Friday, December 9, 2011

Blog Stage 8

The true issue here is not how much damage we are going to our planet.  The question is, what are the effects of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.  Well, plants use CO2 to breathe, the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the bigger plants can grow because the added CO2 makes photosynthesis more efficient.  With larger plants you have an inherent increase in both the insect populations and the herbivore populations.  With more of these available to eat, more predatory animals are allowed to flourish due to the increase in food availability.  With more predators you have more dead things lying about, the bacteria that breaks down the organic matter is vital to the lifecycle of the bacteria that allows plants to retrieve nitrogen, a vital nutrient.  With more of these bacteria plants get even bigger. 
Even the scientific method itself proves global warming to be a fallacy. The global warming hypothesis predicts that global temperatures will rise catastrophically if carbon dioxide levels rise.  Although most of the increase in carbon dioxide has occurred in the past 50 years, and the output of carbon dioxide has risen during the past 20 years, there has been no significant increase in atmospheric temperature during those 50 years.  And to top it all off, the 20 years with the highest carbon dioxide levels, temperatures have decreased.
The Astrophysical Journal posted data that compared the solar activity to the atmospheric temperature.  The results are astounding, it shows that the earth temperature is only related to solar activity.  More so, if the world is being warmed up by the sun and not the carbon dioxide, don’t you think you would want to have the shade provided by the increased plant growth?
I wouldn’t be so quick to say that global warming is a myth, if it weren’t for the 31,000 scientists that say there is “no convincing evidence.”  If there is no evidence, and there is no global warming, why would it be pushed so hard down our throats?
Well, it’s all about the money.  If you are forced to buy a new vehicle that is “environmentally friendly” then that means that the government gets to tax the payroll at the plant where the parts are made, gets to tax the transport, the sale, and the service of these cars. 
What we should really be worrying about is the children, I agree with you 100%.  However, what priorities are we going to teach them? Are we going to continue to teach them that human beings are dirty and have no rights and should be despised, or are we going to do what it takes to continue to survive as a society. 
With the air quality in Beijing being rated as… and I quote “:(“ the Jetstream carries their pollution here.  So even if we make all of our industry in this country “zero emission” we would be breathing their junk anyway.  Not just that, but China is a fascist state, all industry is ran by the government while expecting its citizens to be happy with “what we gave you.”  What is going to make China clean up their plants?  They don’t even use safety equipment for God’s sake.  A hard hat on a Chinese construction site consists of a phone book and a shoe string.
It is proven through simple math that carbon trading does nothing to actually cut down on the pollution.  If a plant is polluting too much, its ok, no worries they can just buy some credits from a plant that isn’t polluting as much… so um then aren’t we right back to where we were.
We should be more concerned with demanding the truth than how much carbon you are using.  If everything on the planet that is organic is made from carbon, how the heck could we run out?

Friday, December 2, 2011

'Indefinite Detention' Bill Passes Senate 93-7 (NOT AN ASSIGNMENT!!)

After reading this article, I have come to the realization that I no longer have any connection to this world. And I have nothing else to say about it for yourself.
'Indefinite Detention' 

Tuesday, November 29, 2011


“Upon the altar of God I pledge eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man ”
~Thomas Jefferson  
There was a time in America when our elected officials were held to a higher standard than the rest of the populace.  Unfortunately that time has passed.  In 1797 William Blount was impeached for concocting a plan to incite the Creek and Cherokee Indians to aid the British in conquering the Spanish territory of West Florida; today this sort of thing is common practice.  Some have even suggested that our U.S. government was the one to give the training and equipment to Osama Bin Laden in order to help with our efforts in the Middle East.  In 1873, a judge by the name of Mark Delahay was impeached for being a drunkard.  But we currently have a president that admittedly used cocaine, marijuana, and 'thought' about trying heroin.  In 1926, a federal judge was impeached for abusive treatment of lawyers and litigants appearing before him.  On November 3, 1989, Walter Nixon was impeached for lying under oath before a grand jury.  Then, just a decade later on February 12, 1999, Bill Clinton was acquitted because it depended on "what your definition of is... is."  Later on, it was alleged that Bill Clinton sold nuclear secrets to china. And Senator Barney Frank admitted to running a male prostitution ring
Why are we the American people settling for such poor morals in our leaders?  Is this really what we have come to accept as normal?  Morals filter down in society, they never filter up.  If you have a good, compassionate leader, you have happy calm citizens; if you have a wicked leader you end up with angry citizens.  Morals filter down in the large political system as well as through the smaller family system.

For us to continue to accept these type of people as leaders means that we as a people no longer have morals, we no longer have ideals that we hold sacred, we no longer have the ability to change our own world.  Instead we allow our selves to be ruled by the slime, by the filth, and by the wicked.  We the people have embraced acceptance, coddled conformity, and boldly knelt as no American has knelt before.  Good job. 

Friday, November 11, 2011

Blog Stage 6

Pick A Side Already

According to the ancient philosopher Aristotle, “Nature abhors a vacuum.”

If religion has no place guiding a nation let us look at a true historical comparison.  In France, shortly after America gained its independence, they too began a revolution.  They removed God from their equation and as a result they have gone through more than a dozen constitutions.  Their god became ‘reason,’ and reason is where man received his rights.  When society dictates what is right and what is wrong, some sad things become true… 

1, Hitler was right, because the German people loved him. 
2, If I help the little old lady across the street or run her over with my car it makes no difference if the majority of people agree.
3, The purpose of life is nonexistent.

