Monday, March 30, 2009

Black Need Not Be Crack or Slack

I’m going to go out on a dangerous limb here.

So dangerous, in fact, that I know I will receive no end of criticism. Some of it will be truly hateful. The rest will range from "right on!" to "I’m very disappointed in you" to "unsubscribe me forever."

But you know what? I’m 63 years old. I’ve been observing what I’m going to address here for at least 55 of those years. I’ve formed many, many impressions and one solid opinion on the subject as a result. As an American who cares about my country, I feel it’s time to get it off my chest and hopefully create a useful, perhaps game-changing dialogue. I honestly think what I’m about to say here will make a positive contribution, provided my readers are willing to suspend the automatic tendency to scream "Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!" without thinking about it.

Okay, here we go.

The black culture in this country is headed for oblivion.

There are two reasons I say this:

1. To perpetuate a race, statisticians tell us that 2.1 offspring are required per couple. According to 2004 statistics from the National Center for Health Statistics, 47 percent of pregnancies among black women end in abortion, compared with 12 percent for non-Hispanic white women and 19 percent for Hispanic women. That means 0.53 black babies are born for every conception among black women, and each black woman would have to have four conceptions leading to birth to fulfill the 2.1 requirement. Then each of those babies would have to survive to adulthood and participate in another 2.1 offspring in order for the race to be perpetuated. These are long odds when infant mortality, disease (including AIDS, a growing concern in the black community), and gang-related murders are taken into account.

This factor is mitigated by the influx of black immigrants. They can replace some of the black babies who were murdered in the womb or never made it to adulthood. However, the largest black immigrant group, Somalians, almost universally marry within their own community due to their Muslim code. Marrying outside the faith is simply not done, with the exception of a Muslim male who marries an American black woman who is willing to subject herself to the tyranny (for women) of Islam. That’s a very small number.

The blacks who do tend to replace aborted American black babies are from Africa: Liberians, Nigerians, Ugandans, and others. I must confess that my favorite are Sudanese. They’re tall, beautiful people who are almost all Christians suffering great persecution from the "religion of peace," Islam. All African immigrants, unlike illegal Mexicans, face the hurdles of screening, admittance procedures, limited visas, and quotas. Many come to America to escape warfare in their native countries and are promptly shipped back when their visa expires. If only Obama and his elves Reid and Pelosi would demonstrate the same policies toward illegal Mexicans—but that won’t happen because they’re counting on Latinos to become Democrat voters to replace the 3,500 babies aborted every single day in America.

Muslims do not abort their babies. They have deep religious antipathy toward the very thought. Moreover, they want to become a huge block in order to eventually bring about Sharia law in this nation. Because Muslims perpetuate themselves at the rate of 6.8 children per couple, within a generation they will become the dominant black culture in this country. "American" blacks will be a small and unimportant minority.

2. American black culture has horribly twisted values and mores. Common perception of what’s valued in the American black community is not conducive to success, unless it’s success that is rare and extremely difficult to duplicate. Examples of such successes are:

* Athletes. Many (most?) American black youth yearn to become professional athletes. One in 400,000 succeeds, some for only a year or two.

* Rock or rap stars. Again, for every successful recording "artist" there are hundreds of thousands of street crooners who don’t have a shadow of a chance of becoming recorded.

* Traditional achievers: doctors, lawyers, businesspersons, scientists, engineers, and the like. I don’t include teachers in this category because it doesn’t take much to become a teacher in America (a C average in a third-rate degree mill will do) and a sizable percentage of teachers are incompetent, judging by the steadily sliding performance of American students in government (public) schools. At last count, we are behind Zimbabwe and Gagmestan in math, reading, and general comprehension. Some, perhaps many, teachers are dedicated professionals; it’s a shame their colleagues drag down their name.

What are the values that seem to be celebrated in the American black culture, at least in the highly visible "hip hop" culture?

* "Acting cool." This includes in-crowd slang; extremely offensive profanity used as a matter of course; males wearing trousers at the private parts level in front and below the buttocks in back; women wearing skin-tight clothing; both sexes wearing the flashiest and most noticeable apparel and "bling" (jewelry) they can afford; loud, show-off behavior; exaggerated body language to accompany speech; slouching; tattoos; affected gaits; and a general attitude of bored toughness. This attitude displays what I call "Rule One" in the hip-hop community: It about me and my bling.

* Not succeeding in school. Black students who excel are routinely accused of "acting white" and often coerced to reduce their level of performance to the C- level in order not to offend their peers. This ensures that mediocrity is the highest standard to be sought by everyone, including some quite bright students. As a result, black students who could potentially become the doctors, lawyers, scientists, and engineers of the future don’t achieve the GPA to obtain scholarships to college.

* Using drugs (post-pubescent ages), alcohol (under age), alcohol to excess (some adults), and tobacco.

* When employed, doing as little as possible for the money while displaying an insouciant attitude.

* Promiscuity by both sexes.

* Fathering as many children as possible by as many women as possible. The more illegitimate children a black male has fathered, the higher his self-esteem and standing among his peers. Of course, this is severely mitigated by the high rate of abortion (see above).

* Abandonment of children by black males in order to evade the financial and other responsibilities of fatherhood, thus ensuring that unmarried black females with children overwhelm the welfare roles and consign their children to poverty and nearly insurmountable educational obstacles.

* Claiming victimhood whenever the combination of the above values results in economic failure and poverty. This behavior displays "Rule Two" of the hip-hop community: If anything go wrong, I a victim.

Why are such values perpetuated? Why are they tolerated? I believe there are several reasons:

* Racism still exists. The reality is that a black person must perform at a higher level than his or her white peers to achieve similar rewards. This is a deeply sinful and heartbreaking fact of life in American society. Granted, many whites who are racist in attitude and action are that way because they are offended by the black culture (see above) and subtly take out their frustration by denying competent black people a fair opportunity. But racism however motivated is a searing sin which undoubtedly pleases Satan no end.

