http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/12/global-warming-fears-cooling-down-amidst-new-data/

posted on December 28, 2012 by Chris Graham Filed Under Environment, Science

Global-Warming Fears Cooling Down Amidst New Data

5

43

America dodged a bullet in 2000 when we elected George W. Bush over Al Gore, I’m telling you what.

Al Gore, who at this point will go down in history not as the 45th Vice President of the United States of America, but as a hapless neophyte weatherman so proficient in PowerPoint as to render him a prodigy, helped spread the fear (or at least attempted, as nobody remembers this anymore) that the northern polar ice caps could be entirely melted by the year 2012.

I do not wish to be too hasty in judging the man, for though it is currently the very year that the ice caps were supposed to have vanished and have in fact not, the year is not yet over; America’s treasured clairvoyant still has three days for his prophecy to come true, for the North Pole, Santa’s homestead, to disappear. (In light of Santa’s having just visited our homes three nights ago to bestow us our holiday bounty, do we root for him or for Gore?)

Of course, even some alarmists are quick to dismiss Gore as a hypocritical profiteer, the worst kind of capitalist, exploiting our fears for his own personal gain. “Gore’s a goon,” they say, not only because it’s true but because I’m feeling especially alliterative today. “He doesn’t speak for the environmentalist movement.” Oh yes he does.

But if they wish to denounce Gore now in light of his poor record of failed prognostications after previously embracing the man’s prophecies a decade ago, fine; let’s see what the more respected environmentalist outlets are saying.

According to an article posted in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the ice sheets of Greenland consistently increased from 2003 to 2010. Expounding on this for Forbes.com, Larry Bell writes:

“In addition, the enhanced detail of where and how much ice melted allowed them to estimate that the annual loss acceleration was much lower than previous research suggested, roughly increasing by 8 billion tons annually, Previous estimates were as high as 30 billion tons more per year. Such rates of Greenland ice loss were barely larger than the margin of error in their readings, making it difficult to discern any difference between a supposed loss curve on a graph from a straight line.”

But that’s just Greenland. What about all ice-covered regions in the aggregate? Well, during that same period (2003 to 2010), according to the climate-change-advocates at Colorado University Sea Level Research Group, the amount of glaciers and ice caps that melted worldwide was roughly 30 percent less than the alarmists estimated there would be.

And according to the Journal of Climate, as the aforementioned Larry Bell reports:

“Although the UN’s IPCC, based upon its highly theoretical climate models[,] have predicted an increase in the rate of global average sea level rise during the 20th century, that rate has actually been rather stable, with no significant rise over the past 50 years.”

So this global-warming/climate-change disaster is shaping up to be wildly exaggerated.

Never fear, though, for there will be other phony Armageddons to fear in the near future once this weather panic subsides; then we can all be nice and scared again. I wonder what will be the next fashionable catastrophe to be propagated by the politicians and their lapdog media.

The caliph خليفة Benedict Arnold Knows He’s Toast

Presidential Approval Index - Romney The caliph خليفة Benedict Arnold ANTI-BOUNCE - Romney Surges to Tie The caliph خليفة Benedict Arnold in WSJ-NBC poll

October 26, 2012 byChris Graham

Filed under 2012 Election

5

1

America has been witness to what conservatives surely think is a thing of beauty: the still-occurring self-destruction of President Obama. In just eleven days, he will lose a hard-fought election. He and the members of his campaign are painfully aware of the coming defeat. They are unraveling.

The President has always been able to speak in calm, measured tones, but we’ve seen that changing as of late.

One example of this was his blatant irritation in the final debate between him and Mitt Romney. He let his fear of losing break through his calm demeanor to reveal a man who knows he’s losing and, instead of using sound arguments to back up his positions, resorts to sarcasm and scoffing.

And then of course there are his desperate attempts to get the public to become as outraged as he pretends to be over silly Romney-words like “binders.” It is now common to hear Obama speak for twenty minutes per campaign speech about Romney’s “binders full of women” remark.

There was also that email that was sent out on October 23 by Obama’s campaign staff in which “Obama” addresses readers with an opening line reeking of desperation, “I don’t want to lose this election.” (People who think they are winning elections do not say this sort of thing.)

