They say there is a consensus that global warming (a.k.a. climate change) exists and that it is primarily man-made. They (i.e. the mysterious consensus) say the world (mainly the U.S.) must sacrifice the use of oil and coal to stop the climate change. Well, I ask, where is the proof? And, don't say we don't have the time to wait for the proof.
A true scientist doesn't go by consensus to establish a fact. The Law of Gravity started with a Hypothesis and progressed on to a Theory, and only later did it become a scientific Law. That is the way scientific thought progresses, not by unscientific consensus. Even Einstein's Theory of Relativity is still just a theory. It hasn't yet, after all these years, been proven. Yet we take man-made global warming as a proven fact. Should we now call it the Law of Man-Made Global Warming? The hoax is that many have already declared it a scientific Law based on a measurement of global temperatures over the past 100 years or so. They said there is a cause and effect of fossil fuel emissions and the earth's temperatures, but they have only shown that the two are just a correlation. They don't know if one causes the other. I bet I can show a correlation between eating pasta and those involved in auto accidents. I bet that 99% of the people involved in auto accidents have eaten pasta in the last 6 months. Does that mean that people who eat pasta get involved in auto accidents? The fact is that there is no scientific basis for this hysteria. We don't even have the tools and techniques available to study the matter. Computer models can be flawed and even purposely manipulated to produce a certain result. Far fetched and unproven assumptions can also be incorporated into the models resulting in worthless results. I heard from one reputable scientist that we have no measurement of rainfall activity throughout the earth's surface and without that data the computer models predicting global warming are meaningless. There is a lot more geological and climatological evidence to suggest that variations in the earth's temperatures vary naturally, such as, variations in the sun's energy and the effect of the earth's magnetic fields.
Our country (and the world) better wake up and get over this hysteria about fossil fuels, greenhouse gases, global warming, and climate change. With the significant increase in the world's demand for oil, higher prices for energy caused by our fear of building new refineries and drilling for more sources of oil and gas, and our fear of nuclear power, our economic prosperity will not only be significantly curtailed, but even reversed, resulting in economic catastrophe for ourselves and the rest of the world. Brazil and Mexico have discovered new oil reserves and China is helping Cuba drill for oil off our Florida coast, while this country can't even use 2000 acres of a 19 million acre national wildlife refuge or do any new drilling off the Florida or California coast. In addition we are causing food prices to skyrocket while turning our food supply into alternative fuels while we have an abundance of fossil fuels that will last for at least a few hundred more years. There is even some evidence to suggest that oil is still being made under the earth's crust. Countries, including our own and the U.N., our talking about carbon taxes that will increase the size and power of government further reducing productivity. Some have already done it.
We are fast becoming like the frog sitting in a pot of cold water while the burner slowly heats the water up to a point where it's too late to jump out. We need some of our politicians to take a stand against this hoax and say that until climate change can be proven to be caused by man, we must continue to feed the energy needs of our economic engine, while seeking reasoned and sensible alternatives to fossil fuels.
OneConservative
Thursday, January 24, 2008
The Clinton's Playing the Race Issue
I think Dick Morris and Rush Limbaugh are maybe right; the Clintons are playing the race card in the SC Primary. The theory is that by conceding to an Obama victory made possible mostly by the black vote, it is made to look like he is getting his support from mostly blacks while much of the white and Hispanic vote is going for the Clintons. The Clintons are hoping that the rest of the remaining states' white and Hispanic Democratic voter population will see this and support the Clintons when they see that it is becoming a race oriented election. It doesn't surprise me that the Democratic political machine is the party of racists playing the race issue far more than the Republican machine. Probably the voter exit polls will either confirm or disprove this theory. We will see if it works.
The Clinton political machine is very powerful and Obama has to show that he is capable of fighting back effectively if he is to move forward in his party. So far he is showing he is much too soft.
OneConservative
The Clinton political machine is very powerful and Obama has to show that he is capable of fighting back effectively if he is to move forward in his party. So far he is showing he is much too soft.