* Any persecuted group will rally around their community as a means of protection. American blacks have a subculture unique to themselves partly to achieve a degree of peace and partly to assert a degree of identity, independence, and protest against racism.

* Tolerance by the white community. Too few concerned white people who truly have a heart for the oppressed black community are willing to engage in honest dialogue with black people as a means of communicating dissatisfaction and encouraging a positive change in behavior.

* Encouragement by the entertainment industry. There’s money to be made by promoting black rap and "edgy" black humor and behavior, even though they poison both the black and white community with their filth and hatred and misogyny.

* Encouragement by the Democratic Party. The absolute worst form of racism is, in effect, to pat a black person on the head, imply that he or she is too stupid or disadvantaged to succeed by dint of goal-setting and hard work, and hand him or her a perpetual welfare check in return for a guaranteed vote. The black community in America is still on the plantation, only this one is ideological rather than physical. The degree of slavery is the same.

* Absence of positive black leadership. Where are the Martin Luther Kings? The Clarence Thomases? The Booker T. Washingtons? The Ralph Bunches and Ralph Abernathys? The Michael Steeles and Ken Blackwells? In a search of "InfoPlease" for black leaders, I found hundreds of athletes and entertainers, but very, very few statesmen, scientists, and other non-arts achievers. This only proves the point about the aspirations of black youth and the racism which has dissuaded black persons from entering mainstream fields where they might reach high achievement.

Role models define a generation (think Martin Luther King). There seem to be few if any emerging black leaders who consistently manifest admirable values. What passes for black "leadership" these days is pathetic. We have Jesse Jackson, who is a race hustler and shakedown artist wearing $1,000 suits and $300 shoes while he bemoans the poverty and oppression of the black community. Al Sharpton is a Jesse Jackson wannabe but is ludicrous to the point of almost being a caricature of himself. The former black mayor of Chicago, Harold Washington, was a corrupt Democrat (surprise, surprise) who turned out to be a closet cross-dresser. The former black mayor of Detroit is serving a prison sentence for lying under oath about an affair with a staffer. And so it goes. Those blacks who do attempt to stand up and tell the black community the truth, courageous people such as Clarence Thomas, Bill Cosby, Star Parker, Armstrong Williams, and Thomas Sowell, are cursed, vilified, and ridiculed by the Jacksons and Sharptons (who fear losing their positions of power and influence as well as future earnings) and the mainstream media (who are whores in union with the Democrat Party). They are marginalized to the point of being virtually silenced.

* Tolerance of "alpha male" behavior by black men. Very sadly, it is not unusual to read of a black woman (or a white woman, increasingly) who has been badly beaten by her black boyfriend. It’s even sadder to hear of an infant or toddler who has been beaten to death or shaken so hard by a black man that permanent brain injury results. This attitude of "me first, last, and always" is demonstrated in the savage behavior of dominant wolves in a pack, where it’s expected and tolerated. It should be reviled by the black community every time it happens in human society.

Let me be quick to add that wife beatings and infant destruction do occur in the white community as well, to our national shame. I am not singling out blacks here, other than to say that it often seems to be to be excused and accepted in the black community whereas it is looked upon as a "redneck" crime in the white community and quickly castigated.

Critics will protest that I am only picking on blacks while giving whites a pass. "What about tattoos on whites, or white drunks and playboys?" they'll say, "or what about Elliott Spitzer (white governor of New York who resigned in disgrace) or many other white persons?" Friends, please do not assume that I am painting all black Americans with the same brush. There are thousands of married black couples raising children and imbuing them with the values of morality, industry, and patriotism that the Founding Fathers and church fathers promoted. Thank God for these great people! They almost all reject the "hip hop" culture. They are almost always employed, purposeful, principled, and dedicated parents who set a wonderful example for Americans of any color. Yet few white people know of these courageous persons because the unseemly and objectionable elements of black America scream so loudly and dominate the public perception of blacks in general. Why?

* In Hollywood, there’s no money to be made from being wholesome.

* It’s in the Democrats’ (and thus the media’s) best interests to play up "hip" blacks as well as to publicize any incidents of racism and/or discrimination against blacks. This maintains the plantation-mentality status quo and deflects attention away from positive examples of black people leading wholesome lives (how boringly Republican!).

So what’s to be done about all this? Is the black race in America just to decline, decay, and eventually disappear? Is America to lose the positive aspects of our black element while it withers into oblivion in bitter, cursing despair? Already the Latino population is rapidly overtaking the black community in absolute numbers, and true to form, the Democrat Party is turning its attention to them (see open borders, above).

There is so much to be lost if that happens. Think of the unique vibrancy that the black community brings to the American landscape:

* Jimmy the Greek lost his TV sports analyst job a few years ago for opining that black athletes are, on average, better built and more athletic than their white counterparts. Evidently stating the obvious is politically non-correct and economically fatal. Just look at the preponderance of blacks in professional sports. Blacks dominate the National Basketball Association; the few whites who play regularly are hugely talented athletes. A majority percentage of National Football League athletes at all positions are black. Blacks are less represented in major league baseball, probably because of their tendency to gravitate toward football and basketball, but many of the MLB superstars are black. It’s a fact that America enjoys an amazing richness of athletic grandeur through the contributions of its black athletes.

* Blacks have a natural tendency toward expression in music (and, to a certain extent, acting). Much of the musical richness that this nation has enjoyed in the last century has occurred because blacks were finally free to release the wonderful talents many had within themselves. It is to our national shame that much black musical talent is directed these days into "rap," which is not so much music as it is a means of exploiting racism and life in "da hood" in order to make money.

