINST what DFB says, instead of a bunch of mindless drivel and nonsense attack…. Ya know, Put up an opposing concept??? Ya think you can do that???”
I BET there’s some dirt about to emerge that is gonna drive lil’ Sarah from public life.
Darnit.
Well, enjoy it while you can, XXX. I’ll admit my predictions turned out to be ‘unfulfilled hope’.
In the mean time you might start trying to wrap your mind around. . .
“Madam President!”
HLP
Posted July 3, 2009 at 2:32 pm | Permalink
Well, enjoy it while you can, XXX. I’ll admit my predictions turned out to be ‘unfulfilled hope’.
In the mean time you might start trying to wrap your mind around. . .
“Madam President!”
___________________________________________
So Hank figures Hillary will run and win?
Jolly good show!
Well, Joe,
It doesn’t surprise me that you’re in the same line you can buy a ‘. . . big tub of Vasoline, two boxes of Keenex, and a Miley Cyrus video.”
Did yo follow him home?
Monkeyhawk posted July 3, 2009 at 2:30 pm
I work all morning, run some errands and come back to an “HLP” cut-and-post-fest.
——————
And Hank has another 40+ posts ready, to prove beyond all doubt that he is a ex-Navy “liason”(sic) “nitwit”.
Not that there is really any doubt. . .
Somebody must have offered her a really good job.
Her political career is over.
satatom I’m still waiting for proof of the fact that the Duke dad was a conservative. Had to leave yesterday before you had time to post it.
okobserver
Posted July 3, 2009 at 2:37 pm | Permalink
satatom I’m still waiting for proof of the fact that the Duke dad was a conservative. Had to leave yesterday before you had time to post it.
Do your own research…grannie
Palin / Sanford for Family Values in 2012!
“Remind me again why the Founders left 2 ways to amend the COTUS in Art V again??” [DFB]
You use the KEY word in this sentence… That KEYWORD is: Amend… AMEND…
By contrast, YOU are an advocate for not amending, but SCRAPPING what we have now… and re-writing the entire thing… term limits on congress AND the SCOTUS… line item veto(already ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS)… and all that other drivel you want to RE-WRITE…
Each one of those extreme items on your wish list makes you ANTI-Constitution… Of course, you have it so ingrained in your thought processes, you cant see that… Instead you post your ongoing, and worsening screed against ME, and any others who happen to think you’re just plain nuts!!
You are merely promoting a different KIND of a revolution… unless you plan on taking it over by FORCE if your plans for a Constitutional Convention dont go the way you want…
See, I dont think you can get enough votes for your blessed Convention high hopes…
So, what ARE your plans, if you cant get the Convention you want???
Palin announces Resignation as Alaska Governor…
I call it right now.
There is some MAJOR scandal or dirt about to break on lil’ Sarah and she is bailing out.
It’s not just she’s not gonna run for reelection at the end of her term, the Moose-Dresser is taking the money and skee-daddling!
Maybe Todd’s been “hiking the Appalachian Trail,” or something.
Somebody needs to look inside Willard Romney’s organization. It figured into Mark Sanford’s downfall. Mitten’s people may have come across with video of a three-way involving Todd and Sarah and a caribou or something.
kansas.com is still censoring and removing blog comments. I was removed and did not breech policy. Herbert West 3rd, {D} Candidate for Kansas Governor 2010. http://www.herbertwest3rd.blogspot.com/ west.herb@yahoo.com
I am also HerbertIII at http://www.twitter.com
Wow.
I didn’t think anyone could top Governor Sanford for public melt down.
She did. That was an out and out, full flight retreat from public life!
I can’t wait to hear what she’s running from. I predict it won’t be long in coming.
Unlike “HerbertWestIII,” –
I am not now, nor have I ever been, a candidate for the office of Governor of Kansas.
HOO-RAY FOR SARAH PALIN!!!!
I turned on the news this afternoon and for the first time in a week, I saw nothing about the freak drug addict Michael Jackson.
