New York Times In Climate Denial Again…..When Will Its Reporters Report the Truth

……………..that the claim climatic armageddon is just around the corner ala Al Gore IS A FRAUD?

Neverthe less its Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich colleagues continue to opine and report  from the political leftwing caves:

“Former Vice President Dick Cheney has to be smiling. With one exception, none of the Republicans running for the Senate — including the 20 or so with a serious chance of winning — accept the scientific consensus that humans are largely responsible for global warming.

The candidates are not simply rejecting solutions, like putting a price on carbon, though these, too, are demonized. They are re-running the strategy of denial perfected by Mr. Cheney a decade ago, repudiating years of peer-reviewed findings about global warming and creating an alternative reality in which climate change is a hoax or conspiracy.

Some candidates are emphatic in their denial, like the Nevada Republican Sharron Angle, who flatly rejects “the man-caused climate change mantra of the left.” Others are merely wiggly, like California’s Carly Fiorina, who says, “I’m not sure.” Yet, over all (the exception being Mark Kirk in Illinois), the Republicans are huddled around an amazingly dismissive view of climate change.

A few may genuinely believe global warming is a left-wing plot. Others may be singing the tune of corporate benefactors. And many Republicans have seized on the cap-and-trade climate bill as another way to paint Democrats as out-of-control taxers.

In one way or another, though, all are custodians of a strategy whose guiding principle has been to avoid debate about solutions to climate change by denying its existence — or at least by diminishing its importance. The strategy worked, destroying hopes for Congressional action while further confusing ordinary citizens for whom global warming was already a remote and complex matter. It was also remarkably heavy-handed.

According to Congressional inquiries, White House officials, encouraged by Mr. Cheney’s office, forced the Environmental Protection Agency to remove sections on climate change from separate reports in 2002 and 2003. (Christine Todd Whitman, then the E.P.A. administrator, has since described the process as “brutal.”)

The administration also sought to control or censor Congressional testimony by federal employees and tampered with other reports in order to inject uncertainty into the climate debate and minimize threats to the environment.

Nothing, it seemed, could crack the administration’s denial — not Tony Blair of Britain and other leaders who took climate change seriously; not Mrs. Whitman (who eventually quit after being undercut by Mr. Cheney, who worked for the energy company Halliburton before he became vice president and received annual checks while in office); and certainly not the scientists.

In 2007, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its most definitive statement on the human contribution to climate change, Mr. Cheney insisted that there was not enough evidence to just “sort of run out and try to slap together some policy that’s going to try to solve the problem.” To which Mrs. Whitman, by then in private life, said: “I don’t see how he can say that with a straight face anymore.”

Nowadays, it is almost impossible to recall that in 2000, George W. Bush promised to cap carbon dioxide, encouraging some to believe that he would break through the partisan divide on global warming. Until the end of the 1990s, Republicans could be counted on to join bipartisan solutions to environmental problems. Now they’ve disappeared in a fog of disinformation, an entire political party parroting the Cheney line.”

Comment:  If Democrats had taken the political position of the world’s weather scientiests who trash  the computer-based politics of forcasting  earthly doom in fifty or five  hundred years or more and that the human hand is the cause of the “heat-up”  as a hoax, I wonder if Republicans would arbitrarily take a position for the global warming  caused by mankind will destroy the Earth in a few decades.

We know much of the “science” behind the Al Gore climate politics is fraudulent.   That the Earth’s weather is presently cooling is the more accepted view among the field’s experts, especially those in Russia which has a landmass of tundra in heroic proportions.  Even the Russians are not making man-made0-disaster causing-global warming a political cause. 

Does this mean Obama America is more Soviet than 2010 Russia?   Certainly in weather forcasting it is.

Newsweek Reporter Mickey Kaus Notes Obama’s “Cling-to-guns-and-God speech

Mickey Kaus at Newsweek wrote the following:  (found at realclearpolitics.)

President Barack Obama said Americans’ “fear and frustration” is to blame for an intense midterm election cycle that threatens to derail the Democratic agenda.

President Obama seems to have learned nothing from the disaster of the “cling-to-guns-and-God” talk that almost derailed his campaign in 2008.  He’s back at it – blaming voters for failing to “think clearly” because they’re scared about the economy.

“Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we’re hardwired not to always think clearly when we’re scared,” Obama said Saturday evening in remarks at a small Democratic fundraiser Saturday evening.  “And the country is scared.”

Obama told the several dozen donors that he was offering them his “view from the Oval Office.” He faulted the economic downturn for Americans’ inability to “think clearly” and said the burden is on Democrats “to break through the fear and the frustration people are feeling.”

