Is the polar vortex real?

Add caption

It turns out that 2014 is the coldest winter in recorded history in the United States. Where I live in Michigan the most snow we have ever gotten was 106 inches, and we are already there.  If you listen to the weather channel the cause of this bad winter is global warming.  They say it's the polar vortex?

The polar vortex is this thing environmentalists made up to prove to us that global warming is responsible for this cold weather.  They claim that the temperatures are so warm in the north pole that it is melting the polar caps.  Ironically, a bunch of environmentalist wackos went to the north pole recently to prove this, to prove there are fewer icebergs in the north pole, and they get stuck on an iceberg.  They don't get the hypocrisy of their actions.

Anyway, the global warming people created this thing called the polar vortex showing that the ice caps are melting and this is causing waves of cold air to rush across the globe making this the coldest winter in recorded history.  However, they fail to mention that last year was one of the warmest winters in recorded history, with the lowest amount of snow.  None of that matters to them, because facts don't matter.

The truth is, the reason it's cold in the winter time is that same reason it's always cold in the winter: it's winter.  In the inter the earth is closer to the sun, but it is at an angle, thus making it so sun rays take longer to get to the earth, thus causing winter. It has nothing to do with the polar vortex.

The polar vortex surely sounds good, but it's yet another myth created by people who want to convince us to let them tax and regulate us to support their myth. They make it look like a cold jet stream from the north pole is dipping down over the planet like it never did before.

How does it get down here?  That's the mystery.  It used to stay over the north pole, but now it's coming down to us by jet stream?  Why? They have no clue.  So to prove their theory, they made up the idea that we are causing it with all the stuff we do that causes global warming.  It's humans breathing and it's the stuff we let come out of factories. There's no evidence to any of this, but it sounds good to them so it just is.  If you argue with them you are in the wrong.

It's something they just made up.  If there is record cold coming from the north pole because the polar ice caps are melting, that means there is record cold in the north pole.  And if that is happening, how could the polar ice caps be melting.  It makes no sense.

Of course when you tell people there is no such thing as a polar vortex they say things like, "What?  Are you an idiot?"  I ask them to give me proof that there is such a thing, and they never offer any.  They just say, "They say there is, so there is?"  This is yet another reason why progress is so slow.  Even when the facts are ever so present, people choose to ignore them in lieu of myths that sound good.

Now, if you follow my blog, you know that I neither support nor deny theories.  I believe that the purpose of science is to doubt theories, not accept theories that have yet to be proven.  So, on that note, we will respect the myth, but we won't die by it either.

Lies about republicans

I wrote a series of posts a few years ago titled, "Liberal Fallacies Clarified."  I think this was important to write about because there are a lot of people who vote democrat because of these fallacies, which are:

1. Republicans are going to take away our social security
2. Republicans are anti-choice
3. Republicans are anti-gay
4. Republicans are against stem cell research
5. Republicans are uncaring, bigoted fools

None of the above are true.  The republicans like social security and want to fix it so it's still around 20, 30, 50 and 100 years from now so our children and grandchildren can enjoy it. 

Republicans believe people should have a right to choose what health insurance they have, and where they work, and how to run their own business without the government telling them what to do.  Republicans want low, responsible tax rates and limited government to create a good working environment so businesses have an incentive to create jobs and hire new workers.

Republicans want to find cures for diseases and are not against stem cell research, they are only against using fetal stem cells which have never benefited any diseases to date, while adult stem cells have benefited many diseases. 

Republicans love all Americans and don't favor one group over another.  Republicans believe we are all in this together, and they love everyone together as Americans. 

I only mention this because I had a couple patients all stressed out today because "those darn republicans just want to take our social security away." 

"No one is planning to take your social security away," I said. 

"They're always trying to get rid of social security." 

I dropped the issue, yet I have never in my life heard a republican say anything about getting rid of social security.  It's a myth. 

Another fallacy proven wrong

Today I'm going to put a stop to two fallacies we often hear from progressives:

1. That republicans are to blame for the recession we are currently in
2. That during Obama's first two years in office republicans are to blame for blocking progress

Now here's the truth about the above:

1. The economy was growing at record levels, unemployment was relatively non-existent at 4% (4% or less is considered no unemployment by economists), and government revenues had nearly doubled after the Bush tax cuts were put into effect. It wasn't until Democrats took control of Congress in 2006 that the economy started to slow down.

