On March 15, 2010, Fox News reported that ACORN branches were desperately trying to re-brand in an effort to restore federal grant money and other sources of revenue after a extremely controversial video was discovered showing ACORN workers giving tax tips to conservatives dressed as a pimp and a prostitute on how to secure a brothel, exploit fictional child sex victims and evade taxes. Within days of the videos' release, Congress had taken back its funding, private investors held back their funding, and the offices plummeted into financial free fall. With a ruined reputation, ACORN is being removed from doors in New York and California, business cards are being re-printed with different names, but a new brand is not going to change things behind-the-scenes when the majority of the staff remains the same.
ACORN used to be something magnificent. Originally starting off as the National Welfare Rights Organization, the group fought against not only poverty but racism as well.One of the founders of the group, George Alvin Wiley, was a black chemist from New Jersey who had earned his Ph.D at Cornell in 1957. His original group, Congress of Racial Equality, promoted integrated schools and equal opportunities regardless of race for housing and employment. After unsuccessfully trying to become the national director of CORE, he eventually formed another group, P/RAC, Poverty/Rights Action Center under the influence of two Columbia University School of Social Work professors. In June 1966, he set up several demonstrations that led to the creation of the National Welfare Rights Organization. An influential man, Wiley organized local struggles for civil rights and transformed them into a national movement to draw attention to the struggles of poverty and racism.
Wiley then sent Wade Rathke to Little Rock, Arkansas to creatively find a way to build a network of friends and allies to help the NWRO. Despite having to mitigate a deeply divided and fundamentally conservative state run by the political elite. In 1970, Rathke campaigned along with to help low-income families get their basic needs met. Inspired by a clause in Arkansas welfare, this drive help create and keep alive a movement that would later sweep coast to coast. This soon became known as the Arkansas Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).
The group that Wade Rathke originally was a part of, Students for a Democratic Society, had a sister group, The Weatherman, also referred to as the Weather Underground. These left-wing radicals were responsible for 25 bombings and would claim many more in the years to come before their eventual capture by the FBI. The goal of this group was to violently overthrow the United States government as a way to protest the draft, among other things.
Their history is not without it's fair share of scandals and embarrassment. Mr. Rathke wound up resigning as chief organizer when it was brought to light that his brother, Dale, embezzled almost 1 million dollars. In 2008, ACORN members submitted voter registration forms under names such as "Mickey Mouse" and the Dallas Cowboys starting line-up. Despite the honorable intentions under which the organization was founded, years on mismanagement and misguided actions of some employees have wrecked the public's impression of ACORN. Wade Rathke even came under fire for questionable management, and the group quickly worked out a deal to sever all ties that Wade Rathke has with the group.
ACORN's chief executive, Bertha Lewis, was unapologetic when addressing the eye-opening video footage. While she said that the member's behavior was unacceptable, Ms. Lewis was quick to complain about "modern day Acorn McCarthyism". In spite of the fact that the Nevada Secretary of State found policy manuals for the creation of a quota system, which is explicitly illegal and morally reprehensible. It was not, as members would have you believe, just a few rogue members but widespread and well-known throughout the organization.
At this point, it is unclear whether ACORN could ever recover from the negative limelight that's been shining on it the past couple of years. Blame games, a lack of electoral integrity, and mismanagement have spoiled the initial virtue and candor of the group. A name change, along with intense re-organization and a transition to new, better management may save the group, but it will not immediately receive federal funding again. It will take time, an improved level of public trust, and tangible changes before people will turn more than a skeptical eye towards the organization. Without the necessary changes, a rose really is just a rose by any other name.
Sources:
http://www.blackpast.org/?q=aah/wiley-george-alvin-1931-1973
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/acorn-chief-denounces-air-of-mccarthyism/?scp=2&sq=Wade%20Rathke&st=cse
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/09/16/acorn-getting-adult-supervision/
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/us/16acorn.html?_r=1
http://gretawire.blogs.foxnews.com/acorn-update/
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Rants and Raves From The Mind of A Complete Lunatic
Due to the enormous amounts of crazy, meth fueled tweets last night, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Mama Milky Titties PR quit on her again. In between ranting like a lunatic about how her album appropriately drops April Fool's Day, offering her breast milk to random strangers and asking her band of lunatics if they'd want to marry her, she managed to look like even more of a jackass than usual when she decided an article claiming the governor of California thought she was hot. This same article claims China owns New Jersey. Wow!!! All this time I, as a resident of New Jersey, was laboring under the delusion that my state was still a part of the United States and was still covered under the same constitutional rights that the state has had since it was established!! Thank you, Midget Attention Whorebag, for bringing this to my attention.
http://www.celebritytweet.com/link.php?s=http://tinyurl.com/yz7ycdv
In addition to letting us know we were no longer an actual country, Tila also informed us of her influence on her nephew. Her 3 year old nephew now goes straight for the bikini pics when his mother takes him to Barnes and Nobles. His mother must be sooo proud!!! Nothing like walking around Toys-R-Us with a bipolar drug addict in hooker wear to influence your child for the better!!!