JustOneMinute suggests, mockingly, that this is an improvement over Obama’s 2008 “cling” speech because

now Obama’s critics are scared rather than racist or stupid. There’s hope for us!

But of course the basic argument is exactly the same. It’s vulgar economic determinism: When people are afraid for their economic livelihood they do foolish things, like clinging to their guns and God or, in this case, voting in opposition to Obama’s presidency. When they feel more secure, they’ll come around.

Even if there’s something to this world view—and I can’t shake it completely myself—it’s a deeply troubling sign if it dominates your thinking three weeks before a big election. Especially this election. Insulting voters is rarely a good way to win them over. But usually the “blame the customer” approach, as Mark Shields calls it, takes hold in the wake of an election defeat. Obama has broken new ground by moving it up to three weeks in advance of the vote.

What if he’s right? In two years, the economy will have recovered and voters will feel better about his policies. But the election is in three weeks, when—according to his own theory—voters will act out of scared, hard-wired confusion. Why make them angrier? (‘You poor, scared, confused people, I know more “facts” and “science” than you do.’) Always Be Condescending! It’s a form of political malpractice—making yourself look good to supporters, and to history, and to yourself, at the expense of the fellow Dems who are on the ballot.　

But Obama’s talk Saturday night wasn’t as bad as his San Francisco lecture. It was worse, in this sense: It’s one thing to say those poor people in Pennsylvania are hostile to gay rights, say, because all their “jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them”—and that they’ll change when they get the jobs back.  It’s another thing to say those poor people will change when they get their jobs back when you’ve had two years to get them their jobs back and have conspicuously failed. At that point, blaming “false consciousness” becomes a semi-delusional way of dancing around your own inability to remove the root of that false consciousness. A little humility is in order. If true humility is unavailable, false humility will do.

Maybe Obama was cynically making a pitch to his immediate audience—a small crowd of Massachusetts donors who might be expected to respond to the idea that they were defending “facts” and “science” against confused know-nothings. But Obama should know, especially after the 2008 San Francisco incident, that a candidate can’t keep his words confined to a fundraiser. And this apparently wasn’t a closed-to-press event like the one in S.F. We didn’t have to rely on a donor/blogger like Mayhill Fowler to spill the beans. Reporters reported on it. Obama couldn’t have been trying to cyncially play to the donors—he’s not that naive! This must be what he really thinks.

Now I’m scared! What yesterday’s comments suggest isn’t just that Obama will get clobbered in the midterms. It suggests that after he gets clobbered he won’t be able to adjust and turn the setback into a longterm victory the way Bill Clinton did. Clinton reacted to his 1994 midterm loss by acknowledging his opponents’ strongest arguments and pursuing a balanced budget and welfare reform. Obama seems more inclined to just tough it out until the economy recovers and the scared, confused voters become unscared and see the light. Meanwhile, he’ll spend his time in a protective cocoon.

A few weeks ago a right-wing reporter told me that worried Dem congresspersons who met with Obama left their meetings more worried than when they went in. I discounted the gossip, but now it’s begining to ring true. We thought he was a great salesman. He turned out to be a lousy salesman. We thought he was a great politician. Instead he makes elementary mistakes and doesn’t learn from them. He didn’t know “shovel-ready” from a hole in the ground, and then somehow thinks admitting this ignorance without apology will add to his appeal.

I’d still defend most of the decisions Obama’s made, especially on health care refom. I’d rather have him making those decisions than 85% of the likely Republican candidates.  But for the first time, he’s looking like a one-termer even if jobs start to come back.”

Comment:  I wish he would defend Obama’s decisions one after the other.  It would be nice if any of these lefties could giver reasons for their support for Marxist policies, wouldn’t it……rather than simply saying,  ” I’d still defend  most of the decisions Obama’s made”.

Dennis Prager Looks Back at President Calvin Coolidge

Dennis Prager spent a few moments today talking about Calvin Coolidge on his radio show.  He referred to a filmshot of the day,  I believe, where President Coolidge was expressing, solemn faced, monotoned, totally unadorned with modern paste, a reading about American values with his small, slight but heavily accented New England voice.     I was interrupted for a couple of minutes, so I am referring to memory of the scene I saw perhaps 40 years ago. 

Dennis spoke of Coolidge admiringly underscoring the differences between the blown up drama of today and the sense of Calvin Coolidge being a janitor of the People’s house in setting, but a humble philosopher of Americana in reality.

More than any other American president except Herbert Hoover, Calvin Coolidge was the most ridiculed president of my undergraduate college years in general and in political science, history,  and humanities classes in particular.   It all went with true history as then taught.

