Obama Perception vs. Reality

This article tells why Obama's support will only come from leftists, and those who want to make a statement by voting for a black president.

Those could be the only justification for voting for a hardcore liberal.

Oh he will also be supported by people who aren't really paying attention to politics.

'Cause he's really nice, and he talks pretty. Really. He does.

Perception vs. reality - Examiner.com

The Earth, the earth The earth is on fire...?

Again, the issue is not whether or not there is Global warming. The issue is whether WE are causing it.

Here is another article that says no. Here are some quotes by an article from Pierre DuPont:

Plus Ça (Climate) Change

...a look at the data shows that within the century temperatures varied withtime: from 1900 to 1910 the world cooled; from 1910 to 1940 it warmed; from 1940 to the late 1970s it cooled again, and since then it has been warming. Today ourclimate is 1/20th of a degree Fahrenheit warmer than it was in 2001.
-----------------
...Solar radiation is reducing Mars's southern icecap, which has been shrinking for three summers despite the absence of SUVS and coal-fired electrical plants...
-----------------
Half of the past century's warming occurred before 1940, when the human population and its industrial base were far smaller than now.
-----------------
While Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" warns of up to 20 feet of sea-level increase, the IPCC has halved its estimate of the rise in sea level by the end of this century, to 17 inches from 36. It has reduced its estimate of the impact of global greenhouse-gas emissions on global climate by more than one-third, because, it says, pollutant particles reflect sunlight back into space and this has a cooling effect.

Those quotes are all illuminating, but the greatest threat of an inaccurate diagnosis of human-caused global warming is similar to the inaccurate assertions made against the use of DDT to curb the spread of malaria. DuPont says:

Sometimes the consequences of bad science can be serious. In a 2000 issue of Nature Medicine magazine, four international scientists observed that "in less than two decades, spraying of houses with DDT reduced Sri Lanka's malaria burden from 2.8 million cases and 7,000 deaths [in 1948] to 17 cases and no deaths" in 1963. Then came Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring," invigorating environmentalism and leading to outright bans of DDT in some countries. When Sri Lanka ended the use of DDT in 1968, instead of 17 malaria cases it had 480,000.

That is why we better be pretty sure we are the problem before we decide to "fix the problem."

DE don't need any thinkin' Climatologists!

I thought there was no dispute among scientists about whether human activity causes global warming.

Apparently Delaware's State Climatologist David R. Legates didn't finish off his Kool-Aid. He has had the crazy notion that as State Climatologist he could express his opinion on an (apparently) undecided climate-related topic, while at the same time mentioning that he was the official Climatologist for the State of Delaware. What a leap.

The Governor says, "no." The University of Delaware Assoc. Professor has been banned from mentioning his title anywhere he calls into question the existance of man-made global warming.

How does it make any sense that a state would have a person in such a nondescript position who must be put in check about one of the bigger lies of our day. The lie is not that humans are causing global warming, it is that the scientific community has come to an agreement that humans are causing global warming.

Doesn't science ask us to continue to question, hypothesize, exeriment, conclude, and repeat?

If there is a dispute about the methods of the outcomes, shouldn't we try to address those before claiming that the discussion is over?

The most illustrative part of the Delaware Daily Times article explaining this was this sentence:

"Similar dustups have occurred in Virginia and Oregon recently, as state climatologists there came under criticism for active "contrarian" stands on climate change..."

If you have been named State Climatologist, no matter how useless the title, you probably know the difference between a cumulus cloud and a barometer. Chances are good that you could even be called an "expert." I guess what we have here is another expert who doesn't really count,aka, an independent voice; isn't that what we are supposed to be supporting with positions like that anyway?

Obama's Record Really is Weak

Second only to his tendency to favor socialist policy, the habit of talking pretty and saying nothing is one that must change for Saint Obama if anyone is to take him seriously. It is the one thing that has glared brightly about since I first heard of him. He seemed like a guy who could get his point across very well, if he ever got around to telling you what that point was.

You don't REALLY know where the guy stands without really paying attention. Today the situation seems to be the same. Over on the OpinionJournal (via RealClearPolitics) Nathan Gonzales goes back to the Senator's record as a legislator in Illinois and details exactly that point.

There are other examples, but the essence is here:

In 1999, Obama voted "present" on SB 759, a bill that required mandatory adult prosecution for firing a gun on or near school grounds. The bill passed the state Senate 52-1. Also in 1999, Obama voted "present" on HB 854 that protected the privacy of sex-abuse victims by allowing petitions to have the trial records sealed. He was the only member to not support the bill...


...Because it takes affirmative votes to pass legislation in the Illinois Senate, a "present" vote is tantamount to a "no" vote. A "present" vote is generally used to provide political cover for legislators who don't want to be on the record against a bill that they oppose. Of course, Obama isn't the first or only Illinois state senator to vote "present," but he is the only one running for President of the United States.

And the details are Here

You're no Abe Lincoln

Dr Wallace has been kind enough to remind us that Saint Obama is not alligned with the same party of his historic role model. The anointed Senator would not fit in today's Republican party. Well maybe with Chaffe, amd Snow, but not with the Conservative-AntiStatist mainstream which defines the party today. Over at Illinois Review he has a list of some Pioneering Black Republicans who held office to expand freedom.


Check it out Here.

The first commenter Hi-jacks the discussion by asking whether Lincoln would be a GOP'er today, but that should not be the question. Lincoln was the man he was in the party he was in at that time. The question should be whether Obama lives up to the Legacy. And the answer is no.

I commented with this:
Thanks Eric!
First off, I'm tired of all the Obama-love. Next - you are right for noting that "our black people are better than their black people" because we are. Not better as people, but better equipped to guide the nation because of our beliefs.

The Republicans you mentioned were people fighting for the expansion of freedom with policies that would bring freedom to more people.

Obama's policies do not expand freedom. The one he has been kind enough to tell us about is BarracK-Kare. Government-run health care will tap the nation's rescources and weaken future generations. Just as GWB was wrong on the Medicaid Part D, Obama wants to continue the wrong move by expanding to Medicaid Part Z, division S, subset R which will determine whether we use Bactine or Mercuricone when your 8-year-old skins her knee.

We have to beat the drum against his leftist momentum at every opportunity because so many will see a polished speaker who seldom says anything specific. This will pull people to his side. The mantra against him must be that Communism with a smile is still Communism.