Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Obama Team Desperate for Votes, Calls for Mandatory Voting

Desperation: Obama Surrogate Calls to Make Voting Mandatory - Breitbart

Peter Orszag, former head of the Obama Office of Management and Budget, is desperate. With even Roll Call recognizing that President Obama is fighting an uphill battle for re-election, Orszag is floating a trial balloon: mandatory voting. His call for forced voting comes in an op/ed for Bloomberg News:
The U.S. prides itself as the beacon of democracy, but it’s very likely no U.S. president has ever been elected by a majority of American adults.


-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Christian Bloodbath Planned by Muslims

300 suicide bombers plan Christian bloodbath
They're recruiting an army of suicide bombers with one target in their sights: Christians.

Calling it "revenge for Muslims killed," the goal is to make July the "bloodiest month yet."

Click here to read the full article.

Godfather of Global Warming Theory Abandons Hysteria-Makers

By Douglas V. Gibbs

It is funny. The global warming nuts say that consensus proves global warming to be the truth. Was that the case when the consensus was that the world was flat? Or that oil is a fossil fuel (evidence building that oil is abiotic)?

Science is not about consensus, but about the pursuit of truth.

Over global warming, the claim of consensus, and the hysteria that accompanies it, has even turned off James Lovelock, the man known to be the godfather of global warming. He, in an interview on MSNBC, admitted that even he had been a bit of an “alarmist” about climate change.

Lovelock uses a New Age idea, and formulated the Gaia theory, which supposes that the Earth operates as a single, living organism.

His theories were a large influence on the development of global warming theory.

As time has passed, global temperatures have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted. Lovelock admits “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.”

Though still a proponent that humanity must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, he says it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect.

In the interview, to my knowledge, he did not address the idea that global temperature changes are a natural phenomenon, largely influenced by sunspot and solar flare activity.

The problem is, these scientists are motivated by money, and fear losing government funding if they admit they are in error. Global warming scientists have, according to emails, manipulated the data to make sure it comes out in favor of their claims. Lovelock states that he is unlike those scientists, willing to revise his theories in the face of new evidence.

Among his observations to the Guardian:

(1) A long-time supporter of nuclear power as a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions, which has made him unpopular with environmentalists, Lovelock has now come out in favour of natural gas fracking (which environmentalists also oppose), as a low-polluting alternative to coal.

As Lovelock observes, “Gas is almost a give-away in the U.S. at the moment. They’ve gone for fracking in a big way. This is what makes me very cross with the greens for trying to knock it … Let’s be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it.” (Kandeh Yumkella, co-head of a major United Nations program on sustainable energy, made similar arguments last week at a UN environmental conference in Rio de Janeiro, advocating the development of conventional and unconventional natural gas resources as a way to reduce deforestation and save millions of lives in the Third World.)

(2) Lovelock blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion.

“It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion,” Lovelock observed. “I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use … The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.”

(3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind turbines.

As he puts it, “so-called ‘sustainable development’ … is meaningless drivel … We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can’t stand windmills at any price.”

(4) Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Not Letting Arizona Enforce Immigration is to Take Away Arizona's State Sovereignty

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Yesterday the United States Supreme Court ruled on Arizona's Immigration Law, and all sides think they have won something.

But when a State is sued for enforcing laws on the books, and for flexing its authorities on a concurrent issue, it places the very sovereignty of the State in danger.

Before I discuss this, I want you to remember that the federal court system has no constitutional authority to strike down State laws (or any law, for that matter). According to Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, all legislative powers are granted to the Congress. By striking down a law, the courts are acting legislatively, and therefore unconstitutionally.

Now, that said, the United States Supreme Court, yesterday, struck down Arizona's requirement for aliens to carry registration papers. They struck down the law's application of criminal penalties for employing illegal aliens, and the authorization of warrantless arrests for deportable crimes. However, all eight present justices voted to allow the mandatory immigration check requirement to go into effect.

What happened was that a federal court dictated to a State what it can and can't do regarding an issue it has authority to pursue. This means that once again the federal government has again worked to silence the States, and tell them they don't have say over anything. . . especially if the States try to do something contrary to the federal government.

That's the argument. Sure, the immigration law in Arizona mirrors the federal law, and Arizona is simply enforcing immigration laws that the federal government refuses to enforce. Therefore, the federal government has determined that Arizona is acting unconstitutionally for daring to enforce existing laws on the books.

The argument surrounds the Supremacy Clause.

First of all, the word "contrary" in that clause is about legislation. Arizona's legislation is not contrary to the laws on the books at the federal level.  Secondly, the Supremacy Clause only applies to federal laws that fall within constitutional authority.

The Constitution addresses immigration four times in its text. In Article I, Section 8 the Congress is given the authority to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." That one is about what happens after they are here, not before.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution was designed to stop the importation of new slaves, and to prohibit the immigration of people of the federal government's choosing. Too many immigrants not interested in fulfilling the American legacy were deemed as being dangerous, and could even be considered an invasion. And, after all, was it not also Constitutionally mandated that the Federal Government protect the States from invasion? (Article 4, Section 4). Sealing the border, after all, has not been just about keeping the typical illegal aliens from entering the country illegally, but also to stop those that would come into this nation from places like the Middle East to harm us.

The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment demands full allegiance to the United States.

What is coming next, especially when this ruling immediately follows Obama's amnesty by fiat, will be a myriad of lawsuits.

The only sanity from the case came from Antonin Scalia's dissenting opinion in the Arizona case. He said, "If securing its territory is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State. I dissent."

I agree.

I wonder if the States would have originally joined the union if they knew that down the road their sovereignty would be treated like this.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Scalia Slams Obama In His Arizona Immigration Dissent - Business Insider

Desperate Obama Seeking Oversees Donors

Obama taps overseas donor pool

Obama is tapping Americans abroad more than any other presidential campaign.

The all-consuming hunt for donors has led President Barack Obama’s campaign to England. And France. And China.

Obama is tapping the network of American citizens living outside the 50 states more than any other presidential campaign has before, with more than a dozen bundlers who have pledged to raise as much as $4.5 million.

The article continues by saying it is all legal because they are Americans he is pursuing. But don't you remember the evidence that Obama was taking in foreign money in 2008?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Love E-Commerce

How do I love e-commerce?  Let me count the ways but in this instance, here are six reasons for loving your e-commerce site after it’s set up.

Here's the first one:
1.Customers can buy anytime and anywhere.After you are fast asleep and thinking that no more business can be generated, guess again.At their convenience, consumers can browse your site, discover new things and buy them.You wake up the next day, go to work and learn that ten percent of your total revenues were generated over night via e-commerce!
Read the entire article:  6 Reasons to Love E-Commerce
嫡女贵凰 重生毒妃狠绝色免费重生之嫡女倾城纵横重生之嫡女要强嫁完整版百度云重新之填房嫡女嫡女重生之燕冠天下