Sibby Online

Evil is powerless, if the good are unafraid.

That is an Edmund Burke quote used by Caroline Lewis to say this about Obama's tactics:

Now, with the threat of this terrible bill looming in our presence, what do we make of it? Why would anyone in their right mind continue to spend, spend, spend, when we obviously need to stop, stop, stop? The only answer lies in the chaos tactic. President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Harry Reid obviously know the chaotic implications of this bill. If we continue to spend, at some point our lenders (China and others) will refuse to finance our debts for us. At that point, we will see the same kind of hyper-hyper-inflation that plagued the Weimar Republic following World War I. You must remember the pictures from your history books of German children who tied bundles of marks together to burn for fuel. The value of the mark had dropped so dramatically that it was cheaper to burn stacks of marks than it was to buy coal or wood.

Yet, what happened after the fall of the Weimar Republic? Who saved Germany from despair? Whose great speeches and strategic organization pulled Germany from the ashes? Adolf Hitler.

Hitler, like many despotic leaders, saw opportunity in the chaos. The chaos of post-World War I Germany naturally craved a leader, and Hitler filled the void.

Yet Hitler was not the only leader who capitalized upon chaos. In the late 18th century, France had been torn by the French Revolution of 1789 and the subsequent Reign of Terror (1793-1794). Within a decade, the country had seen rapid leadership changes from a ruling monarchy to a dictatorship by political radicals. The void left by the chaos craved a leader who could save the country. Enter Napoleon. By 1799, Napoleon had overthrown the ruling body, the Directory, through a coup d'état, and became the de facto military leader of France. By 1804, he had crowned himself emperor.

Lenin's rise to power also capitalized upon chaos. In February of 1917, a group of anti-monarchists overthrew the czarist government. This left the country with a disorganized ruling body called the Provisional Government. Lenin and his small group of followers, the Bolsheviks, used this chaotic situation to their advantage and overthrew the Provisional Government in November of 1917.

Obama, Pelosi, and Reid can see opportunity in chaos, just like Hitler, Napoleon and Lenin did. Yet our chaos has not become chaotic enough for the people to bend their wills to this leader. So chaos must be produced by their overspending. This administration will spend until the financial status becomes so chaotic that the people raise their hands and cry, "Do what you will! Save us, Messiah!"

Sun-Tzu's tactic of chaos still speaks from his grave. If you can put a people into enough panic and enough frenzy, they will give you the reins. This is what our leadership is banking on right now. Yet, we must remember that they are counting on us to cave, to retreat, and not to call upon Congress to oppose this bill.

However, striking with chaos doesn't work if the people refuse to become afraid. This is echoed in the words of Edmund Burke, who stated, "Evil is powerless, if the good are unafraid."

May we be unafraid as we oppose the health-care bill and stand against the chaos tactic of the governmental elites.

Leaders who are true believers

As  Obama used the word "true", he is not a "true" believer in the eyes of Alan Keyes:

At the time of the founding, God blessed America with some remarkable leaders, who combined outstanding fame, wealth and learning with a deep commitment to the principles on which to build enduring liberty. The Christian moral culture predominant at the time helped to foster an unusual integrity of political thought and conscience. It produced leaders who respected reason and truth enough to hold fast to convictions based upon them, despite the temptations of successful power and ambition. But the moral culture of our day has dispensed with the worship of anything else. The twin dogmas of historicism and moral relativism simply mask the deeply immoral reality of these idols of human willfulness. They provide a superficial veneer of intellectualism to the frank reassertion of raw elite prerogative, conveniently justifying the conclusion that truth and reason can be nothing more than the dictates of whoever manages to be the last one standing.

Unless they are content to return to the historic role of the masses, as the grass trampled or set afire as self-serving elites battle for power, the American people urgently need to recognize these dogmas as poisons deadly to the understanding and courage liberty requires. They must look past the phony rhetoric of "issues" (a word that shrewdly masks a preoccupation with outcomes rather than principles) to find those who reject these ultimately elitist deceptions in order to stand firmly upon the ground of God's creation, which is also the only solid ground for constitutional liberty.