Also, as some of you may have predicted SHE DID HAVE A MISCARRIAGE. Well, according to every known fact of medical science, this would take at the very least three months. Of course, that's for women who don't have multiple STD's and who haven't been on drugs most of their lives. But of course, us idiot haters should have just KNOWN that. After all, we're all secretly psychic!!
Then she claims to have written a blog to clear up all those pesky darn pregnancy questions. The link she posts goes directly to her hot spot blog/imaginary life page. Which, because Tila loves her fans oh so very much.....DOES NOT HAVE A BLOG ABOUT HER PREGNANCY!! Way to go a-hole!! But it does mention that, for the 458705845 time, she's STARTING FRESH AND BRAND NEW WITH YET ANOTHER TWITTER PAGE!!! Oh boy, you know when she says that it's gonna be TOTALLY different from the last time she said it. I mean this time she'll maybe, probably, more than likely NOT mean it.
However, it was the precious little gemstone of an article below it that really caught my eye. It's a video of her attending the "Get Free Shitshow" at the Oscar's. You can actually see the little crackhead in all her druggie glory getting all tweaked out at the thought of free shit to sell at her garage sale. Notice, though, how her publicist ISN'T there... looks like nobody has a shot in hell at keeping her crazy thought bubbles from invading the internet and media.
Of course, our favorite little media whore doesn't just stop there... She goes on to once against exploit Casey's death by posting a video she and the people she hired to pose as friends made for her. This is, of course, after she explains she isn't marrying her "baby dada" because he tried to use her for money and after explaining to her legion of morons that she was serious when she asked one of her 4 fans to marry her. Yup, true love that is. I know I define true love as being able to let go 4 days after my fiancee dies and offer to marry a guy I'm trying to pretend is my baby daddy, explain in detail the specifics of how I am in bed, all while saying that I'm doing it for my deceased fiancee.
So, all in all, this was just another regular day for Ms. Milk Titties. I'd like to thank everyone for coming on this crazy train with me, and hope you're around to watch it run itself off the tracks.
UPDATE!!!!: A fellow member of the Tila Resistance managed to capture this screen shot of her pregnancy blog, which in typical Tila fashion was posted and the almost immediately deleted. As usual, everyone's predictions came true... she DID have a miscarriage when she was attacked viciously by a chair and now she is pregnant yet again with another baby, this one conceived with IVF... Oh, Tila...you are so predictable!
http://www.celebritytweet.com/link.php?s=http://tinyurl.com/yz7ycdv
Also, as some of you may have predicted SHE DID HAVE A MISCARRIAGE. Well, according to every known fact of medical science, this would take at the very least three months. Of course, that's for women who don't have multiple STD's and who haven't been on drugs most of their lives. But of course, us idiot haters should have just KNOWN that. After all, we're all secretly psychic!!
However, it was the precious little gemstone of an article below it that really caught my eye. It's a video of her attending the "Get Free Shitshow" at the Oscar's. You can actually see the little crackhead in all her druggie glory getting all tweaked out at the thought of free shit to sell at her garage sale. Notice, though, how her publicist ISN'T there... looks like nobody has a shot in hell at keeping her crazy thought bubbles from invading the internet and media.
Of course, our favorite little media whore doesn't just stop there... She goes on to once against exploit Casey's death by posting a video she and the people she hired to pose as friends made for her. This is, of course, after she explains she isn't marrying her "baby dada" because he tried to use her for money and after explaining to her legion of morons that she was serious when she asked one of her 4 fans to marry her. Yup, true love that is. I know I define true love as being able to let go 4 days after my fiancee dies and offer to marry a guy I'm trying to pretend is my baby daddy, explain in detail the specifics of how I am in bed, all while saying that I'm doing it for my deceased fiancee.
So, all in all, this was just another regular day for Ms. Milk Titties. I'd like to thank everyone for coming on this crazy train with me, and hope you're around to watch it run itself off the tracks.
Friday, March 12, 2010
The Health Care Debate- No Longer A Debate But A Push For “Free-For-All” Abortions.
Among the biggest points of debate in health care today is whether or not abortion should be funded by government funds. And by government funds, what I really mean is our money- yours and mine. Currently, there are three exceptions to federally funded abortions under the Hyde amendment - cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment. Currently, 26 states and the District of Columbia provide state funding through Medicaid or the Indian Health Service for abortion under the circumstances listed in the Hyde amendment. An additional six states provide funded abortion services for additional health circumstances and 17 states use state funding for willful termination of pregnancy under any or all circumstances. The only state in non-compliance with the Hyde amendment as revised in 1993 is South Dakota.