OneConservative
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Thompson is Out
Well, sadly, my favorite candidate, Fred Thompson, dropped out today leaving McCain, Romney, & Guiliani as the probable survivors into Super Tuesday. I leave out Huckabee because he seems to be losing steam and he is almost out of money. Although he could still revive. McCain has big problems if he is the chosen one because in the general election, a lot of real conservatives could stay home. Guiliani needs to finish strong in Florida if he is to survive.
Obama and the Clintons are really going at it now. Its starting to get nasty, and its nice seeing the Dems going at each other.
Well, as Rush Limbaugh states, Harry Reid says we are in a recession which means we are not, so that is good news, because Harry is the one who said we already lost the war when we were starting to win.
OneConservative
Obama and the Clintons are really going at it now. Its starting to get nasty, and its nice seeing the Dems going at each other.
Well, as Rush Limbaugh states, Harry Reid says we are in a recession which means we are not, so that is good news, because Harry is the one who said we already lost the war when we were starting to win.
OneConservative
Sunday, January 20, 2008
The Delegate Race Thus Far
I find it a little comical that the mainstream media (MSM) is emphasizing who won what state and not concentrating more on delegates which is the essence of the race. For example, the Clintons only lead by about 50-60 delegates out of 400 or so delegates cast thus far, and Mitt Romney with 59 actually leads John McCain (32) and Mike Huckabee (38) with only about 140 or so of the 1191 needed to win the nomination. The press is enamored by McCain and Huckabee because of their more liberal tendencies. I think they are more afraid of Romney or a Thompson because they are actually running on a more thoroughbred conservative philosophy with a solid vision for the future, who are not afraid to argue the real issues.
Although Thompson is my first choice, thus far, I feel Romney or Guiliani would also serve my preference for a conservative candidate. Thompson doesn't seem to be getting the traction that I hoped and Guiliani has yet to enter the fray waiting for Florida and beyond. My preferences are not based on electability right now, but on the political issues at stake. I feel any one of them could win the argument on issues, but the Republicans are definitely on the defensive and have an uphill fight to win the Presidency. With the MSM on their side the Democrats certainly have the advantage, but we have a long way to go. The MSM has done a good job in running down the present administration because of their extreme bias. If it weren't for the alternative media (talk radio, Fox News, and the blogs), it would be a lot worse.
More to come .....
OneConservative
Although Thompson is my first choice, thus far, I feel Romney or Guiliani would also serve my preference for a conservative candidate. Thompson doesn't seem to be getting the traction that I hoped and Guiliani has yet to enter the fray waiting for Florida and beyond. My preferences are not based on electability right now, but on the political issues at stake. I feel any one of them could win the argument on issues, but the Republicans are definitely on the defensive and have an uphill fight to win the Presidency. With the MSM on their side the Democrats certainly have the advantage, but we have a long way to go. The MSM has done a good job in running down the present administration because of their extreme bias. If it weren't for the alternative media (talk radio, Fox News, and the blogs), it would be a lot worse.
More to come .....
OneConservative
Saturday, January 5, 2008
My Take on the Presidential Race Thus Far
Here’s my take on the Presidential race thus far, from a conservative point of view.
First the Democrats:
Obama is running as a liberal populist who can garner a great deal of enthusiasm even though his liberal agenda will raise taxes significantly through an expansion of entitlement programs such as health care, etc. Where there is a populist, the people overlook the real issues and their consequences and are more concerned with how the populist makes them feel. The Clintons (I use the name in the plural because it would be truly a co-presidency) would also significantly increase taxes through the expansion of entitlement programs, but they would not be running as populists because of Mrs. Clinton’s high negatives.
Both would cause a massive increase in government spending with less emphasis on national security and our military and intelligence capability. However, Obama’s coat tails would probably result in an increase in the Democrat congressional majority beyond the point where Republicans could significantly stop the liberal agenda. Whereas, Clinton negative coat tails might thwart the Democrats from increasing their control or possibly losing control altogether. I understand that many congressional Democrats are very worried about this result.
If Obama gets the nomination, he will be much harder to beat because of his ability to make people feel good about him. If the Clintons get the nomination, they will be much easier to defeat and result in a much better chance for the Republicans to reduce or even eliminate the Democrat majority.
