Climategate should cool believers of 'climate change'

The Mark Twain quote, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics" perfectly summarizes the issue of "climate change," formerly known as "global warming," particularly in the wake of the "Climategate" scandal.

Since "Climategate" has been, shall we say "lightly" reported in the national media, allow me to summarize: November 19, 2009, the credibility of climate science was dealt a major blow by the publication of e-mail messages, along with considerable data, that were hacked and released by a whistle blower from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, a key center of global warming research. The released information suggests that data has been manipulated, faked and fibbed. Since then, each day brings more delightful revelations.

This past weekend, the London Daily Mail reported that Professor Phil Jones, director of the soiled East Anglia CRU, conceded that there has been "no global warming since 1995" (that's 15 years for you lefties). Additionally, Professor Jones admits that he has trouble "keeping track" of information, and colleagues informed the Mail that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost relevant papers.

Do tell.

Let me get this straight:

On the word of some folks who have been caught lying for obvious financial reasons and can't "keep track" of their own data, we are to destroy our economic system, and therefore our nation. We are to live in huts, eat nuts and roots, ride bicycles, and crown Al Gore King of the World.

I don't buy it, although our president does, as evidenced by his continued headlong dive into the global warming waters.

I don't begrudge anyone the right to believe what they want about "climate change." Similarly, I think that if you want to believe your distant grandpa was an ape, that too is your prerogative.

A friend recently told me that she was on board with manmade climate change because there had been a great deal of information about it on television, so it must be true.

I informed her that I too have been on television; therefore that was not enough for me.

A local university professor told me that someone in his position has to be extremely careful of what they say about the subject, because it is "like a religion" and indeed, we are being asked to take a great deal "on faith." We now have proof that we cannot put faith in those who would be scientists.

As for Al Gore, exactly what are his credentials for expertise on this issue? Just as we have a leader in charge of our economy who has never held an actual private sector job, our resident expert on climate science is a phony ex-politician who has zero credibility on the issue.

Laying blanket of guilt on U.S. ignores history as force for good

"The United States of America is the greatest force for good in the history of the world."

The preceding is a pretty straightforward statement and sports quotation marks because I said it, and now I've written it as well.

I am generally able to "consider the source" of most all the goofy things liberals write and say, but I must admit, I get extremely tired of hearing and reading about this terrible, despicable place known as America. In just the last two days, a couple of locals, representing the Howard Zinn/George McGovern/Al Gore/Barack Obama (where does one stop?) wing of the "I Hate My Country" party expounded about slavery, conquest, the Mexican and Indian wars, abuse of labor unions (whatever that means), wars to control oil, etc.

This has been a fashionable pastime since the 1960s when I was growing up, which may explain why I am so weary of it.

These learned souls never mention that it was the USA who kept much of Europe from literally starving to death during and after WWI (for those of you might care, the effort was led by a then-obscure mining engineer named Herbert Hoover.) They never mention that it was Americans who sailed to Europe and pulled France and England's chestnuts out of the fire and saved their countries from true conquest. They neglect the fact that prior to our entry into WWII, it was American goods and money that literally kept Britain, and therefore western civilization, from falling into the abyss of Nazism. Following the war, it was, once again, the USA, that saved Europe from starvation via the Marshall Plan. Our wheat kept millions of Soviets from starving many times even though we were engaged in the Cold War with their leadership.

I personally remember countless disasters, famines and conflicts where Americans were on the scene, feeding, fixing, fighting and usually financing...and the only territory we asked was enough room to bury our dead.

My country is imperfect. Because governments are made up of human beings, they are not only imperfect, but are also capable of evil, because human beings, my friends, are flawed and are not perfectible...at least on this earth.

To those of you who are ashamed of my country, I would ask: Would you have preferred to live under Josef Stalin? Hitler? Pol Pot? Chairman Mao?

And to those hand-wringers among us who agonize about "enhanced interrogation" of those who would behead us and despair because our carbon footprint is too large, are you equally concerned about the 1.37 million innocent human babies that are willfully killed in America each year? Seems I never hear your crowd mention that little statistic.

If you really want to continue down the tired path of perpetuating guilt among Americans for admittedly horrible things such as slavery, oppression and war casualties, please; do some mental and intellectual housecleaning on the issue of abortion, or kindly shut up.