While I have no quarrel with funding abortions for cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment (as defined in the Hyde amendment), I do have a problem with subsidized abortion free-for-alls. Let me clarify my position here: I am pro-life. I have no problem with the legalization of abortion, or people who are pro-choice, unless their choice involves the use of my tax dollars. My tax dollars should not be used to fund someone else’s choice to be irresponsible. Getting pregnant is easy - having unprotected sex = a living, breathing, unexpected surprise nine months later. If women are smart enough to turn to the government and states with their hand open and expect a handout in the form of a free abortion, then they are obviously intelligent enough to use protection to prevent an unwanted pregnancy or to avoid voluntary termination of pregnancy. We as women have been taught since high school various methods of how to have safe sex- abstinence, birth control, and condoms. If we aren’t smart enough to utilize one of those methods, then life everything else in life we have to deal with the consequences. There are condoms sold in nearly every grocery store and pharmacy. Planned Parenthood has a location in nearly every city. There is plenty of access to birth control and condoms (Let’s just forget having the self-control to abstain from sex, apparently that’s asking far too much of people nowadays). Why should a woman’s irresponsibility become my responsibility? I’ve made smart, educated choices not to have unprotected sex when I knew I wasn’t financially or emotionally ready to have a child. Why is it too much to ask that someone else be a responsible adult and choose not to have unprotected sex when they know they cannot afford a child? However, the newest health plan is removing responsibility off the shoulders of the people it belongs to and wants to put it on all of our shoulders.
People have argued that the Hyde amendment is unfair to low-income women, because they don’t have the money to pay for an abortion that is not life threatening or the result of an act of rape or an act of incest. Whatever happened to adoption? Giving a child who would otherwise grow up in a low-income family a chance at a better life is an honorable choice. In most cases, the women giving up their children to loving, adoptive parents have their prenatal care and after birth care paid for by the adoptive parents. This alleviates the strain on federal and state health care budgets, and eliminates the need for federally funded abortion-for-all plans.
However, there is still the argument that these low-income women will have “back-alley abortions” performed either by themselves or untrained and oftentimes, unlicensed practitioners. To be brutally honest, that is their choice. If an illegal abortion is better than a chance at life in their opinion, then the risks are theirs to take, as are the responsibilities. Is it unfair to “saddle” a women with a baby that has fetal abnormalities? Is it any more fair to saddle pro-life Americans with an abortion bill?
Even Democrats are wavering on the health care reform bill because of the abortion issue. 39 House Democrats voted no strictly because the wording didn’t specify how to prevent taxpayer dollars from becoming mingled in with money used to fund pregnancy terminations. It only cleared the House of Representatives by five votes! With as much of a hot topic as this issue has become, you’d think there would be a lot more reasons to settle this issue once and for all. The removal of federally funded abortion free-for-alls would probably garner more votes from both sides.
My bottom line is this: Demand that insurance policies cover people regardless of whether or not they were sick with a “pre-existing condition”. Provide medical coverage for every American. Just don’t expect me and other pro-lifers to pay for the mistakes that irresponsible women make in regards to an unwanted pregnancy. While every woman deserves the right to choose, I have the right to choose NOT to pay for their bad lifestyle choices.
Sources:
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/public_funding.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/04/dems-wary-obamas-final-health-push/
http://community.nytimes.com/comments/prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/another-house-democrat-demands-abortion-restrictions/?sort=oldest&offset=2
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/pelosi-to-back-capuano-in-mass-senate-race/?scp=1&sq=Pelosi%27s%20amendment&st=Search
While I have no quarrel with funding abortions for cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment (as defined in the Hyde amendment), I do have a problem with subsidized abortion free-for-alls. Let me clarify my position here: I am pro-life. I have no problem with the legalization of abortion, or people who are pro-choice, unless their choice involves the use of my tax dollars. My tax dollars should not be used to fund someone else’s choice to be irresponsible. Getting pregnant is easy - having unprotected sex = a living, breathing, unexpected surprise nine months later. If women are smart enough to turn to the government and states with their hand open and expect a handout in the form of a free abortion, then they are obviously intelligent enough to use protection to prevent an unwanted pregnancy or to avoid voluntary termination of pregnancy. We as women have been taught since high school various methods of how to have safe sex- abstinence, birth control, and condoms. If we aren’t smart enough to utilize one of those methods, then life everything else in life we have to deal with the consequences. There are condoms sold in nearly every grocery store and pharmacy. Planned Parenthood has a location in nearly every city. There is plenty of access to birth control and condoms (Let’s just forget having the self-control to abstain from sex, apparently that’s asking far too much of people nowadays). Why should a woman’s irresponsibility become my responsibility? I’ve made smart, educated choices not to have unprotected sex when I knew I wasn’t financially or emotionally ready to have a child. Why is it too much to ask that someone else be a responsible adult and choose not to have unprotected sex when they know they cannot afford a child? However, the newest health plan is removing responsibility off the shoulders of the people it belongs to and wants to put it on all of our shoulders.