That said, I wonder what this is all about. Surely she doesn’t believe that this bit of weirdness is going to help her politically. If she’s the Con candidate in 2012, the Dems will tear her to pieces. She’s a quitter. She doesn’t finish what she starts. She’s easily distracted. She couldn’t take the heat. The going got tough and she fell out.
Bu-bye Sarah Palin.
#
HLP
Posted July 3, 2009 at 2:32 pm | Permalink
Well, enjoy it while you can, XXX. I’ll admit my predictions turned out to be ‘unfulfilled hope’.
In the mean time you might start trying to wrap your mind around. . .
“Madam President!”
_________________
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!
HOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHO!
HEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEEHEE!
It’ll never happen. NEVER.
I’d offer a sizable bet but as I recall, you have a tendency to welch.
I’m thinkin’ maybe Willow Palin really did get knocked up by A-Rod during the 7th Inning Stretch.
Or maybe Bristol really WAS the mother of Trig. Or perhaps Martians are involved.
XXX: By stepping down now and not waiting until her term is up she can enter the GOP primaries for 2012, and maybe get her real message out. She took a lot of heat about lack of foreign experiences as she stumbled on the Curic show, but the she was a novice in that interview, sadly coached by McCain & Co. I also think the experiences she did have in foregn affairs was downplayed by the GOP, for no one running for President is going to want advertised smarts in a running mate in the field exclusively that of the President, external/foreign affairs. Palin was the governor of something called The Northern Forum a group of 24 sub-national states representing 10 countries dedicated to the sustained improvement of Northern Peoples eveywhere. She dealt with Russia, Japan, Mongolia, Canada, China, Iceland and the Scandinavian States and was considered a class act by those involved from other countries. Why this was hidded from the public in her run as VP is a mystery to me.
Chas weally twies this time: “By contrast, YOU are an advocate for not amending, but SCRAPPING what we have now… and re-writing the entire thing… term limits on congress AND the SCOTUS… line item veto(already ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS)… and all that other drivel you want to RE-WRITE… ”
__________
Hey, jackhole…what is it you can’t wrap your pea-brain around to understand that a Const Convention has nothing to do with “rewriting” the Const…but offering amendments TO it for approval via the ratification process provided for IN the COTUS???
Apparently in your small, small world..the entire COTUS amounts to term limits, line item veto, fed reserve audit and fed bal budget…geez, are you seriously this stupid, or do you just play a useful idiot on this blog?? Good luck in your bone-dig to provide a single shred of evidence I’ve ever once suggested “rewriting” the Constitution. Your brethren are the whole “living breathing document” crowd, not mine.
But since you deflected again…still waiting on exactly which of those proposed AMENDMENTS are “rightwing” and not 100% bi-partisan…that means it applies to both parties…I know you struggle sounding out words with more than one syllable.
“DFB” contributes –
“Hey, jackhole…what is it you can’t wrap your pea-brain around to understand….”
Y’know.
What “okobserver” considers “substance.”
MH – yeah, pretty much the definition of every single post I’ve seen from you…most of the time, exactly that kind of “substance”.
Sursum,
I, for one, want nothing more than to hear Sarah Palin hold forth on Foreign Policy. Unfortunately, the “know nothing and proud of it!” faction of the GOP that backs her is more interested in domestic policy, specifically, in Culture War issues.
Do you think she’ll be able to bring them along?
What it shows is that Republican women CRUMBLE under pressure.
Keep ‘em at home barefoot and knocked up!!!!!
Anyone else catch Palin saying “Alaskans and Americans” in her quitter speech?
Perhaps she was forward thinking when Alaska secedes from the Union…otherwise, Alaskans ARE Americans.
satatom
Posted July 3, 2009 at 4:02 pm | Permalink
What it shows is that Republican women CRUMBLE under pressure.
Keep ‘em at home barefoot and knocked up!!!!!
satatom
Posted July 3, 2009 at 4:06 pm | Permalink
Anyone else catch Palin saying “Alaskans and Americans” in her quitter speech?