Edwards tries to be a populist but he just doesn’t cut it and will not be factor, but will steer a lot of his supporters to Obama if he drops out. Maybe he hopes to be a contender for the VP slot.
Now the Republicans:
Romney is trying hard to be a conservative but people aren’t quite sure that he means what he says. He appears very competent and I think will make a good President and leader, I am not quite sure he will stand up to the liberals when it comes to taxes, and immigration, but I could be wrong. He certainly seems to have more specifics when tackling the country’s problems.
Huckabee, like Obama, is a populist. People feel good about him, especially Christians, without much regard to the important issues of the day. Yes, he is against abortion and he calls himself a conservative, but his record does not appear to be consistent with core conservative values, such as smaller government, fiscal restraint, strong national defense, less government interference in our everyday lives, less taxes, less dependence on government entitlement programs, strong stance against illegal immigration, etc. I fear he has some liberal tendencies, but I have to see more to be certain.
Of all the Republicans, Thompson is probably the candidate who most stands up for almost all the conservative principles. He is not afraid to speak his mind and run a different kind of campaign. However, he doesn’t seem to taking hold, maybe because he seems “outdated” to some people and doesn’t speak with enough “fire in the belly”. I hope his campaign can get a little more fired up because, so far, he is my choice based on what he believes.
McCain is known for his honorable character but he may have too much “compassionate conservatism” leading to a more liberal view of increased taxes and government entitlement programs, as well as his softer stance on illegal immigration. He would certainly be strong on national defense and have the respect of the military. However, I was taken aback about his view of our health care system and feels big drug is cheating the public by making too much money.
Giuliani has shown that he can lead and I feel would continue the present war on terrorism with fervor but I’m not so sure he will be fiscally conservative. He seems strait forward on his ideas. However, I believe he falls short on some important conservative issues such as abortion and illegal immigration. I tend to believe him that he would support the appointment of strict constitutional judges.
Ron Paul, is basically a libertarian, and I agree with him on many issues including very limited government, but disagree on his stance on national defense and his isolationist tendencies. We no longer live in a world where we can ignore the global nature of our economies and the threats from within and outside our borders. We sometimes have to defend ourselves by taking preemptive action where deemed necessary.
Some thoughts on electability:
I believe Obama may be hard to beat if he is nominated. Although, Republicans could be successful in painting him as a tax and spend liberal and soft on national defense. His inexperience or naiveté could be his Achilles’ heel. The Clinton’s may be much easier to defeat because of Mrs. Clinton’s high negativity, and a much better chance of Republicans taking control of congress or, at the very least, achieving minimal losses.
It is hard to say who is best to win in the general election on the Republican side. Giuliani and McCain, maybe Romney, probably have the best chance against an Obama or the Clintons, but the risk is that true conservatism loses. They are not true conservatives and their winning will redefine conservatism moving it more to the left. Thompson is the closest to conservative issues, but may not be able to pull it off especially against a populist Obama, but he could pull it off against the Clintons.
Effects of a Third Party:
If Bloomberg runs, I think he could put the general election in a tailspin. I think he will pull mostly liberals, some independents, and maybe some moderate Republicans, but I think he could pull enough electoral votes to throw the election into the House of Representatives, that is, if any one candidate cannot get the minimum of 270 electoral votes. That would favor whoever is the Democrat nominee. Nader running would hurt the Democrats mostly. A Ron Paul running as an independent would hurt the Republicans mostly. If all three run as independents, anything could happen.
OneConservative
First the Democrats:
Obama is running as a liberal populist who can garner a great deal of enthusiasm even though his liberal agenda will raise taxes significantly through an expansion of entitlement programs such as health care, etc. Where there is a populist, the people overlook the real issues and their consequences and are more concerned with how the populist makes them feel. The Clintons (I use the name in the plural because it would be truly a co-presidency) would also significantly increase taxes through the expansion of entitlement programs, but they would not be running as populists because of Mrs. Clinton’s high negatives.