People have argued that the Hyde amendment is unfair to low-income women, because they don’t have the money to pay for an abortion that is not life threatening or the result of an act of rape or an act of incest. Whatever happened to adoption? Giving a child who would otherwise grow up in a low-income family a chance at a better life is an honorable choice. In most cases, the women giving up their children to loving, adoptive parents have their prenatal care and after birth care paid for by the adoptive parents. This alleviates the strain on federal and state health care budgets, and eliminates the need for federally funded abortion-for-all plans.
However, there is still the argument that these low-income women will have “back-alley abortions” performed either by themselves or untrained and oftentimes, unlicensed practitioners. To be brutally honest, that is their choice. If an illegal abortion is better than a chance at life in their opinion, then the risks are theirs to take, as are the responsibilities. Is it unfair to “saddle” a women with a baby that has fetal abnormalities? Is it any more fair to saddle pro-life Americans with an abortion bill?
Even Democrats are wavering on the health care reform bill because of the abortion issue. 39 House Democrats voted no strictly because the wording didn’t specify how to prevent taxpayer dollars from becoming mingled in with money used to fund pregnancy terminations. It only cleared the House of Representatives by five votes! With as much of a hot topic as this issue has become, you’d think there would be a lot more reasons to settle this issue once and for all. The removal of federally funded abortion free-for-alls would probably garner more votes from both sides.
My bottom line is this: Demand that insurance policies cover people regardless of whether or not they were sick with a “pre-existing condition”. Provide medical coverage for every American. Just don’t expect me and other pro-lifers to pay for the mistakes that irresponsible women make in regards to an unwanted pregnancy. While every woman deserves the right to choose, I have the right to choose NOT to pay for their bad lifestyle choices.
Sources:
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/public_funding.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/04/dems-wary-obamas-final-health-push/
http://community.nytimes.com/comments/prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/another-house-democrat-demands-abortion-restrictions/?sort=oldest&offset=2
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/pelosi-to-back-capuano-in-mass-senate-race/?scp=1&sq=Pelosi%27s%20amendment&st=Search
Saturday, March 6, 2010
The Global Warming Myth
We as modern day people have discovered a number of ways to improve our lives on this planet and to improve the environment on our planet. The reduction of greenhouse gases, better water purification, and the increase in people who recycle have all been important and necessary steps forward toward a healthier Earth. While it is impossible disagree with the fact that we need to be responsible stewards of this planet, a question on almost everyone's mind is whether or not global warming is real or a hoax. While one would hope that a hoax would not be perpetuated on a multitude of media, from the television to the internet, irrefutable evidence is now coming to light that a number of things have been greatly exaggerated- if not lied about outright. A number of people are responsible, from the high-profile Al Gore to climate scientists guilty of hiding important data, including the top climate scientist, Phil Jones. With a media that claims every elemental event is proof that climate change is upon us, now is the appropriate time to take stock of the facts out there regarding global warming- always assuming, that is, that you can get it from the scientists.
The number one gas to blame for global warming and climate change(according to the media, Al Gore, and about 60 scientists) is CO2. CO2 accounts for approximately 0.037% of the world's total atmosphere. The rest is made up of water vapor, ozone, CH4(methane), and N20(nitrous oxide). While CO2, CH4 and N2O could certainly capable of contributing towards the greenhouse effect on Earth, the majority of our atmosphere is- and has been( at least since cavemen where around) composed of water vapor and clouds. And while it's important to limit and reduce the amount of CO2, CH4 and N2O we put out into the atmosphere, the amount currently floating around above us is not nearly enough to ring the bell for global warming. CO2 is a natural part of our environment. It is necessary for plants and trees, who by their intake of carbon dioxide give off oxygen, the very thing we need to live.
