British News

I heard this article on the Mike Church show (Sirius Patriot) and wanted to copy the article here for future reference and perusal. Take from it what you want. But in the future, no one can say they weren't warned.
________________________
Barack Obama inauguration: this Emporer has no clothes, it will all end in tears

Posted By: Gerald Warner Jan 20, 2009 at 18:50:54

This will end in tears. The Obama hysteria is not merely embarrassing to witness, it is itself contributory to the scale of the disaster that is coming. What we are experiencing, in the deepening days of a global depression, is the desperate suspension of disbelief by people of intelligence - la trahison des clercs - in a pathetic effort to hypnotise themselves into the delusion that it will be all right on the night. It will not be all right.

We have been here before. In the spring of 1997, to be precise, when a charismatic, young prime minister entered Downing Street, cheered by children bussed in for the occasion waving plastic Union Jacks. A very few of us at that time incurred searing reproaches for denouncing the Great Charlatan (as I have always denominated Tony Blair) and dissenting from the public hysteria. Three times a deluded Britain elected that transparent fraud. Yesterday, when national bankruptcy became a formal reality, we reaped the bitter harvest of the Blair/Brown imposture.

The burnt child, contrary to conventional wisdom, does not fear the fire. After the Blair experience there is no excuse for anybody in Britain falling for Obama. Yet today, in this country, even some of those who remained sane during the emotional spasm of the Diana aberration are pumping the air for Princess Barack. At a time of gross economic and geopolitical instability throughout the Western world, this is beyond irresponsibility.

To anyone who kept his head, the string of Christmas cracker mottoes booming through the public address system on Washington's National Mall can only excite scepticism. It is crucial to recall the reality that lies behind the rhetoric. Denouncing "those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents" comes ill from a man whose flagship legislation, the Freedom of Choice Act, will impose abortion, including partial-birth abortion, on every state in the Union. It seems the era of Hope is to be inaugurated with a slaughter of the innocents.

Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan is like one of those toxic packages traded by bankers: it camouflages many unaffordable gifts to his client state. With a federal deficit already at $1.2 trillion, Obama wants to squander $825 billion (which will undoubtedly mushroom to more than $1 trillion) on creating 600,000 more government jobs and a further 459,000 in "green energy" (useless wind turbines and other Heath-Robinson contraptions favoured by Beltway environmentalists).

It is frightening to think there is a real possibility that the entire world economy could go into complete meltdown and famine kill millions. Yet Western - and British - commentators are cocooned in a warm comfort zone of infatuation with America's answer to Neil Kinnock. We should be long past applauding politicians of any hue: they got us into this mess. The best deserve a probationary opportunity to prove themselves, the worst should be in jail.

It is questionable whether the present political system can survive the coming crisis. Whatever the solution, teenage swooning sentimentality over a celebrity cult has no part in it. The most powerful nation on earth is confronting its worst economic crisis under the leadership of its most extremely liberal politician, who has virtually no experience of federal politics. That is not an opportunity but a catastrophe.

These are frank, even ungracious, words: they have the one merit that, unlike almost everything else written today about Obama, they will not require to be eaten in the future.

________________

Now you can take a look at the breakdown of the massive Stimulus bill as interpreted by The American Spectator <-- Click the link because with such an extensive bill, the breakdown interpretation is equally long.

More on Climate

I read Al Fin's blog and there are a multitude of very interesting posts on the Climate. I suggest you read some, especially the January 28th '09 entry.

BLOG THIS

O Canada

The day my kids' school stops allowing O Canada to be sung in order to keep a few families 'happy' that do not want to sing it, is the day I start home schooling. YOU LIVE IN CANADA would be my only constant response to a family who says they do not want their child to sing the National Anthem at school.
YOU LIVE IN CANADA!

http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/actualites/article/549137

Global Warming, Climate Change...????