Professional politicians face united American 'rabble'

 One accusation consistently directed at those who hold traditional American values and revere the lessons of history -- actual history, not history of the revisionist variety, which spews forth from the murky brains of Marxist professors -- is that we are "divisive." What they really mean when they extol the virtues of compromise and "reaching across the aisle" is that we should roll over and accede to every half-baked "progressive" social-engineering scheme that springs forth from their brilliant minds.

Not all that long ago, I had the high honor of being called "divisive" by the Kansas City Star ... even now I relish the moment I read it ...

I looked up "divisive" in a dictionary and found the following: di·vi·sive; forming or expressing division or distribution; creating dissension or discord.

Does anyone have a problem with that?

It should be recalled that President Bush stated in his first run for the presidency that he was "a uniter, not a divider." It was certainly a nice try, and he did compromise, unfortunately in my opinion, on "No Child Left Behind" and other pieces of legislation. Ultimately, he found that there was no way to stand on principle and please those with opposing worldviews simultaneously. Bob Woodward, in his book "The War Within," wrote that George W. Bush was "the nation's most divisive figure." When the book was released last year, I think that he was undoubtedly correct, but things "change."

What a difference a year makes! Is the country now united in lock step for the "change we can believe in"?

Hardly.

The country is in a "malaise" that would warm the cockles of Jimmy Carter's heart. In the midst of double-digit unemployment, record home foreclosures, record bank seizures and a record number of bankruptcy filings, our leadership is pursuing health insurance reform (formerly health care reform, if you hadn't noticed that little change), a cap and trade bill that will increase all taxes (yes, even those who earn less than $250,000 annually, remember that promise?) and up next, the proposed amnesty of millions of folks who have no intention of assimilating into our culture (but will gratefully vote Democrat, at least that's the plan).

Amazingly, the politicians have finally gotten the people's attention, and neither the people nor the politicians are pleased about it. The people are uniting ... against professional politicians. Just as a "rabble" of farmers and merchants united in 1776 against an oppressive monarchy.

As I write this, Scott Brown has won the Massachusetts special election for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by the deceased Ted Kennedy. The Kennedy brothers, John and Ted, had owned the seat (both literally and figuratively --or was Joseph Sr. the owner?) since 1952. It would seem that Democrats have definitely not found their own tenets of "hope" and "change" to be uniting factors.

Obama worldview gives lovers of jihad encouragement

 The entire world pays attention to the words and deeds of U.S. presidents. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that jihadists around the world are encouraged and feeling their oats again.

Umar the Christmas bomber did everything but send a telegram to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano expressing his desire to martyr himself and murder 300 innocents. The Fort Hood shooter had "Soldier of Allah" beneath his name on his business card. These people got through the system due to the upside-down, politically correct worldviews of the Obama administration.

Throughout the campaign Barack Obama repeatedly crowed his intention to close the Guantanamo Bay facility; our top law enforcement officer, Attorney General Eric Holder, is going to give those poor oppressed souls who have been known to behead Americans on video their days in court. In general, it was espoused that it was time to be "kinder and gentler" to such folks; after all, how much different could they be from the president's old buddy and mentor, Bill Ayers, who once attempted to blow up the U.S. Capitol? What lover of jihad would not be pleased?

Until we catch some people named Smith, Jones or Parnell from places like Iowa or Kansas with explosive shoes or underwear, do you think we might ought to focus on those with names like Khalid or Umar who spend summer vacation in scenic, opulent Yemen?

Profiling? Yes, please.

Also, I am one of those stodgy souls who happen to believe that one's worldview colors all issues.

Let me be clear: Human life is cheaper than ever -- unless you are trying to sell the takeover of the health care establishment of a once-free people -- and perhaps, just perhaps, if your personal worldview induces you to be the most radical, pro-abortion member of the U.S. Senate in history, maybe the thought of a few folks blowing up on airliner is not that disturbing ... until you think about it for three days or so.

If I sound particularly strident, so be it. After what I have seen in 2009, I am going to say and write exactly what I think until hell freezes over.

And, since I have swerved into both health care and abortion, consider this. The vaunted Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 had as its basis an unwritten "right to privacy" hidden somewhere in the constitution. The story of Justice Blackmun's inventive legal rationalizing is interesting and merits study by non-lawyers, but my question is simply this: If the "right to privacy" is so important as in the case of abortion, which is presumably a "health care" issue, why is it now permissible for Obama/Pelosi/Reid et al to completely invade every other area of an individual's health care, to the point of perhaps fining, jailing, and refusing treatment by government mandate? The thought of having the feds involved in doctor-patient relationship decision-making is absolutely captivating.