It's hard not to think Al Gore spends the time not already dedicated to driving around in his SUV or being flown in a private plane to speaking engagements communing privately with the gods of global warming. Despite being presented again and again with opportunities to address the ever mounting piles of evidence that debunk climate change as a sham, he refuses to do so. Instead he continually speaks about the subject as if we all had thousands of dollars in a bank account somewhere saved to spend on the newest scientific crisis of our time. Ask him to provide proof however, and he will call it "an onslaught of hostile, make-work demands from climate skeptics". So asking for proof and raw scientific data is a hostile demand? How? I suppose the proper thing to do would be to just sit mutely and eat every spoonful of horse manure that Al Gore and his pals try to feed us. While only admitting to "about two mistakes" in the thousands of pages (probably not printed on recycled paper) of work done by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change over the last 22 years he ignores the thousands of pages of honest, genuine data proving that his entire book was written based on dishonest scientific reports, fixed to go along with what people wanted the public to believe it. In an article published on Febuary 27, 2010, he addresses approximately three of the reasons why people don't believe climate change is a real threat.
1) "It is true that the climate panel published a flawed overestimate of the melting rate of the debris covered glaciers in the Himalayas,"
2)"And used information about the Netherlands provided to it by the government, which was later found to be partly inaccurate" and lastly
3"In addition, e-mail messages stolen from the University of East Anglia in Britain showed that scientists besieged by an onslaught of hostile, make-work demands from climate skeptics may not have adequately followed the requirements of the British freedom of information law. "
Now, let's address the three statements. In 2007(conveniently the same year it shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore), the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change made a rash announcement that it was "very likely" by 2035 the Himalayan glaciers would disappear, also that "(T)he receding and thinning of Himalayan glaciers can be attributed primarily to the global warming due to increase in anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases."
Where did they get their data from? How is it that they are able to not only predict that the Himalayan glaciers would decrease dramatically AND that it is due to man-made greenhouse gases?
This same climate panel published information that wound up being partly false provided by the Netherlands government, unmistakably without fact checking the information they intended to use as "proof". The published data based off of information given by the Netherlands' government stated that 55% of the Netherlands is below sea level, and logically is therefor more susceptible to flooding as a result of rising sea levels and flooding from the melting of the glaciers. However, only 26% of the country is below sea level. An additional 29% is susceptible to flooding from rivers. So, in total, 55% of the country is more likely to be flooded. Now, if the glaciers were actually at risk of melting this would be a great cause of concern. The flooding from the glaciers would increase the sea levels which would in turn, increase the amount of water in the rivers which would flood the Netherlands. However, while that would be a cause for concern if the data provided was accurate, it is not. The Dutch can breath easy again.
The emails that were stolen from the University of East Anglia in Britain highlighted the scandal. Finally we had proof of what we've really known all along- that global warming is a hoax. The emails showed that dozens of scientists-including some in the U.S, conspired to keep the global warming hoax alive and in the media. In emails dating as far back as 1996, scientists in the U.S and the U.N discussed ways to rebut actual, fact-filled findings in scientific journals and magazines. They discussed ways to keep the public from finding out the truth. Working together, the talked about how they want to work to make sure the reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reflected their opinions and views and excluded others.
Why go through all this effort to cover up something you parade around as the truth? If something is true, then it would not require emails to be deleted or hid. It certainly would not require data to be changed.
This is not science. This is madness.
SOURCES:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch10s10-6-2.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/science/earth/19climate.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28gore.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28gore.html
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/26/inconvenient-truth-for-al-gore/
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/02/phil-jones-admits-sending-awful-e-mails/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/27/uea-hacked-climate-emails-foi
The number one gas to blame for global warming and climate change(according to the media, Al Gore, and about 60 scientists) is CO2. CO2 accounts for approximately 0.037% of the world's total atmosphere. The rest is made up of water vapor, ozone, CH4(methane), and N20(nitrous oxide). While CO2, CH4 and N2O could certainly capable of contributing towards the greenhouse effect on Earth, the majority of our atmosphere is- and has been( at least since cavemen where around) composed of water vapor and clouds. And while it's important to limit and reduce the amount of CO2, CH4 and N2O we put out into the atmosphere, the amount currently floating around above us is not nearly enough to ring the bell for global warming. CO2 is a natural part of our environment. It is necessary for plants and trees, who by their intake of carbon dioxide give off oxygen, the very thing we need to live.
It's hard not to think Al Gore spends the time not already dedicated to driving around in his SUV or being flown in a private plane to speaking engagements communing privately with the gods of global warming. Despite being presented again and again with opportunities to address the ever mounting piles of evidence that debunk climate change as a sham, he refuses to do so. Instead he continually speaks about the subject as if we all had thousands of dollars in a bank account somewhere saved to spend on the newest scientific crisis of our time. Ask him to provide proof however, and he will call it "an onslaught of hostile, make-work demands from climate skeptics". So asking for proof and raw scientific data is a hostile demand? How? I suppose the proper thing to do would be to just sit mutely and eat every spoonful of horse manure that Al Gore and his pals try to feed us. While only admitting to "about two mistakes" in the thousands of pages (probably not printed on recycled paper) of work done by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change over the last 22 years he ignores the thousands of pages of honest, genuine data proving that his entire book was written based on dishonest scientific reports, fixed to go along with what people wanted the public to believe it. In an article published on Febuary 27, 2010, he addresses approximately three of the reasons why people don't believe climate change is a real threat.