The President’s nickname was “Silent Cal.”

A joke told in each department went like this:   A reporter made a bet he could jolt President Coolidge to say more that three words.   The reporter went to the President telling him of his wager.   Whereupon, the president was recorded as saying:  “You lose.”

President Coolidge was President Warren Harding’s Vice President.  He became president at Harding’s untimely death  in 1923.   Many considered his passing a blessing bestowed upon the nation. 

These were the times of the “Roaring Twenties”.  The Prohibition Amendment had been  federal law since January, 1920.   President Coolidge was reelected in 1924 and chose not to run for another term in 1928.

In another anecdote regarding Coolidge,  professors in two classes, history and sociology reprimanded  him severely for a comment he made about his country:

“America’s business is business”. Coolidge announced confidently.  

My history professor led up to the remark with words dripping with ridicule to stir hillarity at the man’s alleged shallowness and backwardness.  His audience oblidged, but  I didn’t laugh…..I probably didn’t see the point, either of the president’s meaning  or the ridicule.  I don’t remember, but I never forgot the moment.  I was not used to professors making fun of American presidents.   Most of these professors would have been either undergraduate or graduate students at the time Mr. Coolidge was president.  They were all admitted Democrats.

I believe Mr. Coolidge was  a dry.   I’ll let you, dear reader, figure out what that was.

The “Messiah” Obama Reviews His “Messiahness”

Here’s an exceptionally good article  about Obama the Blessed.  I comes from Scott W. Johnson at Powerline:

“Yesterday I got around to reading Peter Baker’s New York Times Magazine article “The education of a president” in hard copy. One comes away from the article with the uncomfortable feeling that Obama thinks he’s just too damned good for us.

Baker’s article made news in the middle of last week as a result of Obama’s acknowledgment that he didn’t know “shovel-ready” from a hole in the ground (to borrow the formulation of Mickey Kaus). In other words, he wasn’t lying to us when he sold us his trillion-dollar “stimulus” bill of goods. He just didn’t know what he was talking about.

I found a couple things of interest in the article beyond the “shovel-ready” quote that Baker puts near the top. Baker asked Obama about his messianic pretensions (my words, not his). Here is the passage:

When Obama secured the Democratic nomination in June 2008, he told an admiring crowd that someday “we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth.”

I read that line to Obama and asked how his high-flying rhetoric sounded in these days of low-flying governance. “It sounds ambitious,” he agreed. “But you know what? We’ve made progress on each of those fronts.” He quoted Mario Cuomo’s line about campaigning in poetry and governing in prose. “But the prose and the poetry match up,” he said. “It would be very hard for people to look back and say, You know what, Obama didn’t do what he’s promised. I think they could say, On a bunch of fronts he still has an incomplete. But I keep a checklist of what we committed to doing, and we’ve probably accomplished 70 percent of the things that we talked about during the campaign. And I hope as long as I’m president, I’ve got a chance to work on the other 30 percent.”

Baker takes another whack at Obama’s promise of deliverance:

But save the planet? If you promise to save the planet, might people think you would, you know, actually save the planet? He laughed, before shifting back to hope and inspiration. “I make no apologies for having set high expectations for myself and for the country, because I think we can meet those expectations,” he said. “Now, the one thing that I will say — which I anticipated and can be tough — is the fact that in a big, messy democracy like this, everything takes time. And we’re not a culture that’s built on patience.”

Yeah, it’s hard out here for a messiah.

And then there is this:

To better understand history, and his role in it, Obama invited a group of presidential scholars to dinner in May in the living quarters of the White House. Obama was curious about, among other things, the Tea Party movement. Were there precedents for this sort of backlash against the establishment? What sparked them and how did they shape American politics? The historians recalled the Know-Nothings in the 1850s, the Populists in the 1890s and Father Charles Coughlin in the 1930s. “He listened,” the historian H. W. Brands told me. “What he concluded, I don’t know.”

C’mon, man, who are those “presidential scholars”? Good grief. If the best they can do is to liken a movement devoted to the restoration of limited constitutional government to the Know-Nothings, the Populists, and Father Coughlin, they really should have tried harder. I doubt they got any resistance from President Obama, whose knowledge even of relatively recent American history is pitiful.”

Comment:  I wonder if Obama’s view of himself as the world’s saviour is common among the more recent college graduated.  The absolute absence of a sense of humility.

Is Mr. Obama an example of the postChristian era American?   Is he a product of the ubiquitous tonics of  love of self and achievement even though nothing’s been  achieved except  occupying space given our young by  today’s American leftist and feminist educators?  Or is his arrogance and disdain for sincere humility of his own sculpting? 

