Liberal Environmental Truth Twisting

I saw this little gem of a quote from a liberal extremist bed wetter on someone's email sig:

"So called 'global warming' is just a secret ploy by wacko tree-huggers to make America energy independent, clean our air and water, improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles, kick-start 21st century industries, and make our cities safer and more livable. Don't let them get away with it!"


I thought I would debunk it:

The only policies put forth so far by these environmental extremists have made us MORE dependent on foreign oil, and have dramatically raise prices of that same oil. The same policies caused an energy crisis back in the 1970s which led to the only known occurrence in ALL OF HISTORY of stagflation, which is an economic downturn coupled with high inflation.


There is nothing to global warming hypotheses that is about cleaning air and water. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a naturally occurring substance. In fact, entropy favors all carbon based compounds to eventually decay into carbon dioxide.

21st century industries don't need kick started. They are already here, but have been stifled by what has happened to the energy supply and the economy, mostly due to the Chicken Littles who believe in the global warming myth.

Cities have poor safety and liveability because of criminals, most of whom are Obama voters. I live in the city, and am surrounded by Obama voters. They cheat, steal, vandalize, and NO ONE pollutes like them.

Global warming is really about defeating capitalism, which is what enables freedom, and imposing socialism, which is the antithesis to freedom. Tree huggers are all about controlling your life, because they think you are not smart enough to do it yourself.

Some thoughts on being an American Indian by birth, not by government fiat

Many years ago, my Granddad was an American Indian living in Oklahoma, just after statehood. From what I hear, he wasn't too keen on being associated with other American Indians other than just being part of the group. To him, people were people, but he was quite disgusted with the rampant alcoholism and other moral hazards abused by his fellow Indians. It was always assumed by my family that his lack of wearing his race on his sleeve had a lot to do with the discrimination against Indians at the time. That undoubtedly had a lot to do with it, but being a transplant into Oklahoma, from Missouri where my Granddad migrated to, I am finding another side to it.

I have joined groups, or looked into joining groups of American Indians here in Oklahoma. What I find invariably in those groups is quite disturbing to me. As it turns out, I am treated like an outsider, as those groups are generally regarded as card carrying groups only. I have been told that I am not Indian. I have been told I don't look Indian enough (neither did my Granddad who was full blooded, nor my mother who is half). I have been told by a woman who is far less Indian than I am that my Granddad "renounced his tribal citizenship."

Tribal citizenship, as it exists now, is a construct of the White Man. In the past, tribal "citizenship" was heritage. Many Indians didn't get their "citizenship" roll numbers (my Granddad and his family were among them); whereas many white Sooners got Indian roll numbers by deceit in order to get free land. I get labeled as not being Indian by people who don't have a drop of Indian blood in them. Any more, being Indian isn't about culture, history, or heritage, but about who got that roll number regardless of their family heritage.

These same people, who treat that card from the White Man as the pinnacle of Indian achievement, label themselves and other Indians as "Native Americans," which is an offensive, politically correct term that was fabricated by white people. Why other Indians embrace that term so much is perplexing to me.

It saddens me that Indians have been reduced to people discriminating against other Indians to get ahead, and our culture and customs have been reduced to purveyors of moral hazards.

I was excited to be moving to Oklahoma and learn something more of my heritage, and perhaps meet others in my tribes or even long lost relatives. I am 1/4 Indian, but it's from two tribes. One of those tribes, the Cheyenne, won't even take me because you have to be at least 1/4 of their tribe. This leaves out many people who are Indian to a large degree, but of mixed tribal heritage. The other tribe I am descended from, Ponca, takes people who are at least 1/8, but they still won't take me because my Granddad's family didn't see the value in another one of White Man's tricks, go figure. Further, they go by strict simplified Mendelian genetics to determine this, which is often inaccurate, especially when it comes to race. If this is what my Granddad experienced when he lived here around the time of the rolls, then I really can't blame him for getting the Hell out. No wonder our culture is disappearing fast.

Thanks for the (Pocket) Change, Obama

So, to Osama bin Obama, "change" means trying old failed ideas over and over again until they work. It reminds me of the old adage that goes "Insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting to get different results."