The decisive stage of this generation's battle to preserve America's liberty has begun. Its adversaries, though fanatically determined, are far from sure of victory. But as they now use "issues" like health care to strike at the heart of constitutional government, let us pray that God will once again bless America with leaders who are true believers – who will not only fight these issues, but for an outcome that respects the Constitution framed to implement the people's God-given right to govern themselves. (I further explore this point in several posts being featured now at Loyaltoliberty.com.)

Obama, the deceiver, says it is time to be true

Obama just used the bully pulpit to push Obamacare down the throats of America my saying it is not time to win, but time to be true. Bully pulpit or BS pulpit? Why not explain how the insurance companies will gain 30 million new customers by a government that will force "mandatory" health insurance onto its citizens. Is that liberty or is that communism? If it is time to be true, then let it be told that it is the Democrats that is putting the final nail into the coffin of Liberty in America.

Corruption at the Fed, banks, and US Treasury?

There is a ten minute video that does show some smoke, but the fire is not seen. Obviously we must understand that where there is smoke there is fire, or in other wpords, where there is huge amounts of money, there is coruption:

You gotta see this! If this doesn't convince you that Timothy Geithner knew about the securities shenanigans that were going on at Lehman, than I don't know what will.

Keep in mind, that Geithner ran Lehman through 3 "stress tests" prior to bankruptcy; all of which Lehman failed, and yet, nothing was done. Anton R. Valukas--the examiner who wrote the 2,200 page investigative-report which was released on Thursday-- has provided plenty of information detailing Lehman's “materially misleading” accounting and “actionable balance sheet manipulation.”

In other words, they cooked the books.

Democrats Big Lie on Obamcare reducing cost

Larry Elder knows better:

Democrats blame Americans' confusion about Obamacare's virtues on Republican "lies." Democrats claim that Obamacare would decrease costs while retaining the same or better health-care quality. Republicans say the opposite. Massachusetts' Romneycare, which is similar to Obamacare, has failed to reduce costs. The three big entitlement programs – Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid – are all in deep financial trouble. At inception, the programs' cost estimates were wildly underestimated. None of this provides cautionary lessons. Republicans lie.

Democrats believe that they truly care about people and that Republicans don't. Obama tells of an uninsured self-employed Ohio woman receiving cancer treatment at the Cleveland Clinic. The woman, he says, faces the prospect of losing her home because of the hospital bills. Never mind the Cleveland Clinic offers millions of dollars of non-reimbursed care annually. Never mind that the world-renowned medical facility said it has no intention of going after her home. And never mind that the woman, according to the hospital, is likely eligible for several charitable programs.

Democrats say, "If you like things as they are, don't worry." Eighty-five percent of Americans have health insurance, and 89 percent of them are satisfied with it. This poses a problem for "reform." MSNBC's Chris Matthews once wrote that because Hillarycare failed to calm the satisfied, it collapsed. "People," said Matthews, "saw their hard-won benefits and options being siphoned off to fund the health needs of all comers. Instead of securing the health care of the 'working family,' Hillary Clinton was offering 'universal coverage' for those who didn't work, financed by those who did. It was an offer people were eager and quick to refuse."

Democrats say, "If you like your plan and your doctor, you can keep them." But won't some employers drop their employee plans, pay the fines and slough the costs onto the taxpayers? And won't some doctors, as polls suggest, restrict their practices or quit altogether? No, because, well, they just won't.

Democrats bask in an Obama-loving liberal traditional media. The media cheerlead for health care "reform" and desperately want to give the president a "victory" – while accepting preposterous claims at face value. Obamacare promises to extend health insurance to 30 million people; promises financial assistance to those unable to afford insurance; requires all employers to offer health insurance or pay fines; requires every American to obtain insurance or pay a fine; and promises to attack "unwarranted" insurance premium increases while requiring insurers to enroll those with pre-existing illness without dropping anyone's coverage. And it would lawfully achieve all of this without increasing the deficit!

Democrats believe that if people are too dumb right now to see the benefits of Obamacare, someday they will. If not, opponents will be powerless to do anything. Some people refuse to see what's best. That's why God created Democrats.

Democrats ultimately want a Canadian-style single-payer system. Obamacare will result in cost overruns, caregivers driven out of business, declining quality, rationing, reduced innovation and bureaucrats determining who gets what, how and when. What then?

When the complaints grow loud enough, Democrats will be ready – with a plan to "reform" the "reform."