Likewise, it was not republicans but democrats Barney Frank and Chris Dodd who were responsible for creating the housing bubble that eventually burst. They wanted to make sure Americans who couldn't afford housing could get a house and a piece of the American dream.

Yet as time went by, we realized that the these same folks who couldn't afford housing couldn't afford housing, and the housing bubble burst. This in turn resulted in the current recession we are in. As a result people lost confidence in the market, and stopped spending money.

Another thing is democrats are responsible for the prolonged recession, because of the uncertainty of whether or not taxes will be raised when the Bush tax cuts expire in 2011. Most business owners are not spending money, waiting to see what happens.

Plus they aren't sure what's going to happen with healthcare. Since the cost of healthcare might go up for businesses, they have to not spend now so they can make sure they can afford the future healthcare cost to them.

All of these democrat things have resulted in the recession and the prolonged recession. Republicans aren't completely innocent either, but it was mostly a progressive agenda that stopped the Bush economic boom.

2. It is impossible for the republicans to block the Obama agenda. This is true because not only did democrats control both houses and the office of the President, they also had a super majority. With a super majority, they could stop any filibuster power of the republicans.

Likewise, with a super majority, the republican party was basically irrelevant during the first two terms of Obama's administration, and this made it impossible for republicans to be obstructionists to his agenda.

So there.

Are progressives selfish????

This is just a thought, but do you think it's possible that liberals, progressives, and mainly democrats, put themselves before the nation. I mean, I'd like to have more money myself, yet I always like to think I'd rather have a nation before a better pension.

I say this because tonight I had a discussion with a teacher friend of mine, and she said first off that she didn't want to discuss politics with me because I'm a republican.

Then she said, "So who won in Michigan?"

I said, "Republicans won big."

She said. "Darn. Rick Snyder won then. That means they are going to take away my pension."

"Nothing is going to change," My wife said. And the discussion ended with an "Okay" by my teacher friend.

I could have added to the discussion, yet I took the high ground and kept my mouth shut. I have no problem with my friend being a democrat. I have no problem with her being a progressive. I have no problem if her decision is based on lack of wisdom or if it's due to a well thought out process. I have never attacked her position, or said she was stupid, or attacked the people she likes or...

Look, in my view, this is America and she can think anything she wants. I want her to express her view. I want her to disagree with me if she wants. Unlike progressives, I don't want to not hear those who disagree with me. I don't want fairness doctrines to shut up progressive media outlets.

I won't run away from her in anger when she says I'm an stupid for my views. I won't, by the way, ever call her stupid, because I know she's not. She may be wrong in her view for America, yet she's definitely not stupid.

Yet she doesn't feel the same. I'm a conservative, and a republican, and I'm wrong. Republicans, in her view, are trying to destroy her own personal life. Republicans, or conservatives, are standing in the way of progressivism. Better yet, conservatives will try to get rid of social security, medicare and pensions.

During the 2012 election cycle democrats were running adds saying things like, "Dan Benesheck is against social security; he wants to take your social security away." They claimed he wants to privatize social security, and this would mean when the stock market crashes, there would go our retirement.

Yet what they didn't say was Dan was smart enough to recognize social security is going bankrupt in a few years. If we don't do something, it won't be there. Thankfully voters were smart enough to see through this junk; these twists of the truth; lies.

That's what I think my friend was responding to, the lies that republicans want to take away stuff from them, like pensions. Yet the truth is, if anything, a republican governor might be the best option to keep your pensions because republicans will cut spending and reduce taxes to make sure the government doesn't go bankrupt. If we have no state, they you'll have no pension.

When it comes to medicair and social security the same holds true. Democrats want to everbody what they want and what they think they deserve, yet republicans are aware that social security might go broke and medicare might go broke. They will work to fix what is broken. So if you want to keep your check, you are better off voting republican.