1) "It is true that the climate panel published a flawed overestimate of the melting rate of the debris covered glaciers in the Himalayas,"
2)"And used information about the Netherlands provided to it by the government, which was later found to be partly inaccurate" and lastly
3"In addition, e-mail messages stolen from the University of East Anglia in Britain showed that scientists besieged by an onslaught of hostile, make-work demands from climate skeptics may not have adequately followed the requirements of the British freedom of information law. "
Now, let's address the three statements. In 2007(conveniently the same year it shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore), the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change made a rash announcement that it was "very likely" by 2035 the Himalayan glaciers would disappear, also that "(T)he receding and thinning of Himalayan glaciers can be attributed primarily to the global warming due to increase in anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases."
Where did they get their data from? How is it that they are able to not only predict that the Himalayan glaciers would decrease dramatically AND that it is due to man-made greenhouse gases?
This same climate panel published information that wound up being partly false provided by the Netherlands government, unmistakably without fact checking the information they intended to use as "proof". The published data based off of information given by the Netherlands' government stated that 55% of the Netherlands is below sea level, and logically is therefor more susceptible to flooding as a result of rising sea levels and flooding from the melting of the glaciers. However, only 26% of the country is below sea level. An additional 29% is susceptible to flooding from rivers. So, in total, 55% of the country is more likely to be flooded. Now, if the glaciers were actually at risk of melting this would be a great cause of concern. The flooding from the glaciers would increase the sea levels which would in turn, increase the amount of water in the rivers which would flood the Netherlands. However, while that would be a cause for concern if the data provided was accurate, it is not. The Dutch can breath easy again.
The emails that were stolen from the University of East Anglia in Britain highlighted the scandal. Finally we had proof of what we've really known all along- that global warming is a hoax. The emails showed that dozens of scientists-including some in the U.S, conspired to keep the global warming hoax alive and in the media. In emails dating as far back as 1996, scientists in the U.S and the U.N discussed ways to rebut actual, fact-filled findings in scientific journals and magazines. They discussed ways to keep the public from finding out the truth. Working together, the talked about how they want to work to make sure the reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reflected their opinions and views and excluded others.
Why go through all this effort to cover up something you parade around as the truth? If something is true, then it would not require emails to be deleted or hid. It certainly would not require data to be changed.
This is not science. This is madness.
SOURCES:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch10s10-6-2.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/science/earth/19climate.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28gore.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28gore.html
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/26/inconvenient-truth-for-al-gore/
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/02/phil-jones-admits-sending-awful-e-mails/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/27/uea-hacked-climate-emails-foi
Friday, March 5, 2010
Obama- "Yes We Can!"- but should we have?
During the last presidential race, Barack Obama issued a lot of promises. Things that we, as a country had wanted not only hear but see in action. Among his promises were to bring the troops back home from Iraq, allow five days of public comment before signing a bill, to end income tax on seniors making less than 50,000, and to urge states to give same-sex couples equality, just to name a few.
Ok, so let's break this all down, piece by piece.
1) Bringing the troops back home from Iraq.
On January 5, 2008, Obama clearly stated on a Chicago radio broadcast interview with Roland Martin that his first act as President would be to gather with the joint Chiefs of Staff and make efforts needed to bring home all troops home and have no occupation in Iraq by 2013. The first mention on his intention to bring all the troops home was on October 27, 2007 while campaigning. He said we could "take that to the bank." Considering it's already been proven that he lied about what his first act as president would be (instead, he was very busy announcing freezes on salaries of White House employees, had aids circulate a draft executive order to close Guantanamo Bay, and placed new limits on the amount of access lobbyists would have to the White House), one can't help but wonder WHEN exactly this promise of his could be cashed. However, Obama recently announced his plans to send MORE troops over to Iraq- about 1,000 more to be exact. Although, it was mentioned that these troops would be what the military calls "combat enablers", soldiers trained in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and medical and mental health. So, in essence, these troops are there to enable other troops to fight more efficiently. Now, why would we need troops to fight more efficiently in Iraq if we are pulling out in just a few short years?
2) Allowing 5 days of public comment before signing a bill.
Well, let's start this topic off by clarifying a major point. Obama promised not to sign any non-emergency bill without giving American citizens five days to comment on the website of the White House. Ok, fair enough. In fact, that's a point I can agree on. However, I do not agree that the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act (CARD) that he signed two days after the bill was finalized in Congress was an emergency bill. Emergency legislation would not take a full calender year to go into effect.