Plutocracy: Hildebrand, Daschle, GE;Obamacare's biggest fans

Earlier I mentioned that Steve Hildebrand was so upset at Herseth Sandlin's refusal to vote for Obamacare, that he is looking at running against her in the Demcorat primary. Why? Remember this post, from almost a year ago, where we learn Tom Dascle and GE, the owners of MSNB, will profit handsomely from Obamcare:

Now we have Obama repeating Bush’s fascist public-private partnership form of state control:

For all of the carping liberals did for eight years about corporate cronyism in George W. Bush's White House, they seem to turn a blind eye to the same behavior in President Obama's. With plans in place for a major overhaul in the health-care industry, General Electric is positioning itself to become a major beneficiary of these health care reforms.

Recently at the Business and Social Responsibility Conference, General Electric Chief Executive Officer Jeff Immelt referred to America's current economic crisis as part of a "reset" rather than part of an economic cycle, saying, "People who understand that will prosper in the future, and people who don't understand that will get left behind."

In the same address, Mr. Immelt, who is also a member of Mr. Obama's economic recovery advisory board, added, "The intersection of government and business will be changed, maybe for a generation." In other words, companies should be prepared to beg for a seat at the government's table if they plan on remaining lucrative.

Imagine that on the eve of the Iraq war, the CEO of Halliburton had declared that since Sept. 11, 2001, the relationship between the government and corporate interests have become one in the same.

Of course, Mr. Immelt's rhetoric about corporate responsibility was undercut last year when GE's once vaunted financial services business, GE Capital, was forced to ask the government for what amounted to a $140 billion government bailout.

And now we have Tom Daschle entering into the plutocratic marriage:

Mr. Immelt's words betray GE's willingness to partner with the Obama government in order to turn a profit. To this end, GE has appointed Mr. Obama's former nominee for secretary of health and human services, Tom Daschle, to the board of advisers for Healthymagination, an initiative launched by General Electric in partnership along with Intel, which will invest $6 billion over the next six years on "health care innovation that will help deliver better care to more people at lower cost."

Mr. Daschle said, "We can only find real solutions in health care when business, government and their partners work together."

In 2008, Mr. Daschle wrote the book "Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis" in which he explains his radical solutions to the problems in American health care. In the book, Mr. Daschle calls for a British-style Federal Council on health care.

And GE’s profit will be in line with the degree of nationalization the Obama regime pulls off:

The profitability of GE's new venture will depend heavily on the nationalization of the health care industry. The standardization and streamlining of health care recordkeeping, something on which Mr. Obama ran in 2008, would require a massive government contract for the technology to achieve such standardization.

Mr. Obama has introduced a plan to computerize all health records within five years. Independent studies from Harvard, Rand Corp. and the Commonwealth Fund have estimated that such a plan could cost at least $75 billion to $100 billion over the next 10 years. Healthymagination is readying just such a technology, claiming that they will seek to "increase the use and capability of electronic medical record (EMR) technology and other information technology." With Mr. Obama's ally Mr. Daschle on board, Healthymagination is sure to have more than a leg up on its competition when it comes time to dole out these massive contracts.

Under the cloak of corporate responsibility, General Electric seeks to benefit to the tune of billions from the passage of Mr. Obama's health care reform. On its corporate Web site, Healthymagination admits it will use every tool at its disposal to achieve its goals, including NBC Universal, the parent company of MSNBC which offers nearly uncritical coverage of Mr. Obama and his policies.

In effect, NBC Universal would become the propaganda arm of the administrations drive for the nationalization of health care, pushing its passage in its print and television properties.

And we are right back to the days where Tom Daschle benefited from the biased propaganda of the Argus Leader. Any guess what the Argus Leader editorial policy is on nationalized healthcare?

Democrats biggest lie, health insurance companies oppose Obamacare

First we have these facts:

Mr. Obama, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and their Democratic allies have also hammered the insurance industry for making huge profits at the cost of patients' finances and health. Their complaints picked up especially after WellPoint subsidiary Anthem announced last month that it would raise individual insurance premiums up to 39% for some California customers.

The Democrats' attack is misplaced. Fortune 500 data show that of the 43 industries that actually made a profit in 2009, health insurance ranked 35th, with profits of only 2.2% of revenues.