Perhaps she was forward thinking when Alaska secedes from the Union…otherwise, Alaskans ARE Americans.
my bad…wrong thread twice
Except she packs a .45
LOL that is a plus? Lucy Ricardo with a loaded weapon! “Oh Ricky…. you are dead!”
“Good luck in your bone-dig to provide a single shred of evidence I’ve ever once suggested ‘rewriting’ the Constitution.” [DFB]
Ummm… EACH ONE of the items you want to allegedly “amend” is in reality re-writing what exists… Check your wish list… Doesnt take much of a bone dig… Your wish lists includes ‘deleting’ major sections of the current Constitution… You can call it an amendment if you want… I am arguing that point, and calling your proposals ANTI-government swill…
For instance — Your call for putting the line-item veto IN the Constitution, would require you to first wipe out the Supreme Court ruling on that issue that already exists… Without some major legal research, I am not even certain if you can write an amendment to the COTUS that over-turns a Supreme Court decision… UNLESS you first Amend the COTUS by eliminating the Supreme Court…
So, how would you plan to do that??
How would you plan to INSERT term limits on the Federal Judiciary, where none exists currently?? OR, term limits on members of the House and Senate?? Wouldnt either of those manuevers first require dismantling the definitions of the TERM of a Federal Justice??
I suspect it might be easier to pass just a straight amendment(w/o the Convention) as to term limits for the House and Senate…
Apparently, the Fed. Reserve Audit that you want, can be done by the Congress without any Constitutional Amendments, since the Congress created the Fed. Reserve, and has the authority to regulate it…
I’m still betting you cant get the votes needed to CALL for a COTUS Convention…
AND, I still am of the opinion that your views on the issues you have spelled out, are basically in the category of ANTI-government…
If I were you, and wanted to be taken seriously, I would just stick to building lots of grass roots support for Term Limits on the House and Senate…
“Apparently, the Fed. Reserve Audit that you want, can be done by the Congress without any Constitutional Amendments, since the Congress created the Fed. Reserve, and has the authority to regulate it…” [MINE]
SO, DFB, get behind the Ron Paul proposed Bill, and work the heck out of it… Be a pit bull on your congressional representatives… until they get tired of hearing your name on the phone, or in email… Call talk shows… Form citizens’ groups… Print brochures….
I can see WHY this is something wanted by a number of people… I guess I am just not sure what good it will do, if it is approved by the House and Senate…
As I have said before… Audit the Fed… If there are things wrong, FIX what is wrong… and do a “happy dance” If there is nothing wrong… Then drop it, and move on… duhh…
sooo, anyone flying to LA to participate in the freak show circus? Oh..my bad…I meant the “memorial service”……
Hey..lookie…Chas actually added a little gristle to the bone..no meat…but a little gristle.
Where do I begin…you literally make my point, by implying that the SCOTUS can “rewrite” the Constitution with decisions…their job is to interpret it…so if an Amendment is added to it…guess what, their “decision” is meaningless from that point forward. Do you honestly think all SCOTUS decisions are “good” in terms of the Constitution…you know, like Dred Scott..or others like Pollock vs Farmer’s Loan that said Congress has no right to impose income tax..huh, what did they do…they AMENDED the Const and added the 16th Amend…weird…just like I said! Wow, and I didn’t even have to do “major legal research” to prove your idiotic rambling about eliminating the SCOTUS…
Now..as for every single thing I’ve proposed..not one of them requires a Const Conv or even an Amendment..ok, except for line item veto (even though SCOTUS decisions can be reversed by later SCOTUS’s….weird huh…)..the point you’ve ignored about 75 times now, is congress will never pass any law that hinders their own self-delegated power..nor will any Admin..nor any SCOTUS..so you can chime on all you want about passing laws, but it’s childish and naive to believe anyone in DC will trim their own fat…hence, since my very first posting of suggesting this idea, however long ago it’s been now, that leaves one alternative for “the people”. To invoke Art V of the COTUS and petition congress for a Const Conv.