But this was not the last time Obama would rush to sign a bill. Hours after our Congress passed the State Children's Health Insurance Program, on February 4, 2009 Barack Obama signed the bill. Again, this was not an emergence bill. Not only that, but this bill wasn't going into effect until April 1 of that same year. One would assume the White House would have the technical abilities necessary to post these important matters online in a timely fashion. However, they apparently have no directive nor motivation to do so.
Yet another example is the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. This bill wasn't even posted online, yet it was signed into law on January 29, two days after it was passed in the House Of Representatives, and seven days after it was passed in the Senate (five if you exclude the weekend). It was only AFTER Obama signed it that it was posted online for commenting. But at that point, it was already too late. Regardless of what the people said, the bill was signed.
One of Obama's biggest campaigning points was to include the public in the legislative process. As of right now though, it has yet to happen.
3)End of income tax on seniors making less than 50,000 dollars a year.
Now this is a wonderful promise. One that, if kept, could save nearly 7 million American seniors 1,400 dollars a year that could be spent on necessary medicines and other health-prolonging expenses.
In the blink of an eye, it was another important campaign point swept under the rug. There was no mention of this in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It wasn't in Obama's first budget outline, released February 26, 2009.
Now this isn't to say Obama hasn't done anything at all to benefit seniors. Seniors in the Stimulus care package received 250 dollars in May. For the millions of Americans waiting for Obama to fulfill this campaign pledge, they'll have to wait a little longer. This doesn't seem to be as important to Obama as it was when he was still trying to earn votes.
4)Urging States to give same-sex couples equality when it comes to family and adoption laws.
Same-sex adoption has been a hot topic for a while. A numerous amount of opportunities had risen for Obama to support equality for same-sex couples but he has yet to take advantage of any. The only times he did do so was during a speech to the Human Right Campaign on October 10,2009, October 30, 2009 during a proclamation celebrating National Adoption Month. and again during a speech on Family Day, September 28,2009. Despite the same-sex marriage debates going on in Vermont, California, New York, Nevada, Maine, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Hampshire and Washington D.C, Obama has yet to speak out in defense of gay marriage. Although on their own, all the states except California, New York, and California passed the marriage equality bill. Do three mentions really merit the keeping of a pledge to promote equality for same-sex couples? I would have expected more, and I know I'm not the only American who feels this way.
With Obama, all things seemed possible. Our nation was facing record debt, unemployment, and general dissatisfaction with our nation's elected leaders. Obama seemed an easy answer, a quick fix to the problems facing modern day America. He made promises we wanted to hear, needed to hear. We put our trust in this man to keep his word and improve all our lives. Now we are disappointed yet again in another political figure who turned out just to be a talking head for the people surrounding him. We are in a time of great awakening, where our nation's problems are well known and publicized. There are so many problems, and the hope that we had for fixing our country in the here and now is dwindling. The "change we can believe in" may never come. Let's hope for a little longer that it does.
During the last presidential race, Barack Obama issued a lot of promises. Things that we, as a country had wanted not only hear but see in action. Among his promises were to bring the troops back home from Iraq, allow five days of public comment before signing a bill, to end income tax on seniors making less than 50,000, and to urge states to give same-sex couples equality, just to name a few.
Ok, so let's break this all down, piece by piece.
1) Bringing the troops back home from Iraq.
On January 5, 2008, Obama clearly stated on a Chicago radio broadcast interview with Roland Martin that his first act as President would be to gather with the joint Chiefs of Staff and make efforts needed to bring home all troops home and have no occupation in Iraq by 2013. The first mention on his intention to bring all the troops home was on October 27, 2007 while campaigning. He said we could "take that to the bank." Considering it's already been proven that he lied about what his first act as president would be (instead, he was very busy announcing freezes on salaries of White House employees, had aids circulate a draft executive order to close Guantanamo Bay, and placed new limits on the amount of access lobbyists would have to the White House), one can't help but wonder WHEN exactly this promise of his could be cashed. However, Obama recently announced his plans to send MORE troops over to Iraq- about 1,000 more to be exact. Although, it was mentioned that these troops would be what the military calls "combat enablers", soldiers trained in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and medical and mental health. So, in essence, these troops are there to enable other troops to fight more efficiently. Now, why would we need troops to fight more efficiently in Iraq if we are pulling out in just a few short years?
2) Allowing 5 days of public comment before signing a bill.
Well, let's start this topic off by clarifying a major point. Obama promised not to sign any non-emergency bill without giving American citizens five days to comment on the website of the White House. Ok, fair enough. In fact, that's a point I can agree on. However, I do not agree that the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act (CARD) that he signed two days after the bill was finalized in Congress was an emergency bill. Emergency legislation would not take a full calender year to go into effect.