For many years I have been thinking about Global Warming (now called Climate Change because of course half of us are experiencing bitter cold for longer periods of time than we recall having before). No I do not have any sort of degree in sciences so I am only trying to use my rational mind and I take in information from all directions and try to make heads or tails of it. One thing I said about 2 years ago, when hearing that glaciers and ice bergs were 'melting' or falling into the ocean was 'I wonder if it's more like they are shedding their skin' - much like a snake or spider. Why? Because at the SAME time I read many reports about the center of certain glaciers becoming thicker. Even right now, in Antarctica, posts have been abandoned that have been used for 50+ years to watch the environment and other studies, because the snow and ice has buried them. Buried them - they are gone. This has not happened before to those particular areas. So it is getting thicker in the middle, and falling off the edges and being swallowed by the ocean. I picture it as being like a snake growing and splitting his outer skin so his body has room to grow. This does not answer why entire glaciers in some mountain regions have disappeared - I have no idea why. But a few years ago we were told things would get hotter and hotter each year - and now suddenly we are being told we are going to freeze instead. Huh? A few years ago and again last year, I told my bf that I think the earth is going through a natural cycle. We already know that the earth has not stayed a habitable planet for millions of years - there have been ice ages already. So I wondered if we were just heading for another one. I watch shows about our solar system and how far the earth is from the sun at various times, and I made a mental note about a year ago that the earth is going farther away from the sun and the sun is not as 'hot' because it is going through another cycle too. I told people to wait and watch and see what happens with the Global Warning trend --- and here it is!

Now I am seeing endless programs on the Discovery Channel that speak of how the earth's ice cores show that there have been other warm periods, other ice ages. The hour long program I watched the other night talked about the earth going through ice ages for 50 or 60 thousand years, and then going into a warming up period for 20 to 30 thousand years, and back to ice age. Apparently we are about 10,000 years into a warming period and the scientists on the program suggested that we be prepared (future generations of course lol) to enter another ice age. As in, it's inevitable. The program did not surprise me at all because it is something I have thought about for 20 years. Are we really pushing the earth to an ice age through our emissions? Or are we just going along for the ride on a planet that is stronger and older than we can imagine, and fully reliant on the sun and it's natural changes as well? Can we assume that we could influence the earth's atmosphere so much that we would push it to a hot or cold change?

Something else I have been thinking about ever since the global warming addicts started complaining about the CO2 levels is wondering if it's really as bad as they say. The plant life on earth takes in CO2 and expells oxygen ... it's not like the CO2 sits around in the air waiting to stifle us. But what is more telling in my eyes is the fact that my boyfriend has to carry an air quality monitor with him at all times, 12 or more hours a day, 6 or 7 days a week, for the past 15 or so years. The CO2 level has NEVER CHANGED. It remains a constant 20.9% unless he blows on it and it reads his breath. He has worked in the bitter north, and across two provinces, and has never seen the meter read above 20.9% CO2. Why is it the same? If CO2 levels are increasing and Climate Change ravers are crying out about an increase, why don't the people who carry monitors around all day long see this? Even when the wind is blowing 100km/hr, the monitor does not change. High elevation, low elevation, the monitor does not change. What are they testing and where are they testing it - to get these levels and cry out to people to stop emissions or we will kill the planet?? Yes they will say it's 'in the atmosphere', and I assume that means high up there - but if it has increased so much and is only going to increase and kill us all, as Gore et all say, why haven't we picked that up on ground monitors yet? When the sky is crazy and the winds are tearing us apart, why aren't the monitors reading even a 0.1% change in CO2?

Don't want to listen to some anonymous person on the net who has no clue what she is talking about? Okay then read some of this and educate yourself with 'the other side of the story'. Personally, I think if scientists cannot agree (note that 650 went to PROTEST the Global Warming/Climate Change talks), then how can we just pick one group and follow their preachings? They DO NOT KNOW.

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html

The Goracle Speaks ... but what did he actually say?

http://www.co2science.org/

Things...

This is just one example I have come across where I get a little confused about people and the mania that is going on right now. Actress Anne Hathaway was quoted a few times about her dislike of Pastor Rick Warren speaking at today's inauguration... HERE and HERE for example. She talked of once thinking of turning her back during Warren's address but changing her mind to wearing a ribbon in protest. Okay, that is fine, Free Speech and all... but President Obama does not support gay marriage either! (there is a commercial before the news clip). But anyway, if you are going to turn your back on one person for their beliefs, why not on another for sharing the same beliefs, at the very same event? I find that very strange. Do I care what Hathaway says or thinks? No, but I know that a lot of people feel the same way. But Obama himself does not believe in legal gay marriage so......

Huh?