Then yesterday a sneak peak of an interview with Rolling Stone came out in which Obama calls Romney a “bullsh***er,” something he never would have said if he thought this election were in the bag. And you know this portion was released early as an attempt to give Obama a boost in the polls. It’s not going to work. Just as it didn’t work when the media, in the summer of 2010, during the Gulf oil spill, suggested Obama start getting tough and showing fierceness, and he obliged them by awkwardly saying, “We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers so I know whose a** to kick.”

The RealClearPolitics national polling average, ever since October 9, has had Mitt Romney ahead of the President. There was a period over those 17 days during which Obama pulled ahead for three days by one tenth of one percent, but he has once again sunken below Romney. And he’s self-destructing because of it.

http://lastresistance.com/349/barack-obama-knows-hes-toast/

http://visiontoamerica.com/12682/barack-obama-knows-hes-toast/

Claims of U.S. Intelligence Officials Make The caliph خليفة Benedict Arnold a Liar

Actually, NO, The caliph خليفة Benedict Arnold makes The caliph خليفة Benedict Arnold a liar.

September 27, 2012 by Chris Graham 

4

12

It is important to read this piece with the knowledge that President Obama, in his first 1,225 days in office, skipped 56 percent of his daily intelligence briefings. And so far, this year alone he has skipped 62 percent of those meetings. The media likes to adoringly point out the unprecedented aspects of this presidency, so I’m sure they will draw attention to this fact in no time.

Now that you know how neglectful Obama has been of these intelligence briefings, I can proceed.

We have been hearing repeatedly from this administration that, against all common sense, the cause of the violence in the Middle East that exploded on September 11 two weeks ago and killed four Americans was merely the manifestation of hurt feelings over a 14-minute anti-Islam video posted months and months ago on YouTube. Obama made the claim just three days ago during his taping of “The View” (part of his “busy schedule” that prevented him from meeting with Israel’s Netanyahu). He even repeated it the next day during his United Nations speech: “[I]n every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask how much they are willing to tolerate freedom for others. That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.”

Of course the reason for blaming the video has nothing to do with reality and everything to do with finding a scapegoat for Obama’s failed Middle East policy of apologizing for America and appeasing Islamists.

Now today, in an interview with NBC’s Ann Curry, Libyan President Mohamed Magarief has made a fool of President Obama: he stated that the attacks on the US embassy in Libya had “nothing to do with” the video and that it was a pre-planned act of terror. When pressed by Curry to detail his evidence for this, he said he could not because the investigation was still underway, but he assured Curry that so far, all the evidence discovered shows that it was an attack planned by al-Qaeda. He also gave the common-sense argument that the Obama administration has been hoping would be lost on Americans: because the video is relatively old, “Reaction should have been, if it was genuine, should have been six months earlier. So it was postponed until the 11th of September. They chose this date, 11th of September, to carry a certain message.”

This makes President Obama a fool. The next bit makes him a liar:

The Daily Beast, a left-wing website affiliated with Newsweek Magazine, reported yesterday that, according to three as-yet unnamed US intelligence officials, the Obama administration knew within 24 hours after the attack that the attack was the plot of al-Qaeda or an al-Qaeda affiliate. And yet the administration has been telling Americans and foreigners alike for the last two weeks that the attack was a spontaneous revolt against some obscure video on the Internet. The White House even went so far as to ask YouTube, a private company, to examine their terms of service to see if they can find justification in having the video removed. That is, Obama sought to silence free speech that he knew to be harmless and irrelevant. Why? Journalists? Reporters? Why?

http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/09/claims-of-us-intelligence-officials-make-obama-a-liar/ 

The caliph خليفة Benedict Arnold - Screw National Security, I Have an Election to Win

September 24, 2012 by Chris Graham 

65

168

On Wednesday I tweeted that nobody would any longer be calling for the US prison at Guantanamo Bay (GITMO) to close down. I wrote it in response to reports that one of the attackers of the US embassy in Libya last Tuesday on the anniversary of 9/11 was a former detainee at that prison. In a sane country I would have been correct. But I really ought to have learned my lesson by now never to be shocked by the Obama administration. It seems I let my guard down, however, and I experience shock yet again.