Is Obama aware of his promises he made during the 2008 campaign?  Is he aware how low he brings the office he now holds and himself, when he guttersnipes and lies profoundly playing in the mud and filth of the worst in politics, lies so obvious only his most extreme tribal  believers would applaud no matter what he says, Hitler and Stalin-like  thereby joining in his mass deception?

---

Jack Cafferty of CNN Blasts Obama Promise for Open Government…..”Just Another Lie That Was Told To Get Elected!”

Friend and neighbor, Arlene Taber sent me this bit from CNN.  I am not a regular CNN viewer.  I do not know the role Mr. Cafferty plays at CNN.  But, I think you all would agree, his analysis of Obama promise is quite well enunciated.  Will there be a trend at CNN to rise above its Leftwing political devotions and present news without political opinion except for the properly advertised opinion moments?

Mr. Cafferty gives a good right hook to Lefties with his comments here.  Take a look!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pO1oJPps1I

The Future of Obama’s Marxism: EQUALITY BY DECREE FROM THE STATE!

Consider this, what should be a  memorized quote by freedom loving peoples:

“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half get the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”

–Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931 to 2005

Devoted Prager Fan, Dezra Helgeson, blogged this priceless bit of learning here nearly two years ago.

Please carry Mr. Rogers’ thoughts with you as you read further.

Marxists and other Leftwingers have never been taught this truth of human experience.  Certainly, by all of his words and deeds, president Obama apparently is oblivious to the concept, as are, very likely, the vast majority of Americans these days.  Where would we have learned otherwise?  We have had several generations of the Welfare State.  Without condemning it in its entirety, let us admit robbing from the rich and those who produce, and giving riches to the poor for their votes, is a very tempting domestic  and even foreign policy for those who want to dictate ones future.

Who wants to consider the consequences?

At any time policies which legalize such theft of any proportions need police, secret or otherwise, to enforce the law.

Lefties have almost always been the initiators of policies  in my life time….since 1934.  Throughout my own education and experience, Democrats, especially the more Marxist oriented, have judged good government representatives as those who come up with the most laws to control where ones money goes on the home front and how it is spent….how one is to live and not to live, often disregarding the consequences. 

And there almost never is an end to Marxist imagination, even of those who think Marxism can be married  to some degree to the liberties most Americans have taken for granted.

In Marxist states there is a degree of freedom.  When I was in the good old USSR in 1966 a woman  could choose a blue tam head covering or a brown tam head covering, if she were  lucky enough to stop at a hat and cap shop where both were availalble.   This particular style was decided  by a Communist Party committee, who at the highest levels decided forever and a day what was chic for the decade for the IDEAL MARXIST CITIZEN. 

One had choice in newspapers as well.  There were Communist Party papers for children, adolescents, “adults”.  A  morning paper, and a kind of evening one, one for sports, one for political humor………all well organized for all the communities of this 8,400,000 square mile empire of Socialist Power by the Communist party, made up of Obama-like people doing good for humanity, opposing all intolerance, supporting universal health care………..Doing good works for ones population became the State Religion worshipped and engineered by believeing bureaucrats……the only religion allowed  in town.

Competition from thinking would lead to inequality.  Only one line of thought would be necessary to reach socialist paradise.   The State under Marxism would decide the needs of its citizens.

The good old USSR was the dream of  most of the international Marxists for more than 80 years.  For many, actually perhaps most,  of the social science faculties of modern day American colleges and universities  wistfully dream of this very State Socialism, only without Josef Stalin, for your and my America.  

“Marxism  will put an end to Jewish greed”, these Lefty Jewish leaders and others used to and often still do emote.  The Jewish angle has in our day become popular to unify  many American “genteel” Marxist-oriented trouble makers with muslim causes, both the terrorist kind  and others. 

Some of these Americans talk Marxist-Islam language to improve their own image of tolerance perfection.   Mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg and his think-alikes  come to mind.

Establishing a society which consists of varying degrees of human equality is a long time Christian concept.  Indeed, outside of the prospects for an after life, isn’t ‘sharing’ at the heart of Christian charity?   I am not well versed in Judaism at all  and for that sole reason omit that part of the JudeoChristian spiritual messge  from the ancients. ”Sharing” can be complex and cause dire consequences upon a peoples.

Leftists, whether Soviet or American, believe that government is best when government governs most.  The State knows  what is best for the culture and the citizen.  “Experts” will teach bureaucrats perfect deeds, especially means of  production.   Saul Alinsky will teach student Barack Obama…….to spread the wealth by organizing hate,  disgruntled, the disenfranchised groups.  If these groups  aren’t necessarily hateful, digruntled, and don’t feel disenfranchised, they should feel that way…..according to the Barack Obamas of our country.   They just don’t know it yet .  These Barack Obamas are usually the same people who shame Americans for wanting to share their democratic values with others  in the world.