In such a system morals become flexible, people do whatever feels good, and people lose their heads. 
In the United States we are founded as a nation under God.  If religion has no place in government, then why did it work so well for so long?  In France the lack of God at the government level has led them through a number of constitutional failures.  (1791, 1793, 1795, 1799, 1802, 1804, 1814, 1815, 1830, 1848, 1852, 1875, 1940, 1945, 1946)  And on the other hand, the nation born from the idea, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” This has lasted more than two hundred years.  If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.  There is not a single revolution in history that worked out as well as it did for the United States.

Religion is not just the right flavor of faith, or a belief in the afterlife, it is a viewpoint by which all of our actions are influenced.  It is where we get the ideas of right and wrong.  It is what gave the world direction since time began.  

Yes, making abortion illegal is forcing a belief upon a people.  However, what person in Washington does things with no regard for self.  Better yet, what self-sufficient person does things without any self-regard? And yes morality should be defined in its most basic terms of life, liberty and security.  But where would you find those morals if you completely remove religion from the equation?  You find them in the corruptible uncertain wavering standards of person to person, and eventually… you end up eating cake. There is no difference between illegal abortion affecting a percentage of the population and the removal of prayer from schools.  If it is right then it is right, and if it is wrong then it is wrong, but as a society let us keep things consistent.  

When you understand why this country was founded by the English to begin with, you realize that the reason that we have a country is because people were trying to flee from religious persecution.  England basically told the early settlers that if they didn’t like how things were, with the king’s specific breed of religion being forced upon them, then they could get out.  So what is wrong with that theory today?  If you want to live in a country that was founded upon religious persecution, religious principles, and by so gave us the right to choose toe either believe or  not to believe in “God”  then I guess you have the right to get out. 

Saturday, October 29, 2011

Obama is Going Around Congress to Pass Portions of his Jobs Plan (NOT AN ASSIGNMENT!!!!)

I came across this article on Yahoo News about Obama's new dictatorship. He is bypassing Congress because they won't give him what he wants.
"We can no longer wait for Congress to do its job,' Obama said. "So where Congress won't act, I will."
If I'm not mistaken that's a dictatorship, Obama. He also said that Republicans in Congress 'aren't getting the message'. Maybe because they know a dictator when they see one.
There are numerous occasions where Obama has either walked out of debt talks or vetoed bills because he didn't get what he wants. He then turns around and blames Republicans, Bush, technology, a Japanese earthquake, and Ronald Reagan for all the country's heartache and sorrow.  And along with everything else, Obama believes that the Constitution is do you swear to uphold and protect the Constitution if you find it flawed?? You can promise to change the constitution if you find it flawed. You can promise to change the laws if they are flawed, but Mr. President your policies are flawed. Your polices do not work, have not worked, will not work. And if I remember correctly, Mr. President, you said if your polices do not work, you would be a one term president. Instead you just take your ball and go home cause you don't like how the other kids on the block play... tough titty said the kitty, but the milk's still good. All the other presidents had to operate within the boundaries of the law...what makes you any different? Why don't checks and balances apply to you? Why do you need more time???

Obama bypasses Congress
Constitution is Flawed
Obama Blames...
One Term President

Friday, October 28, 2011

Conclusive Long-Term Effects of Income Tax in the United States

Income tax makes up a large portion of tax revenue. However, it is a relatively new concept in terms of American history. There was no income tax law in the United States until 1862, where congress passed the first income tax law in order to help fund civil war efforts. The concept of income tax was only introduced in a time of war. However, income tax went in and out of effect through the years until 1913 when it became a permanent fixture in the United States Constitution; despite the fact that less than twenty years earlier the U.S. Supreme Court ruled income tax unconstitutional.  Up to that point, the national government relied on various sales taxes and the economy flourished under those circumstances.
The simple economics show us that in a hypothetical society where there is 100% income tax and everything is provided: people are less likely to work hard, create, invent, and innovate.  The lack of any one of these things could lead to a stunted economy.  On the other hand, consider a society where there is no income tax.  The more money that an average household has, the more goods they buy.  More goods production equals more job growth.  This is a constant cycle.  A true consumer based market allows room for innovation and change.  In the first society, the lack of a consumer based market, leaves no room for change.  The idea of this is how it has always been prevails.
With that in mind, with our high national unemployment rate, national debt situation, and failing economy; doesn't a national sales tax make more sense than income tax?  Coupled with stricter social assistance policies; a national sales tax would force our economy to bloom.  It would force the employable that are on social programs to get a job to produce goods to stimulate the economy. We could truly change the way things are.
[1] [2]

Monday, October 17, 2011

Jesse Jackson Jr., Constitution be Damned.....wait, what? (NOT AN ASSIGNMENT!!)

I found this article this morning and it really grinds my gears to hear an 'American' blatantly make ridiculous statements about our president, economy, and next year's election. So junior here, believes that Mr. Obama idealizes Abraham Lincoln; because he feels that Abraham Lincoln was fighting against states in rebellion, however Lincoln wasn't fighting states in rebellion he was fighting for human rights as he saw it from his religious viewpoint.
Junior also compares the congress now to the congress of Abe Lincoln's time AND that congress is now 'determined to wreck or ruin at all costs".
He believes in a 'direct hiring' of 15 million unemployed Americans at $40,000 a head which is some 600 billion dollars in a another stimulus plan. And then just another 104 billion to bail out the states...that brings it to 704 billion dollars so far. AND for ANOTHER 104 billion, we bail out the CITIES. At a cost of 808 BILLION we put to work 15 million people for the government.  He has already spent 11 trillion dollars on 'helping to stimulate the economy' and the economy is worse than it's EVER BEEN and Mr. Jackson thinks we should go around congress, our checks and balance system, and around the constitution.  But correct me if I'm wrong here, if Obama does that won't that make him a dictator??
Democrats will do anything to keep their precious "prodigy" in office....even Suspend elections.

Link to article: Mr. Jackson...are you for real?