Now his latest version of "change" is his idea to solve our energy crisis. Here's the shocker: He wants more government regulation and taxes. Wow, didn't see that one coming. Change is amazing. He is different than the usual Washington insider. </sarcasm>

So, the conservative response is that this is socialism. The left wing liberal response is "No it's not (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)."

Let's look at why this is socialism: Obama's plan, chanting the tired old liberal mantra of so called renewable energy sources (never mind the fact that no energy source is really renewable, and that oil is every bit as renewable as wind), declared that he is going to tax the oil companies to pay for development of new technologies. "Yeah, stick it to the evil oil companies," the common person to the left wing nut would say. They are tired of the price manipulation, etc that, admittedly, are very real, but not the problem right now. Of course, what Obama is talking about isn't rebalancing of the supply / demand equation, he is talking merely about replacing our existing energy sources. That is the Democrat plan for our energy crisis: get our energy from a totally different source, but don't increase supply, even though demand is naturally increasing because our population is increasing, as well as our utilization of energy consuming technology.

Now, why is it wrong to tax the oil companies to pay for this? You might wonder. You must realize that corporate taxes are a myth. They aren't just a myth, they are one of the biggest myths ever imagined by man. Corporations don't pay taxes, we do. It's just part of the overhead to them. They will mark up their stuff to make a profit over the overhead. What that means to the consumer, you and me, is that we pay this overhead AND the profit. "Well, those greedy oil companies shouldn't be trying to make a profit," a left wing nut might declare. That's hypocritical, because that left wing nut is saying so because he is worried about his OWN profit. The oil companies aren't making a profit, the stock holders are. The stock holders are, largely, Americans. Average, middle class, run of the mill, working Americans like you and me. "I don't own any stocks," you might say. Do you have a 401(k)? A 403(b)? An IRA? Money market? Mutual fund? Then guess what: you own stock. What's more is, you probably are one of those rich oil tycoons. And the profit from that stock ownership is taxed, not once, but twice before it goes into your retirement account. You see, businesses don't have a money tree growing at their corporate headquarters that they secretly get money from to pay for increased taxes. They get those taxes from me and you. The company is just a glorified tax collector for the government. Of course Demokooks never let these facts get in the way of their ideology. "I disagree," they will say in response to this, as though disagreeing with a fact ever changed it. I disagree with gravity, but if I jump off of a building, I fall every time, no matter how vehemently I disagree.

Now, how can Obama stop these rich, greedy, evil oil companies from making us pay for Obama's tax increases? Well, when he convinces Congress to pass this tax, he would also have to convince Congress to make part of the bill limit the profit the oil companies could make. This, of course, would cause the oil company's stock to crash. Who wants a stock that doesn't perform? The oil companies would all fail, and would have to be bailed out by the government, effectively making the petroleum industry state run. Of course, this would have a huge negative effect on the international market, since the US Congress has no jurisdiction over the world commodities market, and thus cannot micromanage it. Oil prices would become more volatile than ever. The nationalized oil industry would, of course, have to raise its prices to pay for petroleum. Petroleum products (remember, gasoline isn't the only petroleum product, there's also plastics, motor oil, jet fuel, home electricity, etc) would essentially be another tax we pay, so our taxes would go up again. The government would find it necessary to limit the petroleum products you use, to ration it and make sure no one uses more than their fair share. Sound familiar? Socialism and communism share this same philosophy.

Osama bin Obama's plan isn't just to tax oil companies; his plan is to socialize the American petroleum industry. His plan is to increase the size and scope of government, and to increase taxes on you and me, not just the "wealthiest 2%."

The only change that Obama plans to leave us with is what little pocket change we'll have left after his plans go into action.

Technology Rant

Ok, people, this is the year 2008 and it's more than half over. I just
got off the phone with some very pedantic people representing a
business, whom I could barely work with on a business transaction
because they are clinging to old technology like an old sock clings to
the lint filter in a dryer.


I'm talking about fax machines and land line phones, here. It seems
that companies just can't kick the fossils and get with the digital
age. Sure, fax machines were great when they first came out, but they
are 20th Century technology and they are more than obsolete already. I don't own one, and I never will. It would be a waste of money,
especially since I don't have a land line phone, which, by the way, is
19th century technology. I mean, these things are Fred Flintstone
material.