Now as for Ron Paul’s bill..HR 1207 if you’re curious..I do support it…so do a couple hundred co-sponsors..but your hero Barney Frank is burying it as Chair of the House Banking Comm (btw – why don’t you point out to me in the Const where it delegates significantly more power to a House member as a Chair (or even just member of a specific comm) relative to all other members of the House (or Senate))…just the latest example of the silly games congress plays with critical issues, but here’s a few more..hiring a speed reader – Waxman, ignoring House rules and limiting debate to 3 hrs/slipping in amendments at 3am/nobody reading a bill before vote – Pelosi, just as a couple more recent examples.
You still haven’t answered the most basic question. If the Const has been amended 27 times already, why would adding a few more be “rewriting” it now? But just to screw with you…let’s delete the 3rd, 18th & 21st Amendments.
Sure — why not?? So, you want to delete # 3, and ALLOW soldiers to be quartered in the homes of private citizens?? Go for it… and watch it FAIL… As for 18 & 21?? Duhhh.. it would still require an Amendment to delete them… ID10T
The only thing funnier then watching Chas acting like a lawyer, is watching him acting like a preacher.
DFB — READ this article from HLPR:
http://www.hlpronline.com/2006/11/tushnet_01.html
Sounds like BJ, almost word for word:
Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.
It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.
According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: that there can no longer be any wage-labour when there is no longer any capital.
U.S. Constitution – Article 5
Article 5 – Amendment
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
=============================================
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A5.html
=============================================
Do you really think you could get this process started, DFB?? Why do you think the Founders made the process intentionally difficult to amend the Constitution?? Hmmmm??
BJ, you feel stuck in the middle, don’t you? I know, the man has been getting you down, giving you the shaft from both ends.
———
No sooner is the exploitation of the labourer by the manufacturer, so far, at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.
Obama will CHANGE the miserable character of the misappropriation of Capital:
All that we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the labourer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it.
In bourgeois society, living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labour. In Communist society, accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer.
Chas, your lack of reading skills never disappoints…read it, idiot! It doesn’t suggest that congress gets to choose whether or not to ratify an amendment, just WHICH option for state legislatures or conventions in said states…either way, it takes 3/4’s or 38 of them! Do you seriously think you’re making some kind of point????
As for the other 3 Amendments I suggested getting rid of…ha…made you look!
As for making it easy to amend..that’s why the Founders made it difficult to Amend no matter what. They never intended for the SCOTUS to “amend” at their leisure…or maybe you can attempt to misread some clause in the Const to support that fantasy as well?
In the 30’s, they got close to having enough petitions to hold a Conv to repeal Prohibition…funny, soon as they got to 32 states, Congress repealed it fast…weird how leverage like that works.
Now, let’s really stretch those reading skills you’re showing off Chas….show me where there’s an expiration date in Article V on previously filed petitions from states. Read hard, I’m sure you’ll find it. But just in case you don’t…ponder this for a while…maybe “I” don’t need the “votes”…in our history 45 states have petitioned congress for a Conv over several issues, only 3 repealed their petition, leaving 42 outstanding petitions. If there’s no expriration date…that would mean, someone could force the SCOTUS to make a call on whether or not congress is compelled to call a Conv under Art V….then show me in Art V where it sets up the procedures for a Conv…you know, like who the delegates are, how are they chosen, are there committees, who pays for it, where is it held, how long does it last, who “chairs” it, what type of majority vote is required to approve an amendment, etc, etc….see, that’s the brilliance of the Founders…they left those powers in the hands of the “people” (ie, state legislatures) not in Congress to define…that’s why congress kisses major azz to make sure one never happens, because they lose their toys…some of their “wealth” gets redistributed…so all it takes is some lawyer wanting to make a name for him/herself who’s willing to push the envelope on the expiration date of state petitions…
You should try reading books sometimes vs just counting on Google. Try “A More Perfect Constitution” by Larry Sabato. He’s liberal, you’ll like him.
JJ – do you speak Chas better than I do? “What we seem to have here, is a serious failure to communicate…” Can’t remember what movie that’s from, but I’ve never “debated” anyone who makes my own points for me, and claims he’s somehow disagreeing, while proving his point is pointless…
From the movie Cool Hand Luke – “What we have here is a failure to communicate”
Oh, as for speaking Chasist, you must use Chasisms.