I remember a few days ago a liberal friend of mine at work said the commercials that attack Rick Snyder claiming that he "sent jobs oversesas," was a good reason not to vote for him. Yet my conservative friend came back with a good argument: "Him sending jobs oversees allowed him to keep his business going, and that's the exact kind of person we need in Lansing.

Thus, if Snyder has to make some cuts, pensions perhaps, to save the state, then that's what he should do. Regardless if he has to, "take what is mine," away.

That's right. In her view, republicans are after her pension. Republicans are after her retirement. Republicans want her to make less money. It doesn't matter about saving the state from bankruptcy. She doesn't consider the fact that government workers in Michigan make twice as much as the same worker in the private sector.

Unions are selfish? Unions, like the teachers union, are after as much money to teachers as they can get. That is, regardless as to whether as a nation we can afford the teachers pay, and the teachers pension. Teachers, in that regard, at least liberal teachers (of which 80% of teachers are) are selfish?

I'm sorry, but while I think teachers are underpaid, I don't feel sorry for them at all. They have every holiday off, they have three months out of summer off, they don't have to save lives. If a life in in jeopardy, all they do is call someone. And despite the crying, they get paid pretty well.

Yes, the teachers who live in my neighborhood make about $20,000 more than I do, and I save lives. I save lives, I do CPR, I do mouth to mouth, I open up lungs, I get people feeling better, and I get paid shit. Yet you never hear RTs complaining about pay, you hear teachers complaining.

Is it possible most progressives think of themselves before the nation? They think of getting what's due to them? They think about getting their money? They think about getting their welfare? Their medicaid? Their social security? At the expense of the nation.

Who cares that hard working middle class workers like you and me have to sacrifice to pay the price tag for all those teachers and social programs. Who cares about that. It's all about me. Liberals are all about me.

Personally, as a conservative, I am a patriot. I would rather make less money and have the nation get stronger. I believe (my principle) that without my nation I would have nothing. I'd rather my nation be strong than I be strong.

Yet that's just me. I'm no selfish at all. Yet my thought today is, are progressives selfish? Are they blind that they are free due to the nation, and if they continue to be selfish their nation may be no more?

You know, it used to be that Americans would give up their lives before they gave up their freedoms, or allowed others to give up theirs. Now we have people saying to hell with other people's freedom so long as I get what is mine.

Just a thought. What do you think?

Tax cuts equal more money to the government

You know what gets old in the media is the chant that tax cuts always result in less money to the government to pay for government programs. I think anyone who looks at the history of tax cuts should know by now that tax cuts don't always result in less governmental income.

The latest example comes from Peter Luke's article in the Sunday, October 31, 2010 issue of the Grand Rapids Press, "Hold them to their promises." In the post he describes what he thinks the next Michigan governor needs to do right away.

One of his ideas he describes this way:

"There is widespread agreement that a tax overhaul to cut the cost of doing business in Michigan would help. Republican Rick Snyder's proposal to eliminate the business tax would help...

"According to the Citizens Research Council of Michigan, the next governor and Legislature will be faced with a $1 billion deficit in 2012 general fund.

"Even if revenues grow by 5 percent, or $400 million, that will be more than offset by planned reductions in income and business taxes, and one time revenue shifts that aim to keep 2011 in the black."

"There are two ways to get the money, and you can't do one without the other.

"First, tackle the state’s long list of business and consumer tax breaks. The one break that benefits all — and the most lucrative — is the sales tax exemption for most consumer services.

The political incentive for applying sales tax to services would distribute the proceeds both to business tax reduction and education. Companies would have to agree that paying no business tax (under Snyder’s plan) is an acceptable trade off for tacking on 6 percent to the services they sell.

"The public, asked to pay that 6 percent, would have to be persuaded it’s a worthwhile investment."

I added the bold for emphasis. It is true that there might be an immediate reduction in income to the government after tax cuts, but we must not forget the purpose of giving cuts: to give people and businesses alike more money to spend.

With more money to spend, consumers will buy more goods and services. With more goods and services being purchased, businesses will make more money. With more money, businesses in turn invest that money by hiring new workers and expanding their businesses.

Thus, with more people working, there will be more tax revenue to the government. On the contary, according to the Laffer Curve, if taxes are raised above a certain point, tax revenue will decrease, mainly because people will find ways of hiding money, many of these methods will result in not expanding businesses, no investing in new goods and services, not hiring, and laying off workers.