What's sad is, these companies have computers and email, and can
download things like the FREE Acrobat reader in order to exchange and view PDF files, but they just refuse to because they can't get with the modern times. They could still hang on to their beloved and cherished glorified doorstops and paperweights, and yet use modern technology at the same time, but for some unknown reason they refuse.


I wonder how many Japanese companies are this far behind the times?


Yabba Dabba doooooo!

Some more facts about the energy crisis.

There is a Kool Aid drinking liberal moon bat who posts after every negative article about energy prices in the Tulsa World news paper's online edition "Don't blame me, I voted Democratic."

This guy is clueless at best, and dangerous at worst, but he is a symptom of the problem. Using the formula in my previous post, the Dumbocrats have convinced an awful lot of people that the Democrats are the solution to the energy problem, and that the Republicans are the cause.

Fortunately, this crude oil price surge is a bubble that is going to break eventually. Unfortunately if that mindless rube Obama gets elected before this happens, he and the Dumbocrats will take full credit for it, and the Kool Aid drinkers will help convince a lot of uneducated and undereducated people that it is true.

Here is the problem with that line of thinking, though:

The big plan that Nancy "Stretch" Pelosi and the Dumbocrats wouldn't define, but assured the nation would bring gas prices down if they got elected has brought the gas prices from $1.60 / gal to $4.00 / gal in just under a year and a half. We can't take any more of their plan, their destruction of the Constitution, or their support for state sponsors of terror.

A few weeks ago, the House Appropriations Committee had a vote on energy independence for the United States, which would drastically reduce the price of oil and reduce support of state sponsors of terror. Here is how the vote went:

Those voting AGAINST energy independence, and FOR terrorism:

Norman D. Dicks (WA) Democrat
James P. Moran (VA) Democrat
Maurice D. Hinchey (NY) Democrat
John W. Olver (MA) Democrat
Alan B. Mollohan (WV) Democrat
Tom Udall (NM) Democrat
Ben Chandler (KY) Democrat
Ed Pastor (AZ) Democrat
Dave Obey (WI) Democrat

Those voting FOR energy independence and AGAINST terrorism:

Todd Tiahrt (KS) Republican
John E. Peterson (PA) Republican
Jo Ann Emerson (MO) Republican
Virgil H. Goode, Jr. (VA) Republican
Ken Calvert (CA) Republican
Jerry Lewis (CA) Republican

Unfortunately, the Dumbocrats, in their usual anti American way, voted along party lines to keep us dependent on state sponsors of terror for our energy needs.

Kool Aid drinkers put the Dumbocrats in power so that their vote can keep America down.

Don't blame me, I voted Republican.

Remember that on November 4.

Rant on Liberal Energy Conservation BS.

Ok, so I am sick of smarmy liberals who point their fingers at everyone else and declare that we can actually conserve our way out of the energy mess that THEY caused.

The liberals have a very basic, and simply brilliant strategy:

1. Dumb down education.
2. Screw up the country.
3. Blame Republicans.
4. Goebbels lie, Goebbels lie, Goebbels lie.
5. Manipulate the media.
6. Ignorant boobs vote them into power for their "solutions" that never pan out, like Nancy "Stretch" Pelosi's solution to gas prices that took them from $1.60 / gal to $4.00 / gal in just under a year and a half.

On that note, one uneducated liberal media boob writing for the Tulsa World here had the following to say:

"And here's what I don't get about conservatives: Despite their name,
they typically haven't been willing to really conserve, in terms of
higher fuel efficiency standards for automobiles and technologies that can limit consumption at home. Anyone who talks about lowering
thermostats and wearing sweaters in the winter, as Jimmy Carter once did, is derided as a fatalist and a weakling."

