Global Warming?

     For quite a while now we have been battered by global warming nonsense.  Even in the face of obvious record snow fall, like this past weekend, people still insist that Earth is cooling at an alarming rate.  Some claim the damage is done, and the world is doomed.  Others say we have a limited amount of time, as little as two years, and we must act now to save the planet.  So I decided to look at the facts and debunk some of the global warming myths.

Myth 1:  The Earth is warming.
     If anyone actually took the time to look at trends over the past ten years, Earth is actually cooling (WND.com).

Myth 2:  The glaciers are melting at an alarming rate.
     Many of the world's glaciers are expanding (IceAgeNow.com).  Plus, even if you concede the point that the northern glaciers are melting, the southern glaciers appear to be growing (CSMonitor.com).  I have also heard reports of the reverse, where the southern glaciers are disappearing, and the northern are thriving.

Myth 3:  The current weather patterns were all predicted.
     Really?  Where?  As a matter of fact, about ten years ago, leading global warming scientists warned that future generations would never see snow or even know what it is (NoFrakkingConsensus.com).

Myth 4:  The predictions were right: fewer snow storms with higher intensity.
     The winter of 2010/2011 saw a record snow fall, but it was spread out over many storms.  From what I remember, there were about six or seven storms last winter.  But putting that aside, I thought we were never going to see snow again (see Myth 3).

     I'm sure you have heard many more.  It's no surprise that the environmentalists now call global warming "climate change."  It's hard to keep people on board with your insane theories when science and mother nature keep proving you wrong.

Occupy Wall Street

     Occupy Wall Street turned violent last night as protesters ignored police barricades and marched through closed off areas (5NewsOnline.com).  This is just the type of incidences the left loves.  It's a chance to make the police look terrible, and the protesters seem innocent.  The above article speaks of protesters as "peaceful," recites their reasons for marching, and tells about the abuses of police officers.  How the media reports is not surprising to me though, it's the reaction of the residents.
     I caught this story last night while flipping through the channels.  I don't recall the station, I believe it was either Fox News or My 9, that interviewed non-protesters.  The major complaint?  The police.  One woman seemed to have a real problem with the police stopping the protesters and maintaining a presence in the area.  All I could think about was the stupidity of this lady.  Does she not realize that without the police windows most likely would have been smashed and stores looted?  Her complaints should be aimed at protesters, who leave areas filthy, have public displays of drug use, sex, and deification, and are loud (NY1.com & GlennBeck.com). 
     The traditional media as a strong force is illustrated here.  People still believe what they are told, and the media tells us to love Occupy Wall Street.  Some media professionals have been aiding the movement, telling them how to get better coverage and organize demands (BigJournalism.com).  The traditional media even covers up the fact that most don't like the protests.  Politico reports that a recent poll found only thirty-seven percent of Americans agree with Occupy Wall Street, but then quickly changes the subject and tries to draw similarities between the protesters and the rest of America (full article here).  The truth is that this movement is far from American, and without the media's help, these protests would have disbanded long ago.

Love Whomever We Choose?

     In two speeches the First Lady of the United States of America, Michelle Obama, mentioned that her husband's appointees to the United State Supreme Court will help protect everyone's right to "love whomever we choose." (CNSNews.com).  Now what does that mean exactly?  Who is preventing this and what legislation, current or introduced, hinders who people are involved with?  Is she referring to gay marriage?
     Barack Obama claimed he was opposed gay marriage (CNN.com), but in favor of civil unions.  That was lie.  Recently he instructed his Justice Department to not defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which banned the federal recognition of same sex marriages, in court, because it's unconstitutional (HuffingtonPost.com).  This is the only instance where a president, part of the Executive Branch, has taken it upon himself to declare something unconstitutional, a power of the Judicial Branch, and refuse to enforce it.  So why did Obama say he was against gay marriage?  To get elected.  But he has to make that clear to his base.  Hence, Michelle Obama steps in.
     This is how the left works.  They sneak in little comments that express their true beliefs.  The First Lady is telling the president's supporters that Obama isn't opposed to gay marriage.  He just needed to say that to win the presidency, because the majority of Americans are against it (Gallup.com).  In fact, she reassured them, he put people on the Supreme Court that will protect it, even if an amendment to the Constitution bans it (TheHill.com).  The left has to use backhanded, pseudo-subliminal messaging.  If they just came out and said what their true intentions and motives were, they would never be elected.  So watch out for the language the left uses.  What they say is rarely innocent rhetoric.