* Blacks have a greater tendency to appreciate community and deep, brotherly and sisterly relationships than whites. There is a brotherhood among the black community that is far more than the phony "bruthah" nonsense that rappers and gangbangers promote.

Were all this to disappear, America would be far the less for it. Far the less.

What can be done to correct this situation? Can the black community actually reverse direction and become a (morally) healthy, positively contributing part of America? I truly think it can, and I among millions of other white people would delight and rejoice in seeing it happen. Here are the factors which need to change in order for MLK’s dream to come true:

* There needs to be a wholesale change in values in the black community. First and foremost is familial responsibility. B. Hussein Obama hinted at that in his education speech a few days ago when he said "…there is one more ingredient I want to talk to you about. The bottom line is that no government policies will make any difference unless we also hold ourselves more accountable as parents."

What exactly does that mean? Basically, it speaks to:
* Men marrying women before making them pregnant.
* Men staying in marriage with the woman they impregnate.
* Men remaining faithful to the woman to whom they are married.
* Men and women providing time and love and attention to the sons and daughters they produce.
* Men and women vigorously opposing, by action, word, and deed, the gangs, guns, drugs, hip-hop, lewd dress, profanity, and other crude experiences of the black community.
* Men and women vigorously opposing extra-marital sex and the aborting of black babies in the womb.
* Men and women stressing positive values such as grooming, hygiene, goal-setting, responsibility, accountability, learning, articulation, and hard, satisfying work in pursuit of a worthwhile objective. It's a wonderful thing to behold what committed parents of any color who are willing to work diligently at positive role modeling and the application of discipline can do for their children.
* Men and women demanding excellence from teachers at the government schools where their children are enrolled.
* Men and women rejecting false leaders, the Jacksons and Sharptons and rappers and poseurs, in favor of honest, hardworking, high-achieving men and women of all races.

*There needs to be a national recognition of the true motives of the Democrat Party toward the black community, and an angry rejection of this type of pandering and modern-day slavery.

* The Republican Party needs to recognize its responsibility in simply dismissing the black community as a potential political ally. Politics be damned! This is a major segment of our American culture that is being demeaned, used, abused, and destroyed. That alone ought to be enough for any Republican to act. Reach out, GOP, but not to win votes. Reach out to help develop character. Whenever you do the right thing, the political gains are sure to follow.

* The Christian church in America must no longer accept the notion of "black" churches vs. "white" churches. Yes, I know that many black Christians prefer to worship together because there is comfort in such an environment. In light of the racism practiced against the black community, much of it shamefully in the name of Christianity, such self-separation is understandable. But Jesus Christ did not come to declare a white heaven and a black heaven. On the contrary, our Lord said that in heaven "there is neither Jew nor gentile, rich nor slave." We Christians must plan to integrate our churches. There is so much richness to be gained by all races and cultures in so doing.

* The welfare laws must be changed. Welfare is a Democrat tool to keep the black community enslaved. Whenever you subsidize a behavior, you get more of it. It is the height of insanity to tell a woman that if she has more children out of wedlock, her perpetual government paycheck will be increased. The Department of Housing and Urban Development admits that the more they provide Section 8 housing allowances (considerably reduced rent financed by our taxes), the more domestic assault, petty crime, and drug arrests occur in the neighborhoods they have subsidized.

* The notion of racial quotas and "Affirmative Action" are nonsense almost beyond comprehension. For example, do you know what a major Chicago hospital paid Michelle Obama $300,000 a year to do before her husband decided to save America? She was "Diversity Coordinator." That means she carefully counted how many black nurses and Filipino orderlies and Latino janitors were employed and made sure the local community was represented by employment in precisely their percentage in the community. Is this jaw-dropping idiocy or what?

No doubt that if such artificial demands are eliminated, and people are hired in relation to their qualifications and experience rather than according to the color of their skin, the black community will suffer initially, simply because they have not had the training, education, motivation, and opportunity that whites take for granted. But when quality black leaders go to the black community and declare "Free at Last!" and demonstrate why that’s now a realistic possibility, many bright, eager, and determined black youth will jump at the opportunity to play on a level field. The numbers will take care of themselves from that point, and we will have true, MLK-type equality in America. Black children have just as much native intelligence as white or Latino or Asian children; they don’t perform as well due to poor home environments, poor peer culture, ludicrously inadequate government schools, and racial prejudice that sets artificial barriers.

I write this as a white person whose heart is broken over the sin of racism. I take no pride in being white other than the fact that it was God’s choice to make me that way. Neither do I hold a person’s skin color against him or her. Though there are several individual black men and women whom I greatly admire, I will admit that I am culturally prejudiced in that I abhor the way the black community is destroying itself with the help of greedy, unscrupulous elements in America, and I long for the advent of strong, believable, charismatic, honest, humble, God-fearing black leaders of both sexes. There isn’t one in the White House, despite the hopes and dreams of the 53% of the American sheeple who voted for him. (In fact, Obama himself said, in his education speech, "I reject a system that rewards failure and protects a person from its consequences." Using that criteria, he has about two more weeks left before he should offer his resignation.)

We can be better, America. We can be, in this, the greatest nation God ever favored with His blessing, equal and colorblind. It won’t be easy. We’ll have to do the following:

* Both black and white people, all of us, must examine our heart. (Of course, this applies to other races as well.) We must ask "Am I prejudiced? If so, why?"

- Because of observation of my parents and perpetuating their beliefs
- Because of my own growing-up experiences and perpetuation of those impressions
- Because that’s how my sub-culture believes and behaves and I’m just going along to get along
- Because I’m disgusted at what I see in individuals and project unsavory behavior to an entire race
- Because I enjoy feeling inherently superior to someone else
- Darned if I know. I never thought about it.

* Having made an honest assessment—which is going to be very, very difficult for many—we must ask ourselves "Am I willing to admit I might be wrong here?"