Both would cause a massive increase in government spending with less emphasis on national security and our military and intelligence capability. However, Obama’s coat tails would probably result in an increase in the Democrat congressional majority beyond the point where Republicans could significantly stop the liberal agenda. Whereas, Clinton negative coat tails might thwart the Democrats from increasing their control or possibly losing control altogether. I understand that many congressional Democrats are very worried about this result.
If Obama gets the nomination, he will be much harder to beat because of his ability to make people feel good about him. If the Clintons get the nomination, they will be much easier to defeat and result in a much better chance for the Republicans to reduce or even eliminate the Democrat majority.
Edwards tries to be a populist but he just doesn’t cut it and will not be factor, but will steer a lot of his supporters to Obama if he drops out. Maybe he hopes to be a contender for the VP slot.
Now the Republicans:
Romney is trying hard to be a conservative but people aren’t quite sure that he means what he says. He appears very competent and I think will make a good President and leader, I am not quite sure he will stand up to the liberals when it comes to taxes, and immigration, but I could be wrong. He certainly seems to have more specifics when tackling the country’s problems.
Huckabee, like Obama, is a populist. People feel good about him, especially Christians, without much regard to the important issues of the day. Yes, he is against abortion and he calls himself a conservative, but his record does not appear to be consistent with core conservative values, such as smaller government, fiscal restraint, strong national defense, less government interference in our everyday lives, less taxes, less dependence on government entitlement programs, strong stance against illegal immigration, etc. I fear he has some liberal tendencies, but I have to see more to be certain.
Of all the Republicans, Thompson is probably the candidate who most stands up for almost all the conservative principles. He is not afraid to speak his mind and run a different kind of campaign. However, he doesn’t seem to taking hold, maybe because he seems “outdated” to some people and doesn’t speak with enough “fire in the belly”. I hope his campaign can get a little more fired up because, so far, he is my choice based on what he believes.
McCain is known for his honorable character but he may have too much “compassionate conservatism” leading to a more liberal view of increased taxes and government entitlement programs, as well as his softer stance on illegal immigration. He would certainly be strong on national defense and have the respect of the military. However, I was taken aback about his view of our health care system and feels big drug is cheating the public by making too much money.
Giuliani has shown that he can lead and I feel would continue the present war on terrorism with fervor but I’m not so sure he will be fiscally conservative. He seems strait forward on his ideas. However, I believe he falls short on some important conservative issues such as abortion and illegal immigration. I tend to believe him that he would support the appointment of strict constitutional judges.
Ron Paul, is basically a libertarian, and I agree with him on many issues including very limited government, but disagree on his stance on national defense and his isolationist tendencies. We no longer live in a world where we can ignore the global nature of our economies and the threats from within and outside our borders. We sometimes have to defend ourselves by taking preemptive action where deemed necessary.
Some thoughts on electability:
I believe Obama may be hard to beat if he is nominated. Although, Republicans could be successful in painting him as a tax and spend liberal and soft on national defense. His inexperience or naiveté could be his Achilles’ heel. The Clinton’s may be much easier to defeat because of Mrs. Clinton’s high negativity, and a much better chance of Republicans taking control of congress or, at the very least, achieving minimal losses.
It is hard to say who is best to win in the general election on the Republican side. Giuliani and McCain, maybe Romney, probably have the best chance against an Obama or the Clintons, but the risk is that true conservatism loses. They are not true conservatives and their winning will redefine conservatism moving it more to the left. Thompson is the closest to conservative issues, but may not be able to pull it off especially against a populist Obama, but he could pull it off against the Clintons.
Effects of a Third Party:
If Bloomberg runs, I think he could put the general election in a tailspin. I think he will pull mostly liberals, some independents, and maybe some moderate Republicans, but I think he could pull enough electoral votes to throw the election into the House of Representatives, that is, if any one candidate cannot get the minimum of 270 electoral votes. That would favor whoever is the Democrat nominee. Nader running would hurt the Democrats mostly. A Ron Paul running as an independent would hurt the Republicans mostly. If all three run as independents, anything could happen.
OneConservative
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)