Mitt Romney

     New reports are out that show RomenyCare makes free health care available to illegal immigrants (USAToday.com).  Romney blames this slip up on the governor that replaced him  He stated that free health care for illegals was never intended; the law was changed after he left office.  Yet others claim this problem was brought up before its passage.  Clearly Romney has been caught in another health care scandal.  But why is Romney, the traditional media's choice, being hammered with this issue?
     For starters, he's Republican.  The traditional media doesn't actually like Romney, they just think Obama can beat him.  Obama needs to draw attention away from his own unpopular health care law, and what better way to do that than go after Romney's.  But why so early?  After all these stories don't help Romney with Republicans and may jeopardize his chances.
     The traditional media believes a Romney primary victory is a definite.  The Establishment Republicans are helping Romney by moving up primary votes in several states (WizBangBlog.com).  They hope to bring a quick end to the process before future bad news surfaces for Romney.  So the liberals don't care about hurting Romney, who appears to be the winner, it just makes it easier to attack him later.
     There may be another reason though.  Perhaps liberals know Obama is going to lose, and they hope they can convince Romney not to repeal ObamaCare.  When all is said and done, ObamaCare is merely a federal version of RomneyCare (MSNBC.com), and there have been some Establishment Republicans who like some parts of ObamaCare (Yahoo.com).  Plus, if Romney appeals the law, the left can scream hypocrisy.  The claim will be made that free health care should be available to all U.S. citizens, not just the citizens of Massachusetts.  Maybe to the left Romney is actually the best bet to keep ObamaCare alive if they lose power in 2012.  This is a scary thought for conservatives, who want ObamaCare repealed, and further evidence of a huge weakness in a Romney presidential run.

Hispanic Vote

     During the last Republican debate an audience member asked what message the candidates had for Latino voters.  Generally the answers were correct.  The Conservative message is the same for every American, regardless of background, ethnicity, race, gender, etc.  Conservatives do not separate people into groups and pit them against each other.  That is something the left does.  And it is doing it well when it comes to the Hispanic vote.
     The left is horrified over what may happen in 2012 and is doing everything it can to help Obama.  The traditional media is trying to warn Obama of an impending Latino loss, which is believed to be a key voting block and a major factor in choosing the next president of the United States (KTNV.com).  Not a good thing for Obama, whose approval rating has fallen eleven points with Hispanics according to the above article.  Many Hispanics, who are quoted with expressing several concerns and complaints regarding the administration, say they will not vote for him a second time (MiamiHerald.com).  In addition, the Atlantic points out that Perry has a good chance of picking up a lot of support from Latinos (full article here).
     But the traditional media also give Obama his strategy in the next election.  They scorn Republicans, who they state are doing terribly on the immigration issue when they should be capitalizing on it.  They also down play Obama's decreased status, saying that Hispanics won't vote for Republicans either.  In fact, they focus more on the Republicans than on giving Latino concerns any legitimacy.  They're main point of attack?  The same as always: stop the racist Republicans, who will deport all Hispanics, legal or not. 
     The traditional media is sounding a signal bell.  Liberal Latino leaders need to get out there and drum up support for Obama, or the consequences could be dire.  They need to attack Republicans on immigration and make them seem racist if the Obama presidency is to be saved.  The only problem though is the left's belief that the number one issue for Latinos is immigration, when the number one issue for everyone is the economy.  And on that Obama cannot deflect or escape blame.