* The next question is "Do I see value in changing, in not being prejudiced against an entire culture while reserving the right to dislike the behavior or attitudes of any particular individual?" If the answer is "yes," ask yourself "What do I have to do to change my attitudes?" As a Christian, I certainly suggest taking this sin to the feet of Jesus and laying it there with a full confession along with a plea for Him to change your heart. I’d also suggest engaging in honest discussion with a black person you believe you can trust and is willing to talk. Find opportunities to be with the other race, and identify quality people among them. Make them your personal friends.

* If you’re in a position to hire, seek out qualified black candidates. This is not some phony numbers-based nonsense; it’s common sense. A motivated black person who is qualified to do the job you need doing will likely give you a strong effort. Support that employee with high expectations and good guidance.

It will be a hard grind, friends. To change the heart of this nation we must fight against every wile that Satan has imposed upon America: entrenched attitudes, money-grubbing entertainers and those who foster their abominable behavior, the Democrat Party, and mutual distrust. But it’s a war worth fighting. Our nation and the fate of millions of souls depend upon it.

Posted by Hale Meserow
March 30, 2009

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Don't Be A Victim

This is part three of the 'global warming' expose. Part One focused upon scientific facts, Part Two explored the motivation of those who perpetrate the global warming myth, and this final post will discuss what can be done about it.

A quick review:

* 'Global warming' is the term applied to the notion that mankind uses carbon-based (fossil) fuels in such abundance that excess carbon dioxide is produced, to the point that a layer of this gas now surrounds the earth and traps heat. As a result, the polar ice caps are melting, species are in danger of disappearing, and the National Endowment for the Arts will have to dedicate millions of taxpayer dollars to artists who will bemoan the fate of planet Earth. It's amusing that in view of the fact that in the last five or six years the earth has experienced considerable cooling, global warming hysterics have relabeled their fantasy 'global climate change.' That way they can ascribe any weather occurrence whatsoever to man-caused pollution. That would seem a useful tactic, particularly in light of the global warming protest on the Capitol steps in Washington a few weeks ago which had to be canceled due to a massive blizzard.

* Those who perpetrate the global warming myth all have an agenda. Envirowhackos want to see mankind considerably reduced in number and be restricted to carefully controlled areas, preferably in primitive (non-industrial) conditions. Profiteers in the alternative-energy field, mainly manufacturers and consultants for solar and wind technology, are attracted to the massive federal money which will be generated by global warming hysteria. Politicians such as Obama and his minions are highly mindful of the votes of the envirowhacko lobby. In addition, by limiting the amount of fossil fuel which is consumed, they can dictate the culture and lifestyle of the nations they control. This is a socialist's dream, and Obama is living it large.

How will the socialists use global warming to acquire massive power and control over our culture? There are three classic stategies they are employing or intend to employ:

1. By denying oil and natural gas explorers the right to drill in ANWR, the Alaskan National Wildlife Range, they prevent America from enjoying fuel self-sufficiency, or very close to it. ANWR would supply a minimum of 15%--and possibly twice that--of our national requirement for oil for industry, travel, and heating. This would replace a great deal of the oil we now purchase from foreign nations, including Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, both of whom have freely and publicly expressed a desire for the USA to severely diminish or even disappear as a world power. This restriction on drilling in ANWR is patently ridiculous. ANWR has in excess of 14 million acres of vast tundra and foothills, most of it frozen nine months of the year. The actual drilling area would be about 2,000 acres, or about the size of the Minneapolis/St. Paul airport. At last report, two marmots and a tufted wuzzle have walked across that area in the past decade. It's not exactly teeming with wildlife.

In addition, the Obamites have denied explorers the right to drill in the Gulf and off the Pacific Coast. Both areas appear to have massive stores of oil and natural gas. Instead, Obama prefers to allow the Chinese, under the auspices of Cuba, to drill in the Gulf and reap the trillions of dollars that we will have to pay for what is really our own oil. Didn't this guy take an oath to protect the sovereignty and security of the United States of America? Twice?

2. By imposing a "cap and trade" requirement on the users of fossil fuels. Under this totally artificial construct, users of carbon-based fuels are given a maximum they can burn, such standard to be assigned by envirowhackos. 'Carbon brokers' locate entities which are not using their alloted carbon capacity, and they arrange for a swap (payments) in the form of 'carbon offsets' and take a cut. This is akin to the Catholic Church receiving indulgences from parishioners who hope to advance the soul of a deceased relative from purgatory to heaven. In both cases, there is an artificial 'crisis' and a moneyman eager to arrange a solution. The only difference is that one claims a divine legitimacy (but then Obama thinks he's the Messiah, so....). In practical terms, this dooms the coal industry to non-profitability and thus extinction. America has more coal than any nation in the world, and state-of-the-art technology has produced smokestack scrubbers that emit less carbon dioxide than the average breath you expel. There is no logic in eliminating coal as a viable industry and fuel source; it is purely political.

3. By denying the nuclear industry the ability to build more nuclear power plants. None have been built in America since 1980. Why? Nuclear is clean, non-polluting, powerful, and affordable. True, it does produce a requirement to store spent fuel rods, but that can be done safely and easily in deep underground caverns. The envirowhackos have convinced the Democrat Party that this would be a disaster in the making, when in fact that idea is total rubbish according to the actual scientists who are knowledgeable on the subject. But then the Dems never allow facts to interfere with their policies, especially when votes ride on it.

By denying America nuclear power, severely restricting access to our oil and natural gas deposits, and imposing artificial financial penalties on coal production and use, the Dems are consigning us to foreign domination of our energy future. That is hardly patriotic. In fact, it is treasonous, especially for the Chief Executive who is pledged to protect our interests.

