Watergate According to Socialism

Isn't it fascinating how the Administration in power can decide what is right and wrong, for the most part? Scandals that are detrimental to the public image of their agenda can be magically swept under the rug and kept on the down-low, while scandals that benefit them in some way get covered for weeks on end. I'm talking about the latest blow to Barack Obama's political agenda - Climategate.

I would wager that most of my readers have at least heard of Climategate, but know little of what happened, who was involved, what the direct consequences are, and so on. To briefly sum it up, a hacker got into the computers at the Hadley Research Center in England and revealed a whole host of electronic mail that showed leading climatologists manipulated data, forged graphs, and destroyed evidence that did not support their conclusions. As if that wasn't enough, they prevented scientists with dissenting opinions from being printed in peer-reviewed magazines. To oversimplify things - all of the above = BAD.

Now I'm going to relate this directly to the political agenda of the Obama Administration. Anyone remember during the State of the Union Address (after Jobs, Health Care, and a shot at the Supreme Court, of course) Obama mentioned something called a "cap and trade" policy? Cap and trade is also known as "emissions trading", and the general premise is regulating the amount of a specific pollutant a business can emit by forcing them to pay for their own filters, and offering small economic incentives. The whole logical foundation of cap and trade relies on the theory of global warming actually being a sound one. Thus, there's no doubt that it would be beneficial to Obama's plans for the next few years to just kind of "kick it to the curb".

The impact that this blatant breach of scientific practice has on the growing community of brainwashed global warming activists is colossal. This shakes the whole foundation of their beliefs. No longer are the polar ice caps melting, or the temperature increasing so drastically that it has a negative affect on our daily lives. But, the real crime isn't against science here. It's against the taxpayers. This is an enormous case of fraud. Billions upon billions of tax dollars have been devoted to a pure and noble cause that has turned into a corrupt, greed-driven, dogma-spewing fountain of lies.

When Obama took office, he made the following statement:

"Science and scientific process must inform and guide decisions of my administration on a wide range of issues, including mitigation of climate change. The public must be able to trust the science and scientific process. Public officials should not suppress or alter scientific technological findings."

This was a clear shot at George W. Bush, who casually tossed aside all notion of climate change during his presidency. Now, instead of walking around with his nose in the air pretending Climategate didn't happen (which I can tell you from personal experience doesn't work), he should thank whoever broke this story, and then cease work on the money pit that is Cap and Trade, and not put regulations like that on businesses that turn around and raise the cost for consumers.

I've long been a skeptic of global warming. A few degree change either way in temperature doesn't mean anything. It's very obvious that the Earth goes through periods of heating and cooling as time goes by, and I don't think this is any different (for that one person that always says "No it doesn't!", I give you two words: "ICE AGE"). This latest scandal coupled with the refusal to acknowledge it by our governing body definitely doesn't sway me towards this certain point of view.

Honestly, let's hope Obama ditches this "Cap and Trade, Save the Whales" rhetoric. That would be a fraud that far exceeds that of Hadley scientists - destroying trillions of dollars of profit by passing legislation based on an archaic theory that the Earth is baking us alive; legislation that deprives businesses of it's cheapest and most efficient forms of energy.

Ears Open, Eyes Up

This will be the shortest post I write on this blog, simply because it's such a clear-cut, black and white issue. It's one I have carefully tiptoed around, simply because it's a touchy subject in today's world. I'm talking about the signature piece of reform that bears the mark of Obama's face on it: Health Care.

Quite simply, for the first year of the Obama Administration's tenure, they enjoyed a 60-seat Democratic majority in the Senate, and approval ratings that are going to be the highest that Barack will ever see. Yet, they could not pass the bill, despite countless hours of drafting legislation behind locked doors in the bowels of Washington (probably didn't help).

Now, with a 59-seat majority (60 Yea votes are required to pass), Majority Leader Harry Reid can't get ONE MORE VOTE to pass this bill from anywhere he looks, and is even having trouble keeping progressive and centrist Democrats on board (12 pro-life Democrats, Bart Stupak included, are against the current version's abortion language).