Now progressives like Peter Luke might disagree with me, yet you cannot disagree with history. If you look at historical data, you will see that revenue to the government nearly doubled over the the 10 year spans after Calvin Coolidge cut taxes, after JFK cut taxes, after Ronald Reagan cut taxes, and after George W. Bush cut taxes.

In 1921 Calvin Coolidge reduced the top federal tax rate from 73% to 25$, and revenue to the government increased by 2%. At the same time the tax revenue from the top 2% nearly doubled.

Likewise, according to the Heritage Foundation, "The share of the tax burden paid by the rich rose dramatically as tax rates were reduced. The share of the tax burden borne by the rich (those making $50,000 and up in those days) climbed from 44.2 percent in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928."

Hoover raised taxes when he was elected, and FDR "compounded the problem. In 1932, the federal income tax rate went from 25% to 63%. Government tax revenue dropped from $834 million in 1931 to $427 million in 1932. The tax burden on people making less than $25,000 went from 21% in 1931 to 36.5% in 1932, while the burden on the top wage earners (or rich) decreased.

According to the Heritage Foundation, revenueRevenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.

The Kennedy tax cut that took effect in 1964 lowered the top marginal tax rate from 91% to 70%. According to the Heritage Foundation, "President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation)."

Likewise, according to the Heritage Foundation, "Just as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent."

Ronald Reagan (in 1983) lowered taxers from 70% on top wage earners to 50%.

According to the Heritage Foundation:

Thanks to "bracket creep," the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).

According to the WashingtonTimes.com, the George W. Bush tax cuts took effect in 2004. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history.

Likewise according to the Washingtontimes, Bush cut the capiatl gains tax and the divident tax to 15%, and within 2 years stocks rose 20% and in three years $15 trillion in new wealth was created. "The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms."

And, "According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years."

The theory, as proposed in this post at CBS.com, postulates the following:

Likewise, according to the Heritage Foundation: "The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988."

Underlying the debate is an economic concept called the Laffer Curve, which shows that revenue can either increase or decrease when taxes are raised, depending on where the tax rate falls on the curve.

It's not as complicated as it first sounds: The basic idea is that when taxes are raised to a high level - say, for the purposes of this example, 99 percent - revenue will suffer because people will have no incentive to work (and there will thus be nothing to tax). When the tax rate is relatively low, however, raising taxes does indeed generate revenue since incentives to work are still significant.

This is a perfect example of how conservatives like me look at the facts to see the truth, and how liberals look at their feelings and determine that if you cut taxes you'll have less money to the government. Yet progressives are assuming economics is a zero sum game, and it's not.

So the next time you read an article, or watch someone on TV, claim that tax cuts need to be offset by tax increases elsewhere, now you know the truth: tax cuts result in more jobs and more government revenue, not less.

The thought of socialism is scaring people

Rush Limbaugh made a good point on Friday's program, and that is that the stock market is crashing partly because investors are afraid of what might happen to the markets when the tax rate is 50%, corporate and capital gains taxes are increased.

Of course we all know this is what's going to have to happen in order for Obama to pay for all his socialist programs he says he's going to initiate.

Obama says he's going to cut taxes for 90% of Americans. But, at the same time, 40% of Americans don't pay taxes. So, that means that a large portion of Americans aren't going to get a tax break, they are going to receive subsidies. And subsidies is a payment from the government to the poor.

Still, while he says he's going to cut taxes, he keeps talking of all the programs he's going to start to help people, such as a nationalized health care system.

No, mind you, his health care proposal pales in comparison to Hillary's, but still his proposal calls for a socialistic program. And, to do what he wants to do, the money has to come from somewhere. He can't simply create all these programs and not fund them.

Well, even the No-Child-Left-Behind program isn't funded enough, according to Ted Kennedy. So you can only imagine all the money that will be spent by the government in an Obama administration.

And, while Obama chides that his tax and spend programs are what is needed to save the economy, McCain actually has what it takes to save the economy. McCain is talking capitalism, and how we need to keep taxes low to allow capitalism to prosper. He is talking economic growth.