But this was not the last time Obama would rush to sign a bill. Hours after our Congress passed the State Children's Health Insurance Program, on February 4, 2009 Barack Obama signed the bill. Again, this was not an emergence bill. Not only that, but this bill wasn't going into effect until April 1 of that same year. One would assume the White House would have the technical abilities necessary to post these important matters online in a timely fashion. However, they apparently have no directive nor motivation to do so.
Yet another example is the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. This bill wasn't even posted online, yet it was signed into law on January 29, two days after it was passed in the House Of Representatives, and seven days after it was passed in the Senate (five if you exclude the weekend). It was only AFTER Obama signed it that it was posted online for commenting. But at that point, it was already too late. Regardless of what the people said, the bill was signed.
One of Obama's biggest campaigning points was to include the public in the legislative process. As of right now though, it has yet to happen.
3)End of income tax on seniors making less than 50,000 dollars a year.
Now this is a wonderful promise. One that, if kept, could save nearly 7 million American seniors 1,400 dollars a year that could be spent on necessary medicines and other health-prolonging expenses.
In the blink of an eye, it was another important campaign point swept under the rug. There was no mention of this in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It wasn't in Obama's first budget outline, released February 26, 2009.
Now this isn't to say Obama hasn't done anything at all to benefit seniors. Seniors in the Stimulus care package received 250 dollars in May. For the millions of Americans waiting for Obama to fulfill this campaign pledge, they'll have to wait a little longer. This doesn't seem to be as important to Obama as it was when he was still trying to earn votes.
4)Urging States to give same-sex couples equality when it comes to family and adoption laws.
Same-sex adoption has been a hot topic for a while. A numerous amount of opportunities had risen for Obama to support equality for same-sex couples but he has yet to take advantage of any. The only times he did do so was during a speech to the Human Right Campaign on October 10,2009, October 30, 2009 during a proclamation celebrating National Adoption Month. and again during a speech on Family Day, September 28,2009. Despite the same-sex marriage debates going on in Vermont, California, New York, Nevada, Maine, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Hampshire and Washington D.C, Obama has yet to speak out in defense of gay marriage. Although on their own, all the states except California, New York, and California passed the marriage equality bill. Do three mentions really merit the keeping of a pledge to promote equality for same-sex couples? I would have expected more, and I know I'm not the only American who feels this way.
With Obama, all things seemed possible. Our nation was facing record debt, unemployment, and general dissatisfaction with our nation's elected leaders. Obama seemed an easy answer, a quick fix to the problems facing modern day America. He made promises we wanted to hear, needed to hear. We put our trust in this man to keep his word and improve all our lives. Now we are disappointed yet again in another political figure who turned out just to be a talking head for the people surrounding him. We are in a time of great awakening, where our nation's problems are well known and publicized. There are so many problems, and the hope that we had for fixing our country in the here and now is dwindling. The "change we can believe in" may never come. Let's hope for a little longer that it does.
Tila Tequila's Fake Charity!
Ok, this has been bothering me for a while now, so I'm taking to my notes to get it off my chest. The charity Tila Tequila is claiming as her own, newly established charity is FAKE. "Jayden's Angels" is NOT a legit charity. It's not recognized by the IRS under the name "Jayden's Angels" or "Jayden".
A lot of people will complain about Tila Tequila and say she's lying about a multitude of things: her pregnancy, her baby's father(s), her past, the things she claims to have accomplished, her level of fame, deleting her twitter, etc, etc... The only one of these things that I have any interest or any right to comment on is the fake charity.
On December 3, 2009, Tila claimed that her charity had become official via twitter. For a charity to become official, it needs to be registered as a charity with the IRS.
A search of the IRS registered charities can be done at http://www.irs.gov/app/pub-78/forwardToSearch.do
I am usually not bothered by what people say. Regardless of whether or not they're saying is an actual fact or the truth. But to actively solicit money on a variety of web sites is not only wrong, it's illegal. And last I checked, rules applied to everyone, famous or not.
A lot of people will complain about Tila Tequila and say she's lying about a multitude of things: her pregnancy, her baby's father(s), her past, the things she claims to have accomplished, her level of fame, deleting her twitter, etc, etc... The only one of these things that I have any interest or any right to comment on is the fake charity.
On December 3, 2009, Tila claimed that her charity had become official via twitter. For a charity to become official, it needs to be registered as a charity with the IRS.
A search of the IRS registered charities can be done at http://www.irs.gov/app/pub-78/forwardToSearch.do
I am usually not bothered by what people say. Regardless of whether or not they're saying is an actual fact or the truth. But to actively solicit money on a variety of web sites is not only wrong, it's illegal. And last I checked, rules applied to everyone, famous or not.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