You've Got to be Kidding Me

I know a lot of people turn a blind eye to those that say the government is getting too much control and trying to become more socialist (USA), they say vocal conservatives are fear mongers... but I personally see more and more 'control' coming all the time. It's actually quite scary and until people smarten up and see what is going on, it's only going to get worse. Here is an example of Control (and it IS whether you choose to turn a blind eye or not):

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-01-08-toys_N.htm

Toy Testing. Remember the 'scare' of lead in some toys that were made in China? Recalls all over the place, so many toys on the recall lists it was hard to keep up? Well now the US govt, as of Feb 10th, may have something in place where all second-hand-goods dealers have to test ALL of their items for lead, among other things. It costs at least $400 PER SMALL ITEM. How is a place like Salvation Army Thrift Store going to spend $400 testing an item they sell for five bucks? They will NOT be able to do it. They WILL shut down. ALL of the consignment stores, charity shops, second hand kid stores, etc will HAVE to close. So is it a fear-mongering conspiracy theory if people suggest the govt is trying to kill small business? Why? They 100% know if this goes through that small businesses will not be able to afford it in any way, shape or form. They are signing a death warrant country-wide for ALL of these businesses. And for what?

I have yet to see a report detailing that the formerly-tainted toys coming from China were actually deadly. All I have seen are reports that there was a higher amount than the US approves as a max level. But I have seen and heard many reports that the amount is still so miniscule, a child would have to suck on a toy for a very long time and injest a huge amount of the broken pieces or chipped paint in order to get sick. Now who is fear-mongering? I have never seen or heard a report saying that a child taking a tiny piece of paint off his Sesame Street big bird toy would test for high levels of lead and get sick. Have you heard any reports like that at all? I have heard that a child would have to injest hundreds if not thousands of pieces of tainted lead paint from these toys in order to get sick. Not to mention these toys are so hardy, even ones I had when I was a kid 30 years ago are still intact with no broken pieces, only peeling paper stickers. My old Fisher Price car garage has been bashed and crashed for over 30 years and the only thing 'wrong' with it is the elevator doesn't always work anymore. So how tainted were the toys that were recalled? How much of a risk did they actually impose? And is it anywhere near a risk amount to justify crippling ALL second hand stores next month?

I am not saying that the small business' survival is more important than a child's survival. So you can stop thinking that right now. What I am saying is we have been duped yet again. And it paved the way for literally destroying hundreds of thousands of businesses. How many people do you think these places employ across the United States? The unemployment level is a huge story right now, with the new president promising to create 3 million jobs. Well... what about the millions of people who work at these consignment, charity, and second hand stores? They WILL all be out of work if this testing law is not stopped. There is no possible way whatsoever that they could afford even $50 testing fee per item because they sell the items for far less than that. So imagine what $400 would do. They won't even attempt it, it would be financial suicide. They will simply close down immediately.

Now think a little further. Who most often shops at those stores? Lower income people and their families. They cannot afford full priced items in the retail stores, I am middle income and I refuse to pay those ridiculous prices too! So if the Sally Ann store, Diabetes Association, etc shut down, where will lower income people get some good deals? Seriously people... this is bad. It is more far-reaching than you could imagine but it's right there in front of our faces, reported in the news, and I have yet to hear anything about it on a really major news network. I only heard about it on talk radio and in one or two other blogs. Why is there no outcry for these millions upon millions of people who WILL be directly affected? And why do I care, since I am in Canada?

Because I fear the same thing happening here, especially if our current PM gets overthrown by the coalition. Who knows what ideas they might try to pass here. We have enough problems as it is, we do not need to follow suit with crazy ideas like this. But I fear that we will.

One more point to note: A lot of these second=hand places take very little profit - only enough to pay employees (and a lot of the time they are volunteers as well). They will all have to shut down too. And I am also wondering about places that give out clothing donations for free. Soup Kitchens, Women's Shelters, Homeless Shelters --- if these second-hand goods have to be tested for lead, surely they cannot be given out to needy people for free either. HOW will these charities survive?? THINK ABOUT IT!!!! That is really scary. For a government that pretends to think about it's people and care about them, why would they do something like this? It is disgusting.

*** Update: It appears as though the wording of the document was sorted out and every item does not have to be tested. However, keep in mind that this is something to watch. If it happened at all in the first place, it could happen again. I say to be wary.