So, what can be done about this? Is America doomed to a massive and debilitating lessening of our culture, lifestyle, and standard of living because of this nonsense of global warming? Hillary Clinton, in her capacity of Secretary of State, is currently globe-trotting in an attempt to convince other nations to buy in to global warming hysteria and therefore impose their own cap-and-trade obstacles. Is the entire planet to be held down by these deluded and power-hungry Marxists?

Not necessarily. We are the people. The politicians work for us, not vice-versa. If we do the following, we can break this spell and begin to move in the direction of sanity:

1. Educate yourself. Google "global warming hoax" and similar key words and read the abundance of material from scientists who are knowledgeable on the subject. Write down or memorize a few key facts and become conversant with them.

2. Talk to people. Tell your family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, and others what a crock this whole notion truly is. Let them know what is the true motivation behind the fallacy of global warming. Armed is dangerous, and knowledge will arm the people.

3. Write to your Congresspersons. Find out who are your two senators and your federal district representative and give them the same facts you now know. Demand that every time some piece of legislative hooey about global warming, cap and trade, or some similar nonsense comes up for a vote, they must register a solid NO! vote. Help them to understand that you are watching them, and their political future may depend on their willingness to listen to common sense.

4. Write to the media. Google "my local newspapers" and the national alphabet TV networks (ABC, etc.) and send them a letter protesting their default tendency to trumpet global warming as if it was factual. Tell them they've been duped. They hate that. It might get their attention.

Friends, this Obama and his socialist friends think they have carte blanche to remake this fine country in the twisted image of their Marxist ambitions. We must forcefully remind them that we won't put up with that. Do your part...please.

Posted by Hale Meserow
March 25, 2009

Saturday, March 21, 2009

When Daddy Changes the Rules

Imagine that you’re a child, say 8 or 10 or 12 years of age. Your father, a nice man but a heavy spender, passes away, leaving Mama with a large debt and future obligations to pay. Now she’s looking for a new husband to help raise you and your siblings and share the burden of debt.

A young, handsome, glib, smooth talker shows up, and Mama begins to be intrigued with him. Oh, he’s such a charmer, this one. It's hard to pin down the substance of what he's saying, but he sure sounds good saying it. Mama begins to think he might be her hope, the change she needs in her life. She even thinks of him as her personal Messiah in a strange and alluring way. Yes, there are some echoes from his background that disturb her, but Mama is just taken with the new guy. She shuts her ears to anything she doesn’t want to hear about this mesmerizing vision of a man. There is another suitor, but he's old and blathering and changes his mind whenever it might give him an advantage. Mama pays less and less attention to this pretender.

Soon the inevitable happens. Mama gives her heart away and marries the bright, shiny hope. New Daddy moves in.

And things begin to change. Right away.

New Daddy tells you that he’s going to give your little brother a weekly allowance, even though the boy won’t need to earn it. Moreover, instead of giving you an allowance, he’s going to require you to pay him a few dollars each week. When you ask why, New Daddy says "You have the ability to earn money. He doesn’t. We need to spread the wealth in this family." You protest to Mama, but she’s in love and doesn’t want to hear you.

New Daddy comes home three days after the wedding with a beautiful new car and a 52-inch wall-mounted plasma television. Mama loves the new toys, but she’s nervous about the debt that New Daddy incurred to buy them. "Don’t worry," New Daddy tells her, "and get used to it. This family’s going to operate at a considerable deficit for years and years to come. It’s my theory of economics."

The next day, New Daddy tells Mama that he’s developed a family budget for the upcoming year. It calls for expenditures several times the expected income that he’ll earn in his job. When Mama asks where the money’s going to come from, New Daddy smiles and answers "Credit, my dear! Credit! The magic word!"

Later, Mama shyly presses him for details of how the new credit money is being spent, but New Daddy insists that he has no obligation to be accountable to her.

Within weeks, Mama is pregnant. When she happily tells New Daddy the good news, he frowns and replies that he doesn’t want to be punished with a baby. Mama cries, but soon she is no longer pregnant.

There’s a bully at school who has told you several times that he’s going to wipe the playground with your face. A few months ago, he beat you up pretty badly. Your previous father always held this bully at bay after that incident, telling the boy’s father that there would be severe consequences if the bully attacked you again. Now New Daddy goes to the bully’s father and tells him that he’d like to use diplomacy to handle the situation. The bully’s father secretly laughs. "Go get the little snot nose!" he tells his son after New Daddy leaves. "New Daddy is a ----!" and he uses a very naughty word.

New Daddy calls in a remodeling specialist and his crew to renovate the house that he received by marrying Mama. He signs a contract which calls for a fee plus bonuses for work performed. When the contractor presents his bill after the work is done, New Daddy writes a check. But then he does the strangest thing. He goes to the bank that holds his credit notes and yells about how unfair the bonus clause was. He demands that the bank go after the remodeler and recapture the bonuses. When the bank refuses, citing the legality of the contract New Daddy signed, New Daddy goes to the newspapers and convinces them to tell the story of how wrong it is for anyone to actually earn a bonus for work properly performed under a bonus contract. With plenty of newspaper publicity from journalists who share New Daddy’s political views and the resulting public outrage, the remodeler is forced to return the bonuses for him and his crew. New Daddy is happy. No one is asking him any questions about what he knew and when.

Mama’s beginning to look at New Daddy in a new way. You can almost see her thoughts as she ponders what she’s done.

Posted by Hale Meserow
March 22, 2009

Monday, March 16, 2009

Why Do They Do It?

Part One of this "global warming" expose identified the elements that show this hysteria to be a hoax. This installment is part two, asking "What’s the motivation of those who promote it?"

Question: why would anyone perpetuate the nonsense of global warming if they stand to be embarrassed scientifically or personally? Why in the world would a rational person sign his or her name to what is clearly an indefensible pile of unscientific hooey?