Often, by using Marxists words and relating them to current events, you can break through. (Chasists derived from Marxists)
You might have seen somewhere today, Chas noted the similarity between between Communists and Obama.
DFB, as for your Constitutional (or CONUS in Chasist) Convention ideas, I’m all for it. We discussed this a couple three weeks ago, if I recall correctly.
Now an O’Chasism is what Chas has when he’s getting excited about O’bama.
(Sometimes difficult to tell if he’s having an O’Chasism, cause I think he fakes it sometimes. Capn somehow can tell when it’s for real or not.)
JJ – thanks for the tip…I tried that this time with the “redistribution” comment…so maybe it’ll sink in.
Yep, I remember the discussion from a while back. Not a difficult concept to grasp, but it’s a concept that rarely gets discussed, and is never mentioned by politicians. If it is, there’s usually a chorus or two of “they’ll take my guns” from one side, and “they want to make women breeders!” from the other. As I’ve tried to lay out, the 38 state ratification requirement makes these fears null & void, leaving only the types of issues that could garner the 3/4’s support from states required.
The silence of discussion on the ability to call a Const Convention is similar to the lack of discussion around how the SCOTUS managed to confiscate the ability to create new “amendments” in the first place in Marbury vs Madison in 1803. Goes back to the original Federalist vs Anti-Federalist rivalries present at the first Const Convention. Washington loaded the courts with Federalists, so first chance they got, they created the power for themselves. Activist judges are as old as the SCOTUS itself. John Marshall was one of the worst! And they’ve been doin’ their thang ever since…
“Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;” [Article V]
Is that not a clear statement?? You cant understand what that says??
“…Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;”
Gee, looks like the members of the Congress decide which Mode of Ratification would be proposed… hmmmm… Real hard to figure out, eh, DFB??
“You might have seen somewhere today, Chas noted the similarity between between Communists and Obama.” [Johnson]
And JimJohnson continues his unbroken chain of daily LIES…. LOL Nothing new there…
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.”
— Chief Justice John Marshall
http://www.landmarkcases.org/marbury/home.html
“The silence of discussion on the ability to call a Const Convention is similar to the lack of discussion around how the SCOTUS managed to confiscate the ability to create new “amendments” in the first place in Marbury vs Madison in 1803. Goes back to the original Federalist vs Anti-Federalist rivalries present at the first Const Convention. Washington loaded the courts with Federalists, so first chance they got, they created the power for themselves. Activist judges are as old as the SCOTUS itself. John Marshall was one of the worst! And they’ve been doin’ their thang ever since…” [DFB]
Ahh yess… the neoCon attempt to resurrect the old Federalists’ views… Sorry, guy, the Federalists LOST at the original Const. Convention… Marbury V. Madison still stands… It was NOT an amendment… Read Marshall’s decision very closely… It is an interpretation of Article III of the Constitution…. NOT an amendment of said Article…
Now is time to give due homage to the Founders of this great nation….
good night; good luck; god bless….
whatever you perceive god to be….
blessings on the USA….
so mote it be….
“DFB, as for your Constitutional (or CONUS in Chasist) Convention ideas, I’m all for it. We discussed this a couple three weeks ago, if I recall correctly.”
Yes, I remember that JJ. I also remember a certain poster who was ignorant of procedures to amend the constitution. Posted something off the wall not even knowing the procedures are in the law.
My concern is holding a Constitutional Convention while demcorats control the government. I fear that with the states now indebted to the feds – the feds will dictate to the states any proposed actions. Blackmail or brute force. The Obama brownshirts are well on the way to solidifying power at all levels.
For all their talk about being constitutional “originalists,” CONs sure get in frequent frenzies to amend the damned thing.
Remember when CONs wanted to amend the COTUS so Ahnold Governator could be the Repubic Party’s new Reagan?
Remember how the CONs wanted amend the COTUS so Saint Ronnie (in early stages of Alzheimer’s) could run for a third term?