More fundamentally, premium increases are driven not by profits but by costs, as WellPoint has made abundantly clear in California. When HHS issued "Insurance Companies Prosper, Families Suffer," its Feb. 18 report on firms that implemented "excessive" premium increases, plenty of nonprofit firms (such as Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan, Regency Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Oregon, and Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Rhode Island) made the list.

But rather than argue over accounting data—which never show that profits amount to a significant portion of health-care costs anyway—let's listen to what the marketplace is telling us. If health insurance is so lucrative, why aren't giant companies jumping in?

And then this analysis:

It's clear that Obamacare will increase insurance premiums, increase taxes, increase the size of government and increase the national debt. All relevant studies and the results of the health-care insurance program in Massachusetts show this. (Massachusetts insurance premiums are increasing an average of 22 percent this year.)

This 2,700-page congressional document is by politicians, for politicians and of politicians.

It will reduce services provided by health-care organizations as the government reduces the payment rates to them.

Union workers (including teachers and government workers) are exempt.

So, who is it that wants this?  Unions, government and insurance companies.

And why do that want it? The size of government would be increased, which creates more Democrat-voting union government jobs.  Insurance premiums per services go up.  And mandatory insurance creates more young profitable customers for the insurance companies.

If you don't believe that insurance companies want this bill, then why are these politicians promoting it when they receive so much money from insurance companies?

1. According to statistics maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics, in the 2010 mid-term elections, Democrats have drawn 55 percent of insurance-related contributions, compared with 45 percent for Republicans.
   
   
2. The top three Senate recipients for insurance industry contributions – all Democrats – are Sens. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Harry Reid, D-Nev., according to the Center's research. And in the House, it's another trio of Democrats: Reps. Melissa Bean, D-Ill., Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., and Barney Frank, D-Mass.
   
   
3. According to the Wall Street Journal of April 30, 2007, Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer received a combined total of $2.4 million from the insurance companies.
   
   
4. The Washington Post, July 21, 2009, states, "Chairman Baucus (D-Mont.) has emerged as a leading recipient of Senate campaign contributions from the hospitals, insurers and other medical interest groups. … Health-related companies and their employees gave Baucus' political committees nearly $1.5 million in 2007 and 2008."
   
   
5. The Center for Responsive Politics shows that President Obama received a staggering $20,175,303 from the health-care industry during the 2008 election cycle, nearly three times the amount of his presidential rival, John McCain.

Just like in "Song of the South" when the rabbit says to the bear, "Don't throw me in that briar patch," the insurance companies are saying don't pass this bill, and Obama is claiming that insurance companies are bad guys … as they all help each other get it passed. The staged conflict between Obama and the insurance companies is just for show to deceive us. Otherwise, why would these Democrats be pushing it when they get so much cash from insurance companies?

Who pays for this?  Taxpayers. Not insurance companies and not politicians.

If Obamacare passes, profits for Big Insurance goes up. And who is paying for it? All of us through the inflation caused by printing fiat money ot pay for it.

Progressive Astroturf in the name of Coffee

From the American Thinker:

The new and much-publicized Coffee Party movement sports a fairy-tale narrative about a spontaneous uprising of concerned Americans appalled at the Tea Parties and determined to restore civility. The truth, easily researchable on the internet, is that plenty of left-wing establishment fingerprints are all over the birth of this supposedly spur-of-the-moment operation.

Professional leftists, who assert that they speak for the people, just hate it when the people manage to organize themselves to speak out against the Left, as in the prairie-fire spread of the Tea Parties. Something had to be done, and in this case, "something" meant creating the Coffee Party movement.

Of course, last spring, leftists like Nancy Pelosi were charging that Tea Parties were an Astroturf operation -- not a grassroots phenomenon, but something manufactured by the dark forces of the GOP. At best, this was nothing but sheer projection, a reflection of the mastery of Astroturfing by David Axelrod and many others on the professional left, and the assumption that Republicans would operate the same way. At worst, it was a deliberate exercise in the technique of the Big Lie.