The answer, friends, is that it is not rational people who are promoting the concept of man-caused warming of the earth and resulting environmental damage. It is not rational to see the massive body of scientific evidence that testifies against such a notion and still advocate for it. In order to understand why this ridiculous concept has gained such traction, we need to examine the players involved.

First is environmentalists. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with wanting to protect the environment. Almighty God in Genesis 1:28 told Adam and Eve "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." Such a charge implies preservation as well as mastery. However, it clearly does not say ‘Leave the earth alone!’

Radical environmentalists, who henceforth shall be termed envirowhackos for good reason, believe that mankind should be restricted to certain parts of the earth and the rest should be left sacrosanct. They advocate for no logging (thus depriving mankind of wood and paper products as well as condemning the unlogged area to the arboreal chaos and fire potential of unmanaged forests), no hunting (thus condemning herds of selected animals to overcrowding, disease, and starvation), no intrusion (thus depriving mankind of hiking, camping, and otherwise enjoying God’s creation), and no development in areas they deem ‘untouchable.’ The most egregious of these single-issue fanatics drive metal wedges into loggable trees in order to sabotage chain saws, chain themselves together across roads to prevent human entrance into wild areas, and burn down houses in areas they deem untouchable.

Envirowhackos see the evidence of rising temperatures in some parts of the world and scream "Panic! Disaster! Armageddon!" But they ignore evidence that shows cooling temperatures in other parts of the world and a general cooling trend overall. Envirowhackos demonstrate a remarkable ability to focus upon what they want to hear and shut out any fact that interferes with their opinion.

Second is liberals, politically known as Democrats. There is a great deal of cynical manipulation inherent in these people. What must be understood about liberals is that crisis is their default mindset. They abhor calm and stability, because that favors conservatives. In order to gain influence and power, liberals continually strive to keep the sheeple agitated about one emotional issue or another, hoping to raise it to the level of "crisis." Then they can present themselves as the solution to the crisis de jour. This is how Obama shoved the so-called ‘stimulus package’ down the throat of America, all the while knowing he was only paying off the special interest groups that got him into power and stimulating virtually zero. Liberals care nothing about America or what’s best for this magnificent nation. Instead, they operate on the basis of three rules:
(1) Get into power. Tell any lie, destroy any character, sell out any security or economic interest, but get into power!
(2) Stay in power. See Obama’s remaking of America into an uber-FDR socialist state designed to have the majority of Americans dependent on a government paycheck and thus voting Democrat forever.
(3)While in power, take the system for whatever you can get.

I invite you to observe Obama and judge him by this three-staged criteria. I believe you’ll find that his campaign and his actions since the election prove these rules as axiomatic to liberals.

Liberals have seized upon the global warming debacle as a duck takes to water. It’s tailor-made for stirring the sheeple to panic. Witness the well-fed Al Gore, an opportunist who literally defines the word ‘hypocrite.’ He screams and waves his arms about like a toddler who’s been deprived of sweets—as the American people wisely deprived this fool of the Presidency. He has seized upon the global warming issue as his baby and has pumped it up for all it’s worth. Jetting around the world in a private aircraft while condemning such travel as capitalist waste, he made a global warming documentary entitled "An Inconvenient Truth". If submitted to a sophomore cinematic class, it wouldn’t earn a passing grade due to its sweeping generalities and inaccuracies. That was enough to motivate his pals in Hollyweird to award his piece of cinematic trash an Oscar, which proves the laughable exercise which that ceremony truly is.

So, true to form, Obama, previously the Senate’s most liberal member, pledges zillions to combat global warming. That’s your zillions, by the way. Remember that government produces nothing. You produce. They take. Then they spend. (You don’t like that? Awwww, too bad, sheeple! Perhaps a little discernment when this Obama buffoon was yapping about "hope and change" on the campaign trail would have paid off!)

What do liberals hope to achieve by promoting global warming? The end of capitalism and the permanent dominance of socialism, that’s all. If liberals can convince the majority of American sheeple that capitalists are evil, greedy, earth-raping pirates who are only interested in their 401k’s, they can then impose their big-brother, government-is-the-solution agenda on the economic and political landscape of this great nation. Our Founding Fathers would have thrown up over Obama.

Third is those who stand to gain economically from the artificial crisis of global warming. Czech President and incoming European Union President Vaclav Klaus, speaking at the opening session of the Second International Conference on Climate Change (New York City) in early March of 2009, warned that "politicians have succeeded in creating incentives which have led to the rise of a very powerful profit-seeking group." Who are these people? Why, they’re the ones who have ‘carbon offsets’ to trade. What in the world in a ‘carbon offset’? you ask. Why, you must be an earth killer, you mean ‘ol carbon user, you! Don’t you know that you use carbon, carbon harms the earth, and you must pay for your sin? If you mine or burn coal, you are among the worst of capitalists, and Obama is going to make sure that your industry—which could well be the answer to independence from Arab oil—is taxed via ‘carbon offset’ penalties to the point that you go out of business. The same is true for nuclear power, which although is clean and powerful, upsets the purity notions of envirowhackos, from whom liberals draw many, many votes.

Other profiteers from the screwy notion of global warming are those who manufacture solar and wind technology, which is supported by heavy government (your tax dollars) subsidies. In a rational society, solar and wind technology would be placed way on the back burner with little tax dollars devoted to their development because they are so abysmally inefficient compared to oil, coal, and nuclear. But in today’s Obama America, they are the darlings of the liberal-envirowhacko alliance and therefore must receive vast sums of money, don’t you know. Those who recognize the profit to be made from these glaringly inefficient technologies stand to make a great deal of money. Billions! (from your taxes).

Vaclav Klaus concludes his assessment of Gore and the other global warming opportunists: "The environmentalists speak of ‘saving the planet.’ From what? And from whom? One thing I know for sure: we have to save it—and ourselves—from them."