Remember how, after getting their asses handed them five straight elections by FDR and Truman, the Repubic Party imposed presidential term limits… thus preventing Reagan’s reign for life?
Remember the CONs’ collective sigh of relief they didn’t get the Reagan 3rd Term amendment after all because it prevented a third term for Bill Clinton?
CONs are now talking about amending the COTUS on behalf of the “Sanctity of Marriage;” its most adamant supporters including a Repubic Party heavyweight who believes marriage should be a sacred union between a man and a woman… and another woman in Argentina.
I hope your CONstitutional CONvention takes place. It’ll be great comedy.
No more habeas corpus, but concealed-carry will become mandatory.
No more trial by jury, but every sperm will be sacred.
No freedom of religion unless you’ve been born twice.
Monkeyhawk, I don’t remember any of those things.
Perhaps you have links?
Or are you just spouting off as usual?
With only one link per post, this will take a while, “American_Way.”
“Thursday, September 16, 2004 – Page updated at 12:00 A.M.
Amendment would drop requirement that president be U.S.-born
By Jim Puzzanghera
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON — Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, an Orange County, Calif., Republican and longtime friend of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, introduced a constitutional amendment yesterday to allow foreign-born Americans who have been citizens for 20 years to run for president….”
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002036961_amendment16.html
So you have ONE represenative proposing legislation and that means all “CONS”?
I’m afraid your intelligence level is actually slipping a few points Monkeyhawk.
The 22nd Amendment –
http://www.npr.org/blogs/politicaljunkie/2009/06/ronald_reagan_and_the_22nd_ame.html
From Monkey’s link:
“Meanwhile, as noted by the invaluable FactCheck.org Web site, Brooks Jackson writes that Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY) has already introduced a bill to repeal the 22nd Amendment.”
It doesn’t get any better than this. Go pour yourself some coffee Monkeyhawk.
Sorry, “American_Way” –
But when you guys play the “I don’t remember…” card, I believe you.
And when you plead ignorance, I really believe you.
When you ask for a link and I give you one, you complain that you can’t find another.
Google is your friend, “American_Way.”
Are you unable to use that search engine yourself?
Or are you just spouting off?
Your link tells me a lib wants a third term president. Guess all “libs” want to throw out the constitution!
Your labeling and posts are indicative of you having a direct source of energy at the koolaid pool.
Happy dependency day!
Ask any Democrat, “American_Way” –
You CONs passed the 22nd Amendment and have regretted it. We Democrats think the FDR years were the best in the 20th Century’s (if not the nation’s) history.
Reforming the economy.
Winning a World War.
Health coverage via the workplace.
High upper-bracket income taxes.
A vibrant Middle Class.
The GI Bill.
Et cetera…
So, yeah.
You CONs convinced me.
Getting rid of presidential term limits would eliminate lame-duckness. Even for a Repubic Party president.
I could live with that possibility.
Remember how Newtie Gingrich and Toad Tiahrt promised they’d amend the Constitution to impose term limits on congresscritters?
No, I suppose you don’t.
It was part of the Contract With America. It was in the papers.
Now, before this devolves into nitpicking minutia and dueling links, go back to my original point.
All you CONs who claim to be “originalists,” sure throw around proposed amendments. (See above, re: CONstitutional CONventions).
I’m not sure Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY) has ever been associated with “originalists.” That seems to be a CON CONcept.
Maybe you forgot.
“American_Way?”
Did you forget this thread?
Chas pukes:
““…Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;”
Gee, looks like the members of the Congress decide which Mode of Ratification would be proposed… hmmmm… Real hard to figure out, eh, DFB??”
_________________
My Hell, are you seriously THIS stupid???????? Congress gets to choose if STATES ratify an amendment with 3/4 of STATE’S legislatures or STATES’S conventions….what point are you trying to make, besides proving over, and over, and over what an idiot you are??? “Hmmmmm???”
Chas swings & misses again!!!!!!!