Unlike the early Tea Party movement, the Coffee Party already has gotten an awful lot of favorable attention from the liberal media, especially given that it has no real message or track record. None of the supposed non-ideological spontaneity of the Coffee Party adds up. No thanks to the liberal media, we know that its founder, Annabel Park, is an Obama-supporter, filmmaker (she made one for the Obama campaign), and former New York Times strategy analyst. In other words, she's a progressive activist.

Ms. Park's staged and noticeably edited video, "Coffee Party: How We Began," portrays the Coffee Party as pure as the driven snow in which it was recorded. While mouthing left-wing talking points, she claims that it all began with comments she made about the Tea Parties on her Facebook page, and that it caught fire from there. The mainstream media seems to find the tale even more enchanting than Han Christian Anderson's oeuvre, and they have repeated the narrative with a straight face.

CBS News asked, "Is the 'Coffee Party' the next big thing?"

Taxpayer-subsidized National Public Radio wrote, "In just a few weeks, fans of the Coffee Party on Facebook mushroomed from a few hundred to more than 100,000 -- making Park the accidental leader of a political movement."

Left-wing blog Firedoglake called Ms. Park "the nonideological Coffee Party Founder who is a fierce advocate for democracy and has an unshakeable faith in Americans' ability to unite for the common good."

However, there are some awkward footprints leading up to the purportedly spontaneous birth and the emergence of the "accidental leader," who turns out to have lots of help. About the time of launching the Coffee Party, Ms. Park attended what was billed as RootsCampDC at the Washington office of a liberal teachers' union called the National Education Association.

The list of attendees reads like royalty of the progressive movement: people from the White House, Harry Reid's office, the Democratic National Committee, the Center for American Progress, Change.org, the SEIU, MoveOn, La Raza, Organizing for America, the Alliance for Climate Protection, etc., etc. This Astroturf camp for progressives included people from NPR, PBS, and Firedoglake. (Was everyone at CNN and CBS busy?)

Th truth about government run health care

Here are more lies from Obama on his health care agenda:

Obama went to Ohio this week to make a final push for the so-called health-care reform bill created by Democrats in the Senate. He made the following statement that is patently untrue and designed to fool the nation's senior citizens.

"And every senior should know there is no cutting of your guaranteed Medicare benefits. Period. No 'ifs,' 'ands' or 'buts.' This proposal makes Medicare stronger. It makes the coverage better and it makes the finances more secure."

By making this definite statement Obama is hoping that Granny will believe that if this bill passes, she will have access to the same doctors and receive the same kind of care and thoughtful attention she presently receives.

So what is that "guaranteed Medicare benefit" Obama has been throwing around? It's that you can go on this government-run health-care program when you reach 65. That is it! There is no other guaranteed Medicare benefit. Medicare provides whatever the government says it will provide at any given time, and that is subject to change.

In an effort to control costs, Medicare has been squeezing doctors and hospitals for quite some time. In fact, more and more physicians and medical facilities are refusing to take Medicare patients.

And here is the latest example of that from Washington:

Effective April 16, Walgreens drugstores across the state won't take any new Medicaid patients, saying that filling their prescriptions is a money-losing proposition — the latest development in an ongoing dispute over Medicaid reimbursement.

That is one way for the Marxists to destroy free-market competition.

The liberal education establishment's historical revisionism

Phyllis Schalfly has been a on top of the educrats for a long while, and here is her latest:

"Don't Mess With Texas" is a popular slogan in our most prosperous state. By a 10-to-5 margin, the Texas State Board of Education just told liberals to stop "messing" with social studies textbooks.

For years, liberals have imposed their revisionist history on our nation's public-school students, expunging important facts and historic figures while loading the textbooks with liberal propaganda, distortions and cliches. It's easy to get a quick lesson in the virulent left-wing bias by checking the index and noting how textbooks treat President Ronald Reagan and Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

When parents object to left-wing inclusions and omissions, claiming they should have something to say about what their own children are being taught and how their taxpayers' money is spent, they are usually vilified as "book burners" and belittled as uneducated primitives who should allow the "experts" to decide. The self-identified "experts" are alumni of liberal teachers colleges and/or members of a left-wing teachers union.

In most states, the liberal education establishment enjoys total control over the state's board of education, department of education and curriculum committees. Texas is different – the Texas State Board of Education is elected, and the people (even including parents!) have a voice.