Next: Part Three, "What You Can Do About Global Warming"

Monday, March 9, 2009

The Nonsense of Global Warming: Part One

There isn’t a sentient soul in America who hasn’t heard about "global warming." That term has been waved in our faces, shoved into our mailboxes, and pounded into our consciousnesses for about a decade now.

It’s nonsense, friends. Utter nonsense.

Ordinarily I wouldn’t stoop to dealing with a time-waster like this particular notion, but the global warming myth has become really dangerous. Therefore it has become critical that we know and understand it so we can (a) discern the motivations behind those who promote it, and (b) know what to do about it.

In pursuit of these two goals, this blog will dissect global warming in three consecutive postings:

What it is, and why it’s ludicrous
The motivations behind those who promote it
What you should do about it.

Part One: What is Global Warming, and Why Is It Nonsense?

Global warming is junk science. According to scientist and engineer William Hunt (1-22-07, ""), junk science is "the publishing and/or expounding of purportedly scientific views which are contradicted by actual science."

Global warming is the belief that mankind has caused the average annual atmospheric temperatures to increase. How? By burning carbon-based fuels like oil, natural gas, coal, and wood. The theory is that such burning creates a layer of carbon dioxide that traps radiated heat from the earth’s surface instead of allowing it to escape into space, thus warming the earth and seas.

Now think about that for a moment. The earth is approximately 25,000 miles in circumference. It’s covered entirely by the troposphere, extending to seven miles above the earth’s surface, and it’s in this atmospheric layer that all weather happens. The troposphere is composed of 175,000 cubic miles of gases, of which 70% is nitrogen and 21% is oxygen. When carbon-based smoke enters the troposphere, it is carried on the winds and subjected to the filtering process that occurs when the oceans, which constitute 70% of the earth’s surface, contribute water vapor from evaporation and mix that with the carbon-based gases. This mixture falls upon the earth in the form of precipitation, mainly rain. The excess water from rain and melted snow upon land masses flows through creeks and rivers to the ocean, where the carbon is used by organic life forms to sustain and grow new life. So carbon dioxide is essential for the building of life in the seas! Before the industrial age, carbon dioxide was released into the troposphere by lightning-sparked forest and grass fires.

One fact that global warming hysterics either don’t know or won’t tell you is that natural processes completely eclipse anything mankind does to affect the atmosphere. A minor rainstorm over central Minnesota expends more energy than a hydrogen bomb. An F1 hurricane, the lowest category of this type of storm, expends more energy and creates more carbon dioxide than all of the nuclear weapons ever produced could do. The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines by itself put more carbon dioxide, other gases, and mineral ash into the troposphere than has otherwise occurred in the entire history of man on planet earth!

Why do many biologists and botanists accept the theory of global warming as fact while the vast majority of geologists laugh at it? Because geologists take the large view; i.e. as observers of the earth as a geologic system, they have a keen appreciation for the kind of power inherent in natural systems.

For example, geologists point to strata which prove a 500-year (+/- 50 years) period of considerable global warming prior to the year 1350. Note that "global warming" in this context is a rise in the average temperature of the earth without reference to any manmade causes. In this pre-1350 warm period, much of Scandinavia featured productive farming. Canada was fruitful well up into the northern regions of that (soon-to-be) country. Greenland was even good farming territory! Al Gore, please note: there were no factories, SUV’s, Hummers, or jet planes back then.

Then, from 1350 to 1850 (the "Little Ice Age"), the earth experienced a considerable drop in average temperature. The areas mentioned above became impossible to farm, except for southern Scandinavia and southern Canada, and then only for a limited time each year.

Geologists and historians also point to two other more-or-less 500-year periods when the earth was quite warm, relatively speaking: from the 14th to the 11th century B.C. and from 100 B.C. to 400 A.D.

Thus it appears from the evidence that the earth regularly experiences half-millennial phases, from warm to cool and back to warm. More than likely this is due almost exclusively to our sun’s phases, which is proven by comparing Sol’s activity to the earth’s macro-fluctuations in average temperature. The correlation is striking.

Here are some other facts which belie the notion of man-made global warming:

1. NASA scientist Jay Zwally used satellite data to measure changes in polar ice caps from 1992 to 2002. He found that Greenland gained 11 billions tons of ice per year while Antarctica lost 31 billions tons per year during this period. The resulting change in worldwide sea level was + 0.5 millimeters, or about half the thickness of a sheet of typing paper. At that rate, it would require a thousand years for a two-inch rise in ocean levels, an insignificant amount. In the last six years, the data appears to be reversing: more ice is forming than is lost.

2. Al Gore’s "An Inconvenient Truth" depicts ghastly scenes of polar bears drowning from melting glaciers. The real truth is quite the opposite: eleven of thirteen provinces in Canada show an increase in polar bear population over the past fifty years.

3. Global warming proponents pin wildly increased hurricane activity in 2005 (five major storms over Florida) on global warming. But not one single hurricane hit the USA in 2006. What, did everyone park their SUV’s and shut off their factories?

4. Since early in the 20th century, despite global warming hysterics’ claims to the contrary, North Dakota is the only U.S. state to experience a record high temperature for the year.

5. When satellites began to circle the earth and measure the earth’s temperature, many nations eliminated rural weather stations in order to save costs. The receptors that remain are mostly in or near large cities. Such areas have a "heat island" effect from the absorption of heat by concrete and asphalt, resulting in readings up to three degrees higher than rural areas. Thus, much of the "data" which global warmists use is faulty.

6. In the 1950’s, the Scripps Institute placed a carbon dioxide monitor on the Big Island of Hawaii, far from industrialization. The idea was to collect data and use it as a standard to measure worldwide carbon dioxide levels. The theory, like many, was grand; the practice was woeful. On this island, which is home to many active volcanoes, the monitor picks up significant amounts of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, steam, and other gases. The volcanoes are so significant a local atmospheric factor that they produce air pollution on Oahu, two hundred miles away. Yet the global warmists cite the Hawaiian data as proof positive for their theory.