Rush wrote, "McCain should just tell everybody that a vote for McCain could save the market."

On an opposing note, Rush writes that many in the Obama camp are happy that the economy is doing so bad:

There are a lot of people in Obama's orbit who love seeing the capitalist system teetering like this. This is a scary thing, folks. The Washington Post today has a story: "The End of Capitalism?" And it's not the first such story I have seen. The end of capitalism? Well, this is what Bill Ayers is all about. ACORN is all about the destruction of capitalism and the Democratic system of fair elections. There are a lot of people on Obama's side that are loving this. There are a lot of people on Obama's side loving that you're in pain, loving that you're anxious, loving this crisis, loving that you're suffering, loving it, 'cause they think two things. They think you deserve to suffer because this is such an unfair, inequitable country. It's not fair anybody has any more than anybody else, and so those who are suffering, good for them. I'm telling you, there's some people in Obama's camp that are doing cartwheels. Not publicly of course, they won't say this stuff publicly. The other reason they like it is that they think it's going to propel Obama over the top.

Rush left one thing out, though. He left out that Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist thug friends want capitalism to fail too. They love this.

Well, as I've written before, capitalism is not what is causing the current financial crisis. It is a failure of liberalism. It's socialism. And more socialism is scaring people. It's partly responsible why people are in such a panic. They fear the Messiah.

Conservatives are not anti-choice

Another fallacy one hears about quite often via liberals in the media is that because Conservatives are pro-life they therefore have no respect for a woman's right to choose.

Truth is, most conservatives are pro-life, but they are NOT against a woman’s right to choose.

Hugh?

That’s right: conservatives are more for a woman’s right to choose than liberals. Liberals believe you have a right to kill your unborn baby or keep it alive, but they are not necessarily pro-choice.

Sean Hannity writes, in his book, “Let Freedom Ring:”

“When it comes to women’s freedom to choose better, safer schools for their children -- they’re anti-choice. The left opposes tuition tax credits, vouchers, K-12 educational savings accounts, and most other forms of parental choice in education.

“The left,” Hannity continues, “does not support a woman’s right to choose a handgun and carry it in her purse in case she might need it to defend her life or the life of her children… The left does not believe in choice when it comes to hardworking folks choosing personal retirement accounts within the context of social security, with the potential of yielding 2-3 times the earning of the Social Security system which gives them less than a poultry 2% return on their money.

“So, while we see the left making a lot of noise about choice, we see that choice itself is not the issue. The left doesn’t champion individual rights in a host of other areas and prefers to cede control over those decisions to government. No, this isn’t about freedom, unless you mean in its narrowest of context.”

The media would never tell you that. They’d simply say, "He’s anti-choice."

A columnist, E.J. Dionne, wrote of conservatives, "If you are for family values, how can you oppose Kennedy's call to give all employees at least seven days of paid leave a year so they don't face 'a cruel choice between losing their job, or neglecting their sick child or sick spouse at home.' Who can disagree that companies should make it easier for parents to 'attend a PTA meeting or a school play or sports contest'? Why, in short, shouldn't liberals challenge the economic marketplace to be more friendly to the needs of families?"

David Limbaugh, in his book "Bankrupt," writes that E.J. Dionne "misses the point. Liberals aren't just challenging the marketplace to be friendlies. They are using the coercive power of government to force employers to comply with these circumstances."

In other words, liberals aren't willing to allow businesses the right to choose, but want to force their hand on this issue. Conservatives believe in the right of businesses to chose.

Conservatives believe parents should have a choice where there children go to school so they don't have to send their children to failing schools, or they can choose to send their children to private schools via vouchers. Conservatives believe every person should have health care, but the best means of doing this is not by forcing all Americans to buy into a universal health care program.

Conservatives also believe if an individual doesn't want to have health care, he should have that choice too. If a person wants to spend all his money on material items and not plan for retirement, that's his choice. However, he might have to suffer the consequences later.

Conservatives believe in choice when it comes to abortion too. They believe, if the Constitution were followed, a woman would have a choice whether she lives in a state where abortion is legal or one where abortion is not legal.

