By the time you read the next couple paragraphs the veil will be lifted from your eyes and you will finally understand what is really going on with the health care “debate”, which up to this point has been a total fraud on the American people.
But the “public option” was never little more than a K Street phrase, a shadow puppet, a political posture. All along, proponents of adding a new government-sponsored insurer boasted talking points, but never offered workable health reform.
Ron Paul has ended Mitt Romney’s three-year run as conservatives’ favorite for president, taking 31 percent of the vote in the Conservative Political Action Conference’s annual straw poll.
Climate evangelism is an apt description of what the IPCC has been up to, for it has exaggerated some of the ramifications of climate change in order to make politicians take note. Murari Lal, the coordinating lead author of the section of the IPCC report that contained the Himalayan error, admitted that he and his colleagues knew that the dramatic glacier prediction was not based on any peer-reviewed science. Nonetheless, he explained, “we thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.”
The concrete action that they had in mind was getting governments to mandate drastic cuts in carbon-dioxide emissions. Activists have been pursuing this approach to tackling global warming without success for nearly 20 years, most recently at last December’s failed climate summit in Copenhagen. The problem is that it is too expensive a solution for politicians and the public to swallow easily – which is why many well-meaning climate scientists have apparently concluded that instead of relying on reasoned discussion, they might as well try to scare us witless.
I’d like to be able to get behind his son Rand with as much enthusiasm. I really would. But I find I can’t. Yes, he seems like a nice enough person and his intentions are good. I like his stance on repealing the Patriot Act. I like his stance on reading the bills. He has nice views on fiscal policies, wanting to audit the Fed and balance the budget. I just can’t get over that war thing. I can’t get over his support for empire. His stance on supporting the troops by buying them all the equipment we can’t afford rather than by bringing them home simply doesn’t make sense, either from a fiscal point of view or a freedom oriented point of view.
Yea, I’ve found myself in the “Screw Rand Paul” camp ever since he embraced his endorsement by Sarah Palin. At first I thought some of his rhetoric in interviews was to gain support for the Republican nomination, and his views were really those of his father’s, but over time I’ve seen that this apple fell further from the tree than I can stomach. Rand supports military interventionism and dumbed-down divisive politics of hard-line anti-abortion proponents and the Tea Parties. The Tea Parties are now completely over-run by the worst elements of the Republican tribalists. Rand’s anti-abortion stance seems to mimic his father’s circa 1980. Even though Ron Paul is still against abortion, he states an understanding that it will never be outlawed again, and that if it was it would still not go away. In 2007 he told the National Right to Life convention they needed to give up on the pursuit of outlawing abortion and focus on spreading a culture of life–one that requires anti-abortion folks to be anti-war and anti-death penalty as well. Rand, on the other hand, is stuck in the old “Abortion is murder” camp, that even his father has realized does nothing to further his desire to see less abortions in America.
Screw Rand Paul.
Case in point: last week the Obama administration treated the disclosure by British judicial officials of the former prisoner’s torture as a security breach and threatened to cut off an intelligence sharing arrangement with the UK government.
In what can only be described as a stunning response to the revelations contained in the intelligence document, White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said “the [UK} court’s judgment will complicate the confidentiality of our intelligence-sharing relationship with the UK, and it will have to factor into our decision-making going forward.”
“We’re deeply disappointed with the court’s judgment today, because we shared this information in confidence and with certain expectations,” LaBolt said, making no mention of Mohamed’s treatment nor even offering him an apology for the torture he was subjected to by the CIA over the course of several years. Mohamed was released from Guantanamo last year and returned to the UK.
This article also mentions the work of Dawn Johnsen (who worked under Clinton’s administration). Obama was supposed to make her head of the White House Office of Legal Counsel. That never happened because she wrote the role of the OLC includes telling the President “No”, and because she was outspoken against the way Bush’s OLC conducted themselves.
Ry is right on here. Don’t know if I’ll be painting my face any time soon, but he’s still right on.
I like the idea of “The Coffee Party” movement. Americans fell in love with coffee when they stopped drinking tea (because of the King’s tax).
I didn’t write Myth America for people like Bill who wouldn’t recognize a fact if it flew out of his TV box and hit him on his bulbous nose. I wrote the book for our fellow citizens who have even a tiny inkling that what is our actual shared experience has very little to do with the Mythocracy that we live in.
I also wrote Myth America for people who knew that the wars of aggression were wrong when Bush was president, but magically transformed into born-again warniks when Obama took the oath of office—these newby warniks had begun to see through the propaganda over the last eight years, but allowed one of the more insidious myths to take over—the myth that there is a difference between an elected Democrat and an elected Republican. These are the same people who came to my talks after The Obama came to power to proclaim that the U.S. needs to stay in Afghanistan to “protect the women.”
Robert Watson, chief scientist at Defra, the environment ministry, who chaired the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 1997 to 2002, was speaking after more potential inaccuracies emerged in the IPCC’s 2007 benchmark report on global warming.
“Question Time” is an amazing part of Britain’s Parliamentary process where the Prime Minister stands in the Parliament and fields questions. It is a very rowdy scene in which the opposition can be heard expressing their disdain for the leader as he responds to pointed questions. I can’t imagine that is how an American question time would ever be. Ours would be more subdued like the back and forth Obama went through with Republicans in Baltimore last Friday. And even though that “Question Time” was not all it could have been. The call for more dialogue like it is a good idea. Regular questioning of our leaders is important–even if the questions come from politicians with their own agendas.
The funny thing is that so far Republican Congressmen and Senators are more on board with the idea. Maybe they want a rematch?!
Usually I find online petitions to be pretty useless. But the supporters of this idea are so cross-partisan, that there may be a chance for this to happen if enough people sign up.