Iraq

     President Obama has announced the end of the Iraq War by the holidays (Politico.com).  One explanation for the rapid withdrawal is Obama's inability to cut a deal granting U.S. troops immunity from Iraqi law.  What a nice thank you after spending ten years and billions of dollars freeing the country.  But more importantly, it shows the absolute impotence of Obama and the rest of the world's complete lack of respect for him.
     The terrorist world grows more bold in the face of the current U.S. presidency.  Just recently Iran, a terrorist country who has been trying to build a nuclear bomb, tried to kill the Saudi ambassador on American soil (FoxNews.com).  The apparent Arab Spring, the so-called Middle East democracy movement supported by the administration, is proving to be a terrorist Muslim dictatorship/theocracy movement.  In Egypt Christians are being murdered (TheGlobeAndMail.com), and Syria continues to slaughter its own people (PajamasMedia.com).  And the country we are withdrawing from makes supporting Israel a capital offense (CNSNews.com).
     President Obama knows this does not look good for him, and he is trying to pass this all off as beneficial for him and American national security.  He made the silly claim that ending the Iraq War has helped us get Osama bin Laden (CNSNews.com) and still takes credit for the "democratic" Arab Spring movement (Sweetness-Light.com).
     His main reason, I believe, for leaving Iraq: re-election.  His base is fiercely anti-war, and he needs to shore them up.  The Iraq War angered the far-left during the Bush administration.  By ending it he makes his cook, fringe, left-wing base happy and shows he is a man of his word for fulfilling a campaign promise.  Too bad he continues to lie about almost everything else.

Feminization of America

     Just the other day my sister received an email from her son's kindergarten teacher.  Apparently my nephew is too rought with dolls.  He does not enjoy playing with them, and this appears to disturb his teacher.  Several questions popped into my head.  What boy wants to play with dolls?  And what boy isn't rough with everything?  Does he have a choice of toys?  And if he does, why are they forcing him to use dolls?
     This is part of an alarming trend in American society: feminization.  Boys can no longer be boys, and men have become stupid, incompetent boys.  But more importantly, it switches gender roles and harms male identity.
     Just take a look at popular culture.  Many of the famous couples are now much older woman, who are seen as beautiful and mature, with much younger men, like Maria Carey and Nick Cannon, Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher, and Courteney Cox and David Arquette.  These women are praised as strong for going after what they want and expressing their sexuality.  Now flip this to an older man with a younger woman, which was the traditional paring.  Men were the providers, and an older man could provide for a younger woman.  Now though, the man is often looked as a pervert for chasing a young girl.  The older men who does end up with a young woman is an idiot, too stupid and involved in his genitals to realize he is being used in some way.  Anne Nicole Smith and J. Howard Marshall come to mind.
     Movies and television programs are no better.  The women are the powerful, smart characters that have all of the answers and fix all of the problems.  Many of their complaints are centered around inept male partners, who are dumb, impotent, and no help in any situation.  This can be seen in the television show Rules of Engagement.  Homosexual males are the exception.  They are fun, stable, and give great advice.  Men were once the solid foundations of families and societies.  In shows like Father Knows Best, their knowledge was sought after and common sense filled their teachings.  Those days are gone.
     Many of these concerns are echoed by WorldNetDaily, which describes the feminization in schools, homes, and culture (WND.com).  It describes some of the items listed above, and adds how boys are falling behind girls in school and tells of how divorces mostly intiatied by and ruled in favor of wives.
     The problem I have is not the upgraded status of women, but the downgrading of men.  So many little boys are forced onto drugs for AD/HD to suppress their natural tendencies.  What happened to boys will be boys?  What boy can sit still for hours and pay attention?  It's sad to see.  The feminists have been very successful at eliminating male influences and putting their progressive views in its place.  Men in society have gone from prominent, to pathetic.