Nobody wants GITMO to close? President Obama has proven me incorrect, as he plans on releasing a minimum of 55 detainees. one of whom was a bodyguard for Osama bin Laden. For now he appears to have nixed his former idea of releasing them into American prisons, but where these prisoners ultimately settle remains to be determined. No country wants them except the ones they came from. Maybe the US should build a prison in the middle of the ocean after they close down the current prison in the middle of the ocean.

One of the most common criticisms leveled at Obama during this first term of his has been that he failed to keep his campaign promise to close GITMO. Presumably he broke this promise because once he became President and was given security briefings, his naiveté on the matter was scrubbed away, and he realized there were actually reasons for there being prisoners at GITMO.

But now, security be damned, he’s releasing one-third of the prisoners.

What I am wondering is how, after receiving news that one of the embassy attackers two weeks ago was a former GITMO detainee, could any American president with sincere concern for the safety of his citizens even contemplate releasing more of those barbarians into the world? This on top of the fact that, according to the Pentagon, one in seven detainees who have been released in the past have returned to wage jihad against Americans. Why are these actions of Obama’s acceptable?

Of course this decision of the President’s is based not on national security, but on politics and concern with his re-election. It is an attempt to re-energize his disillusioned base. “See, I kept my promise, kind of.” As we’ve seen for the past four years, politics comes first in Obama’s mind. “I’m from Chicago,” he once saidwhile campaigning in 2008. “We know how to play politics in Chicago.”

http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/09/obama-screw-national-security-i-have-an-election-to-win/

A New Voter-ID Proposal

September 11, 2012 by Chris Graham

Filed under 2012 Election, Constitution, Economics, Law, Politics, Technology

9

29

Although a strong majority of voters supports laws requiring a photo ID in order to vote in elections, every Democrat and his dead neighbor seems to oppose such laws. Of course, standing one’s ground when principles are being attacked is admirable, even when the attacker is the majority. However, we are not a democracy, thank goodness, which means that the majority opinion does not always win. This is comforting given the fact that the majority are sometimes wrong. But in the case of voter IDs, the majority is most definitely not wrong. So why do Democrats oppose voter-ID laws?

I introduce to you a radical, left-wing group calling themselves The Advancement Project (if you oppose them, you oppose advancement). The group describes itself as a “multi-racial civil rights organization” whose purpose it is to help “organized communities of color dismantle and reform the unjust and inequitable policies that undermine the promise of democracy.” They view the voter-ID requirements as an affront to “racial justice.”

They contend, as do their fellow liberals, that minorities and senior citizens are detrimentally affected by the requirement of a photo ID when voting because, er, blacks and old people…um…don’t have…photo IDs…? Well anyway, it’s something absurd like that.

Sometimes, in order to defend this position, Democrats will do what is normally unspeakable for them: invoke the Constitution. See, the Twenty-fourth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits poll taxes, which is what Democrats insist an ID requirement to vote is because photo IDs cost money. One problem with this argument is that the Constitution, including its Twenty-fourth Amendment and the right to vote, only applies to United States citizens. Without a proper ID at the voting booth, where is the guarantee that a voter is a citizen? Here it becomes clear that the voting system as it stands is in need of substantial reform.

But let’s humor the Democrats on this poll-tax issue. Let’s say voter-ID laws are tantamount to poll taxes. Let’s also pretend that the institution of voter-ID laws reduces the voter-participation rates among minorities and seniors, despite the fact that every state that has instituted such laws has seen an increase in minority and senior voters.

Why don’t they and groups like The Advancement Project redirect their efforts towards getting photo IDs for American citizens instead of trying to prevent a restoration of integrity to the voting system? And not just for the sake of voting. You can’t go through life without an ID of some sort. If they insist that these laws are poll taxes, then why not establish a fund to help the indigent to pay for IDs. There are lots of liberal multi-millionaires.

It wouldn’t cost much, based on the figures seen here. The average state ID costs around $15. If the claim is made that the federal government has not only the “right” but the “moral obligation” to subsidize the sex lives of teenagers, surely it and/or the states can subsidize something as important as voting.

http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/09/a-new-voter-id-proposal/