Similarly, Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality placed a carbon monoxide sensor half a city block from an old factory whose inefficient boilers were producing large amounts of the gas. The DEQ concluded from the readings that the entire Rogue Valley area was suffering from increased carbon monoxide. Global warmists cite that data also. When the factory closed, the readings fell by half. You don’t hear about the new readings from Al Gore.

7. Global warming proponents cite core ice samples from Greenland and other "permanent" (for this 500-year period, anyway) glaciers that they say prove increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, since there is more of the gas in top layers than in the central body of the ice. What they don’t know or don’t say is that glaciers "flow" starting about 150 feet down into the ice. Since carbon dioxide is inert, it is squeezed up into the upper layers of the glacier over time as the glacier moves. Thus, higher readings appear near the top layers.

All of this is evidence of time-wasting navel gazing on the part of global warming proponents. They take isolated data and use it to proclaim broad statements without putting it into context. In this respect, they are like Darwinists, who use the evidence of finches changing beak sizes in relation to wetter or dryer climate conditions as "proof" that mankind evolved from an amniotic swamp. They don’t tell you that the finches never become eagles or that their beaks revert to type when the climate changes back again.

There are only two means to accurately predict climatological conditions for the future. One is to have accurate sensors sensibly placed over thousands of areas for hundreds of years to collect a large body of data. The other is to design a computer model that will make an accurate prediction. Global warmists haven’t tried the first method, most likely because they’re impatient and the scientific method might produce facts that would interfere with their opinion. As for the second, this is almost impossible: there are literally millions of variables that must be considered, and no computer program ever envisioned comes even close to handling such a mammoth project.

Next week: Part Two—the Motivations Behind Those Who Promote
Global Warming

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

America is Upside Down

Today I had a conversation with a top executive in one of the country's large banks. He told me, and I quote, "The country is upside down. Obama doesn't have a clue how bad he's screwing up."

You know, to be fair, you want to give our President the benefit of the doubt, no matter who he is. You want him to succeed so the country succeeds. Certainly you want to give a new President a honeymoon period, right? So the guy can get his bearings, get going, that sort of thing?

But look at this Obama character. Look at this fool! Within two days of taking office, he issues an executive order to close our terrorist holding camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In the announcement of this action, he gave no indication that he has any understanding whatsoever of what he will unleash upon the nation he has sworn to protect when these hardened, bitter, suicidal jihadists return to the battle. On the fourth day of his administration, not being content just to further the slaughter of 3,500+ babies in the womb every day in America, he issued an executive order overturning the "Mexico City policy" of President Bush, now releasing YOUR tax dollars to commit murder by abortion in other countries. Further to this, he has pledged to his pro-abortion friends in NOW (National Organization of Some Women, but Certainly Not All, Thank God) that he will encourage his Democratic toadies Pelosi and Reid to ram through legislation entitled the "Freedom of Choice Act," which will undo in one sword stroke all the cautions and safeguards and gains that pro-lifers have been able to achieve to save mother and baby from the horrors of abortion.

What my banker friend finds most abhorrent is Obama's wanton spending spree. With wild rampages variously entitled "stimulus," "reinvestment," and "reinvigoration," he has convinced the aforementioned dwarfs Pelosi and Reid and the rest of his lockstep Democrat majority in Congress to quickly--without time for sober examination, discussion, or deliberation--pass legislation authorizing the wildly sophomoric throwing into the air of trillions of dollars in payback to his campaign supporters (unions, homosexuals, "community organizers"--those who resurrect dead bodies and invent names to become Democrat voters--teachers, trial lawyers, et al) under the lie of "stimulating the economy."

Obama isn't stupid. He knows the funds won't stimulate anything, at least not for months, if not years, if at all. He has to know that this spending orgy will bankrupt this country for generations.

"What?!" you say. "Bankrupt us? Please explain!" Okay, consider this. If you spent $100,000 every day since the day our Lord Jesus was born, about 734,000 days, you would only be three-quarters of the way toward one trillion dollars. Obama spent more than that just with his porkulus package! On top of that is another 0.45 trillion ($100,000 dollars per day from Jesus up to the Magna Carta) for a so-called "mortgage relief" package. On top of that is several billion to the auto manufacturers--who, in a common-sense market-driven economy, would be allowed to go belly up because of horrible management/union decisions over the last three decades--and billions to a large insurance company and billions to... You get the picture.

Where is this money going to come from? Who's going to pay the bills?

"Why, we'll just tax the rich!" the smiling Messiah crows in command time on television. "Uh, uh, spread the wealth, you know?"

Excuse me, but from whom? What rich? He defines anyone making over $250k per year as rich. And that's gross income, not net. So any small business owner with a C-corp, where he or she passes his or her income through on personal income taxes, is now rich. Never mind the fact that some of that $250k must go to the corporation's employees, or inventory, or taxes. That person is evil and must now "spread the wealth" to those who don't earn up to that level. The fact that it will soon be more sensible not to work at all, and just draw off the government teat, is apparently irrelevant.

Obama has now proposed a budget of more than $3.6 trillion dollars for the fiscal year 2010. Jesus would have to live another four millenia at $100K per day to pay off just that budget.

Is Obama that naive not to realize the financial disaster he's bringing about? Is he deranged? My banker friend thinks he's just evil. Obama wants total govenment control of the American economy, and thus the American people (that's you and me and our children and grandchildren, friends) for years and years and years. He is about socialism. He is about Big Brother. He is no messiah, he is 1984 just twenty-five years late.

And 53% of the American sheeple voted for him. You have to wonder, what will they do when they can no longer ignore reality, the facts on the ground, and the chilling thought hits them: Oh, my God, what have I done?!"