Texas is uniquely important in textbook content because the state of Texas is the largest single purchaser of textbooks. Publishers can hardly afford to print different versions for other states, so Texas curriculum standards have nationwide influence.

The review of social studies curriculum (covering U.S. government, American history, world history and economics) comes up every 10 years, and 2010 is one of those years. The unelected education "experts" proposed their history revisions, such as eliminating Independence Day, Christopher Columbus, Thomas Edison, Daniel Boone and Neil Armstrong, and replacing Christmas with Diwali.

Creating crises as a means of transforming society

David Kupelian contiues to analysis Obama ans his far-left tactics:

The Obama administration's primary mode of governance is literally to create crises where none actually exist. As I have explained previously, "Big Lies" transform people and entire societies, and the most powerful form of "Big Lie," at least when it comes to government, is the manufactured crisis.

Before we turn our 10,000-watt spotlight on the outrageous turmoil Obama and company have promoted in America, let's take a few moments to understand what a manufactured crisis really amounts to.

As I explain in my new book "How Evil Works," anyone even superficially familiar with the history of the political left has heard references to the strategy of creating crises as a means of transforming society. You've probably heard of the "Hegelian dialectic," a key Marxist technique whereby an idea ("We need more gun control laws!") generates its opposite ("No, we don't need more gun laws, we just need tougher sentencing of criminals!") which leads to a reconciliation of opposites, or synthesis ("OK, we'll compromise by passing new gun-control laws, but watering them down somewhat").

Likewise, maybe you've heard of the "Cloward-Piven Strategy" – inspired by leftwing radical organizer Saul Alinsky, whose methods Barack Obama adopted – which openly advocates the creation of crises to destroy capitalist society. This is how socialist progress is achieved "peacefully" – through conflict or crisis – and always in the direction of greater socialism.

The problem is, this "crisis-creation" talk just sounds so crazy, so foreign to us, that it's hard to believe our fellow human beings, no matter how confused or deluded, could actually engage in such a practice. But it's not only true, it's actually a common part of everyday life.

Consider this non-political example and note how it illustrates the power of a crisis to mold people to the deceiver's will: In one child-abduction case, a little girl was approached after school by a man she didn't know. He claimed her house was burning down, that her parents were busy putting out the fire, and that he was a friend of the parents who had asked him to pick up their daughter and take her to them. The crisis – and the emotional upset the girl experienced over the thought of her house being on fire and her parents in danger – drowned out her normal caution about getting into a car with a stranger. You guessed it: The stranger was a predator who had concocted the lie for the sole purpose of upsetting and thereby tricking the girl into going with him so he could brutalize and murder her. (This "classic" child-predator technique was recounted in the film "Changling" starring Angelina Jolie, a true story in which the serial child murderer enticed youngsters into his car using this exact "your-house-is-on-fire" ruse.)

Tragic as this scenario is, it makes an important point: A crisis throws us off our guard, upsets us and inclines us to make decisions and accept "solutions" we normally would reject.

More insight into why Cory Heidelberger bans truth sayers

Cory Heidelberger still is hanging on to the man-made global wariming myth and bans those who of us who agressively bring truth to his darkened world. Here is more insight into the foolish intellectual elit's reliance on propaganda:

Stephen Dinan's Washington Times article "Climate Scientist to Fight Back at Skeptics," (March 5, 2010) tells of a forthcoming campaign that one global warmer said needs to be "an outlandishly aggressively partisan approach" to gut the credibility of skeptics. "Climate scientists at the National Academy of Sciences say they are tired of 'being treated like political pawns' and need to fight back. …" Part of their strategy is to form a nonprofit organization and use donations to run newspaper ads to criticize critics. Stanford professor and environmentalist Paul Ehrlich, in one of the e-mails obtained by the Washington Times, said, "Most of our colleagues don't seem to grasp that we're not in a gentlepersons' debate, we're in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules."

Professor Thomas Sowell's most recent book, "Intellectuals and Society," has a quote from Eric Hoffer: "One of the surprising privileges of intellectuals is that they are free to be scandalously asinine without harming their reputation." Environmentalist professor Ehrlich, who's giving advice to the warmers, is an excellent example of Hoffer's observation. Ehrlich, in his widely read 1968 book, "The Population Bomb," predicted, "The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer." Ehrlich also predicted the earth's then-3.5 billion population would starve back to 2 billion people by 2025. In 1969, Dr. Ehrlich warned Britain's Institute of Biology, "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Despite these asinine predictions, Ehrlich has won no less than 16 awards, including the 1980 Crafoord Prize, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences' highest award.