Here is my response to this very ignorant statement:

Not a fatalist or weakling, just a moron. Conserving is not a viable
option. There are areas to conserve, but it's not the individual who
needs to do so. I have seen window air conditioners marketed at Sam's Club in which several display models were sitting on a shelf running full blast. In physics, this is known as a futile system, because at best, the heat output will cancel out the cold output. In the real world application, the heat output exceeds the cold output, so an air conditioner sitting on a shelf like this is actually warming the room in the middle of the summer, which means that the building's air conditioners have to work harder. What about all of those open freezers and coolers at Sam's, Wal Mart, and other grocery stores? All of his ends up in gigaWatts of wasted energy. I don't see any outcry over this, just people whining about what car someone else owns. Liberals, who normally love to impugn "big evil corporations" won't touch this. The reason? Liberals want to control the lives of individuals. They only whine about corporations when they want to tax individuals through the myth of corporate taxes.

And here is a little more on the subject:

In the 1970s, the Democrats controlled the presidency and the congress from the Ford administration on. I know Ford called himself a Republican, but it was in name only. Together, Carter and the Democratic congress created an energy crisis AND an economic crisis. The economic crisis was so unprecedented, it had not only never happened before in history (think about that, nearly 6000 years of human civilization and this never happened until the Carter administration), it was a complete surprise to economists that it was even possible! This economic crisis was called stagflation. That is because normally inflation occurs during a rapidly growing economy, but instead, we had a horrible recession and yet inflation was out of control. Before that time, inflation was only known to occur during a rapidly growing economy, but now we have to say "normally."

The only thing that got us out of the economic hardship the Democrats caused was drastic spending cuts and tax cuts. The only thing that got us out of the energy crisis was not Carter's condescending recommendations to turn our heaters down and suffer, but increased supply.

Do we really want the Dumbocrats' tried and failed methods now? Failure to learn from history dooms one to repeat it.

My Pick for the 2008 Presidential Nomination

Taking some time out from my intense medical school studies, I recently took the online quiz referenced just below this post and narrowed down the list of virtual unknown people and a few celebrity politicians to Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter. Not knowing much about them, I decided to thoroughly peruse their web sites. I knew I wouldn't be for candidates like McCain and Giuliani. With his far left positions on virtually everything but terror, Giuliani might as well be a Democrat. McCain, although likeable is not much better than Giuliani. Apparently, according to the quiz anyway, Mit Romney and Ron Paul are not too far behind Giuliani and McCain on taking up anti American left wing extremist positions of the left. Although my score was quite high for McCain, it left out facts such as his support for the unConstitutional campaign finance reforms. So, that leaves me back at Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson. Both seem to be sharp, likeable guys. Thompson has a Reaganesque flair (obviously since both are actors and can turn on that sort of charm for the camera), and I sorta hope he wins the nomination in a pragmatic sense because he could stomp the Democrats in televised events such as a debate. All in all it is a hard choice, but I am going with Duncan Hunter because he supports the Fair Tax, while Thompson won't commit and seems to favor the unworkable "flat tax." In fact, Hunter is a cosponsor of the Fair Tax bill in Congress right now.

Interestingly, the quiz seems to think I disagree with them on immigration and energy policy. I am pretty much in agreement with their take on immigration. We only slightly disagree in minor details. They almost totally oppose "amnesty," whereas I oppose it with the caveat that once we seal the borders for real, there is then the problem of what to do with those that got in. I think it is unrealistic and prohibitively expensive to deport everyone, and also potentially cruel. As far as energy goes, the only place that they both disagree with me is that they would both subsidize ethanol production. I am all for government supporting infrastructure (I think government should be doing more of that and less of everything else), but I wouldn't go so far as to subsidize something that is already quite well subsidized and very hypothetical at this point as a solution to any energy problems. The only workable solutions right now are more domestic oil exploration, more oil refineries, less enviroblend regulation on gasoline, and more nuclear energy. Investing in research, however, is always a good thing.

So, it comes back down to the Fair Tax. Vote for Hunter!

	Fred Thompson Score: 49	Agree Iraq Taxes Stem-Cell Research Health Care Abortion Social Security Line-Item Veto Marriage Death Penalty	Disagree Immigration Energy
	Duncan Hunter Score: 49	Agree Iraq Taxes Stem-Cell Research Health Care Abortion Social Security Line-Item Veto Marriage Death Penalty	Disagree Immigration Energy
-- Take the Quiz! --