 Often  poverty is a state of mind.   There are countless human numbers on Earth living in poverty which would shock most westerners.   I can boldly assure you, dear reader,  that in my lifetime there is no American community I have seen in nearly a half century which would be equal to the visible poverty in parts of my Twin Cities before the 1950s….and worse, in the “rural” native Minnesota Indian communities until about a generation later.

One of the best of all Soviet era adages was “The future is known.  It’s the past that keeps changing.”

Since the left is devoted to ruling   people, and the right is generally devoted  to seeking  ones wealth…..the conservative, that is,  the person who shuns Big Government, Big Labor,  and Big Business, is left out of the  biggest threats to the American future.  The conservative yearns for small and efficient government to be managed by the people who defend the Nation’s Constitution’s umbrella of laws which include the peoples’ unalienable rights.

Marxism is the marriage of this triumvirate of “Bigs” believing it is in the peoples’ interest that government manages all.    NEVER IN AMERICAN HISTORY HAS GOVERNMENT  POWER BECOME SO DOMINANT IN AMERICAN CULTURE!  

It is the fear of outspoken American democratic conservatives like Dennis Prager, that state authority over  American life is at the core of the Obama agenda.  Proof is clearly illustrated from his policies  forcing government managed health care, increased taxing of anything free enterprise including individuals, nationalizing General Motors and Chrysler to satisfy his Union backers, and crippling forever American industry with taxes upon everyone, (except Obama voters, the majority of whom do not pay federal income tax)  in order to satisfy the Global Warming Crisis fraud and the Noam Chomskies and other Marxists who demand a weakened  America  by handing over a trillion dollars and more…in perpetuity, to the “little peoples of the third world” to force greater equality among peoples. 

In general this triumvirate of ‘Bigs’ already is so well established in the good old USA, that we dance with it every day….especially those who go to university, read the New York Times, or are friends of George Soros or fans of Noam Chomsky…….and include almost all of the tender-hearted women who married into American wealth, or came from American wealth, and sons whose fathers created wealth, who have so unwisely let their feelings spend their fortunes to ruin the America of opportunity by financing the Obama evangelists  of our America, either in art, politics, or business and education.

Their fortunes have changed the way our  past is written….just like in the good old USSR.  

The greatest and most successful human experiment in sharing life and wealth has occurred from the dreams of our Christian forefathers.  They were MEN.  They were WHITE.   They were learned people of their times with a religious, social, economic dream……..that people had certain unalienable rights….life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…………..and these rights  were GOD given.

It is the habit of people to possess views and ideas.  It is the habit of people not to know the path of those generations not yet born.

IT IS THE PERPETUAL EVIL HABIT OF THE LEFTWING OF HUMAN POLITICS  TO JUDGE THOSE OF OUR MEANINGFUL HUMAN PAST BASED ON THE VALUES OR LACK OF VALUES OF CURRENT TIME.

The Teacher and Priest class are almost always those responsible for these sins.  It is tradition to rely one these folks for the ‘final word’…..We revere it as education.   In modern times, writers, whether  fiction or not, publishing SHOCK is highly prized especially in the American academy.  So the Soviet adage becomes true….once again, “The future is known.  It’s the past that keeps changing”.

Modern Teachers and Priests who teach teachers and priests are atheists…and usually anti-Christian.   They now rewrite American History so they can teach Marxism religiously  and unchallenged.  Both Republicans and Democrats are taught by the same Teachers and Priests.

Truth is long lost.  Heroes, some made artificially, others  like Abraham Lincoln and George Washington, heroes of almost immortal proportions to our people and their ideals are vilified for not being a MODERN LIBERAL.   Thomas Jefferson is damned for owning slaves.   Therefore, the Marxists contend, America is racist and always has been.

One of the most vile Americans in our history is  America hater, Noam Chomsky.  He professed accurately, that to destroy the ideals of a culture, one must destroy that culture’s heroes.   Noam Chomsky is a “saint” to the Obama lefties  who wish to create a NEW MARXISM, based on forced equality, that is, Equality by Decree from the State.  America’s noble past, its Christian ideals, its story and all those who profess to tell it, must be smeared and culled from public society. 

Obama is presently doing his student duty, campaigning with Marxism smearing on his mind.

Smearing is fundamental to selling Marxism to a culture of  free peoples.  Whoever would vote to become  enslaved?……Not many men.