“Ahh yess… the neoCon attempt to resurrect the old Federalists’ views… Sorry, guy, the Federalists LOST at the original Const. Convention… Marbury V. Madison still stands… It was NOT an amendment… Read Marshall’s decision very closely… It is an interpretation of Article III of the Constitution…. NOT an amendment of said Article…”
____________
Is there ANYTHING regarding the Const or history that you haven’t warped in that waste of space between your ears??
Federalists were the BIG GOVT crowd..you know..like yourself, freak! They were the Democrats in the 18th century (Hamilton/Adams). The ANTI-FEDERALISTS, were the limited govt/state’s rights crowd (Jefferson/Madison). So yeah, YOUR SIDE lost in the first Const Convention, Madison OWNED your crowd in debates! Washington/Adams (Washington was only person respected by all) were Federalists and chose Federalist judges, JUST LIKE I SAID, like Marshall and began their legacy of trying to “win” their Big Govt case through the courts, since they couldn’t through congress!!!
Again, why don’t you “read a book” very closely, instead of thinking you’re somehow showing some sign of intelligence by doing Google searches after I tell you what to look up!
MH adds his pennies worth of thought with:
“All you CONs who claim to be “originalists,” sure throw around proposed amendments. (See above, re: CONstitutional CONventions).”
__________________
As usual, you add about as much weight in argument as a monkey fart. You lead with your “FDR was the greatest man alive, I wish I could have his lovechild” routine that’s standard propaganda for Progressives (or as BJ calls himself, Democratic Socialist..gee, so surprised an oxymoron). FDR was a POS. He LOVED him some Mussolini, Stalin & Hitler, sharing love notes back & forth, of course till it became clear that they too were POS’s, then suddenly had to shift the game. Well, at least he was nice enough to give Stalin E Europe to plunder for a while. Then there was other brilliance like price controls, wage controls, destroying crops/animals to prop up prices (while people were starving!), court packing schemes, detaining Japanese citizens/confiscating their assets, taking us off the gold standard, trashing contract law by ignoring gold certificate holder’s rights (weird, just like Obama with auto bondholders…), under the NRA created monopolies and let big business write the rules to crush small business, unemployment well into double digits for 10 yrs, complete freakshows in Admin like Rex Tugwell/Hugh Johnson/Walter Lippman/etc…
I could go on, as there’s so much more to be disgusted with when it comes to FDR, but you keep to selling your generalities, just sell them to your crowd who’s stupid enough to buy them.
Now, if you had a clue what “originalist” meant, your “thought” might show you are capable of thought. Originalist means that the Const should be interpreted based on its originally intended meaning. So, when the freaks on your side try to play the “living document” game, time to clarify the language you abuse, and cap the decision rights govt’s proven they can’t handle (ie, fed res audit, fed balanced budget, etc). As an originalist, proposing a Const Convention is using the method CLEARLY spelled out in the COTUS, not twisting some lame SCOTUS decision from an even lamer activist Judge who tries to create powers/rights/etc out of thin air by writing a paragraph or two and getting 4 buddies to vote along with him/her.
MH reviews standard Prog talking pts with:
“I hope your CONstitutional CONvention takes place. It’ll be great comedy.
No more habeas corpus, but concealed-carry will become mandatory.
No more trial by jury, but every sperm will be sacred.
No freedom of religion unless you’ve been born twice.”
_______
Funny, you seem to show about the same level of understanding & projection as Chas. Not once has a single one of these been even so much as hinted at…and even headed off such nonsensical ipse dixit, by pre-emptively discussing the fact that 38 states have to ratify any amendment.
Good thing is, you’ve retained your useful idiot card. The party can always count on you to faithfully execute regurgitated dogma without a second wasted on actual thought or intellectual honesty.
FDR in a nutshell:
After SCOTUS struck down some of his ag program,
“Are we going to take the hands of the federal government completely off any effort to adjust the growing of national crops, and go right straight back to the old principle that every farmer is a lord of his own farm and can do anything he wants, raise anything, and old time, in any quantity, and sell any time he wants?”
Pretty much sums up the difference between the parties to this day.
“and old time” should be “any old time”