So what does he do? Proposes reconciliation. PROMISES reconciliation. Again, for those of you who don't know, reconciliation allows a piece of legislation to be passed with only 50 votes instead of the traditional 60.

Here's the main point I'm trying to get across: right-wing conservatives hate this bill, moderate conservatives hate this bill, independents hate this bill, moderate liberals hate this bill, and America hates this bill. The only ones in favor are Obama fanboys in Congress; the relatively socialistic wing of our government.

This bill has no business getting passed. Period. If some bipartisan agreement is reached, where it is passed by 60 votes (which would, in the current Senate, require only ONE Republican to vote yes, assuming the Democrats all support it), then fine. I'll shut up. But if this bill sneaks through on a barebones vote with absolute minimal support, it would be a complete abomination.

Wrong Place, Wrong Time

Personally, I am probably the single greatest opponent of negative advertising you will ever meet. I am a firm believer in sportsmanship, integrity, honesty, and character. This goes for anything from a state championship baseball game, to a pickup basketball game, to a race for political office. I cannot stand the immature mudslinging that occurs every two years, be it a local/state race, or a national race. If you deserve the position more than your opponent, you'll get more votes. It's a pretty black and white issue.

That said, I am most definitely not oblivious to the slander that occurs. It's as much a part of life as death, taxes, and gravity. It is very unlikely to change anytime soon. So, as people do with things that are frowned upon, but still "necessary", limits must be set. Things like morals and ethics come into play, and certain aspects of a candidate's life are roped off and left untouched. Recent issues that were brought up and viciously attacked (and shouldn't have been) are things like Sarah Palin's pregnant teenage daughter and Down's Syndrome-stricken son. Or, perhaps just as ridiculous, Barack Obama's skin color and ethnicity. Why in the world do either of those make any difference to us, or in any way affect the competency of the aforementioned individuals? Who cares if Governor Palin's son has Down's Syndrome? Does it make any difference if then-Senator Obama is black or white? Absolutely not.

Recently, documents that were sent out to major players in the fundraising of the Republican Party were publicized. These 70-page "summaries" contained a slide entitled "The Evil Empire" that portrayed top Democrats as certain comic-book and cartoon villains. Barack Obama was "The Joker", Nancy Pelosi was "Cruella De Vil", and Harry Reid was "Scooby-Doo".

Left-wingers and the Obama Administration of course blasted these photos, but they were also denounced as "classless" by those on the right. Michael Steele, RNC Chairman, severely reprimanded the junior aide that placed the images in the documents, but will not discipline the parties involved (an action that I do not agree with). Minority Leader Mitch McConnell also admitted the pictures were in bad taste, as did Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT). The DNC is seizing the moment and absolutely ripping into those on the right, and I can't say I blame them. That kind of advertising is despicable, abhorrent, and just plain uncalled for.

However, keeping that in mind, I think the Democratic National Committee is taking advantage of a situation that just happened to spin in their favor. Assuming one playing with a full deck of cards, I would wager that the thought that every major player in elections does some variation of that in private has crossed the threshold of your brain. There is no doubt that this isn't an isolated incident. Similar tactics are most definitely used by Democrats, probably with Obama portrayed as God, Pelosi as Sacagawea (for "guiding in" a new era for Democrats), and Reid as Scooby-Doo (not even the state of Nevada likes him). You don't get donations by showing your opponents as good people, you get them by making them evil in the eyes of the people with the cash-lined pockets. It shouldn't work that way, but it does.

Even though people are super-quick to jump all over the Republicans (and by no means am I defending that behavior or condoning it), I guarantee you the other side is doing the same. Think along the lines of saying Republicans use scare tactics and fear to oppose legislation, and then Senator Reid going and saying if you don't support his jobs bill, you are advocating the abuse of women and destruction of America. Pot calling the kettle black? I think so.