Stanford University professor and environmentalist activist Stephen H. Schneider is another scientist involved in the warmer retaliation. In a 1989 Discover Magazine interview, professor Schneider said, "We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

Former Colorado Sen. Tim Wirth, now president of the United Nations Foundation, in 1990 said, "We've got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we'll be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."

Environmental activist predictions have been dead wrong. In National Wildlife (July 1975), Nigel Calder warned, "... the threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." In the same issue, C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization warned, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed."

Comments by George Woodwell, founder of the Woods Hole Research Center, suggest that the warmers are gearing up for a big propaganda push.

Dennis Daugaard, just another Progressive RINO

This is not a conservative idea:

Lt. Gov. Dennis Daugaard unveiled his plan for economic recovery Wednesday, vowing to create jobs by maintaining a business-friendly climate and targeting specific industries for growth and development.

That is fascism, and government playing favorites to special interests as it interferes with the free market.

America's system of government based on the U.S. Constitution is being overthrown

From WorldNetDaily:

America's system of government based on the U.S. Constitution is being overthrown through illegal legislative "trickery" Congress is using to pass controversial health-care reform.

That's the conclusion of some on the political right who are calling for the impeachment of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi along with the defeat of the health legislation.

"This is the overthrow of the U.S. constitutional system, orchestrated from the White House through the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid," said radio host Rush Limbaugh today. "This is beyond rational explanation and description. This makes Watergate look like Romper Room."

At issue is the possibility that reforms pushed by President Obama and other Democrats will be approved without ever actually having a direct vote, but could be "deemed" to have been passed, then signed into law by Obama. The process is called the "Slaughter Strategy," named for Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., who chairs the House Rules Committee.

Discussing the need for this procedure, Pelosi said: "I like it, because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill."

Indeed, Democrats could actually vote for the rule, yet still claim they're against the Senate bill.

U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., agrees with Limbaugh that the "deem and pass" method is ludicrous and worthy of impeachment.

"The other thing is treason media," Bachmann told radio host Sean Hannity. "Where is the mainstream media in all of this not telling this story? This is a compelling story, that the speaker of the House would even consider having us pass a bill that no one votes on? That should laugh her out of the House and there should be people that are calling for impeachment off of something like this. That's how bad this is. I mean, trust me. Dennis Hastert could have never gotten away with this. President Bush never could have gotten away with it."

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said, "In our lifetime, this is the most undemocratic, un-American step that we'll have ever seen our Congress take. It's appalling. It takes my breath away that they would think that this is OK to do. But again, we can't feign surprise. Remember this is what Barack Obama had promised in the campaign. He said as a candidate that he was just days away from beginning the transformation of America."

Obamacare, the Rolls Royce that we will never get

Thomas Sowell:

On paper, you can treat Medicare like the hypothetical rich uncle who is going to leave me enough money to buy a Rolls Royce. But only on paper. In real life, you can't get blood from a turnip, and you can't keep on getting money from a Medicare program that is itself running out of money.

An even more transparent gimmick is collecting money for the new Obama health-care program for the first 10 years but delaying the payments of its benefits for four years. By collecting money for 10 years and spending it for only six years, you can make the program look self-supporting, but only on paper and only in the short run.

This is a game you can play just once, during the first decade. After that, you are going to be collecting money for 10 years and paying out money for 10 years. That is when you discover that your uncle doesn't have enough money to support himself, much less leave you an inheritance to pay for a Rolls Royce.

But a postponed revelation is not part of the official federal deficit today. And that provides a talking point, in order to soothe people who take talking points seriously.

Fraud has been at the heart of this medical care takeover plan from day one. The succession of wholly arbitrary deadlines for rushing this massive legislation through, before anyone has time to read it all, serves no other purpose than to keep its specifics from being scrutinized – or even recognized – before it becomes a fait accompli and "the law of the land."

Would you buy a used car under these conditions, even if it were a Rolls Royce?