It is not okay for anyone to force his or her views on anybody else. But that’s exactly what happened with Rowe -v- Wade. And that's exactly what would happen if the religious right got its way and abortion were made illegal.

Liberals should not be able to force their views on America any more than conservatives. That goes for the media too.

Despite this, the media continues to toss those conservative onions in the blender. That’s okay, so long as you know they are doing it so you can cover your eyes and plug your nose.

Conservatives are not anti-gay

We here at Freadom Nation will not avoid sensitive issues, however we will tread lightly. That said, another fallacy of the left is that because conservatives are against gay marriage they are therefore automatically anti-gay.

The truth is, most conservatives are against gay marriage, but most conservatives are not anti-gay. I, however, have many friends who are openly gay or lesbian. In fact, we openly discuss this and laugh. Some of them are even conservatives.

One columnist wrote in Jackson Gazette: “I am a true believer in the rights of individuals regarding sexual preference, and not anti-everything like conservatives on the other side of the fence. I believe gays have the same rights as heterosexuals regarding marriage.”

Sure, it’s a free country, but it’s against journalism ethics to twist words as this. The intent of statements like this are simply to make conservatives look bad, even though the words are false. Sure some conservatives might be anti-gay, but so might some liberals.

I have stated over and over again that it is not up to me to decide what is right for America, it is up to the people to decide. In matters like this, all we need to do is follow the constitution.

The 10th amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.”

The 10th Amendment is worded as such so that the Federal Government cannot force an issue on the people, like it has with Abortion.

While abortion is NOT mentioned in the Constitution, the Supreme Court somehow found that it was. However many times I’ve studied the Rowe-v-Wade ruling, I simply cannot understand how they found Abortion to be legal by means of the same Constitution that I just read. Abortion simply is not mentioned in there.

None-the-less, we have to go by what the great court has concluded. After all, what the Supreme Court says is law. That may not necessarily be the initial intent of the Constitution either, but thus is a discussion for another day.

It would be more fair if the people decided the abortion issue. If the Supreme Court would have correctly interpreted the 10th amendment, that is exactly how it would have ruled in Rowe -v- Wade.

And, if that were the case, abortion would be legal in some states and illegal in others.

Same for gay marriage. This issue should not be decided by the Federal Government; not the Federal Legislature, and definitely not the Federal Judiciary. It should be up to the states to decide on the issue. Marriage is simply not mentioned in the Constitution, and the states can do with it whatever they want -- the Fed can’t.

That is, if we follow the 10th Amendment. There is a name for this: Federalism.

My view on gay marriage is that following the Constitution is the only way that is fair for everyone. In this way, conservatives cannot force their views on the people, and neither can liberals.

However, my Federalist view on Gay Marriage does not make me anti-gay, as the media will have you believe.

Conservatives are not anti-stem cell research

How many times have you heard that conservatives simply don't care about finding cures for the various diseases that ail our society today? And some basic proof for this is the fact that conservatives have been against stem cell research since its inception as an idea in science.

Here is a link to a blog, Down with Tyranny, that highlights exactly what I'm talking about, where republicans were blasted last summer because they voted against stem cell research, where in actuality they didn't vote against stem cell research, but fetal stem cell research.

I'm tired of hearing this kind of stuff, and I want nothing more than for Americans to learn the truth about conservatives, about republicans, that we do care about finding a cure for diseases just as much as democrats and liberals.

I have been writing in my recent posts how conservatives get the meaning of their words twisted a lot by the media, a lot more so than liberals do. More recently I've written about how global warming advocates will have those who disagree global warming theories made to be fools, and the media in general makes few if any attempts to discredit them.

Today I wish to talk about another topic that liberals, and the liberal press, wish to have you believe, and which is actually a fallacy that I will disprove. Liberals, either in the press or in the classroom, will have one believe that conservatives are anti-stem cell research.

As I wrote in a previous post, when a conservative talks about how he is against government funding of FETAL stem cell research, liberals claim that “he is against ALL stem cell research.”

The truth is, conservatives are not against stem cell research. What they are against is FETAL stem cell research. They don’t believe it is right for the government to fund research that involves the killing of a fetus. Despite this truth, the media, in their chants, will lump all types of stem cell research together and tell you conservatives are against all stem cell research.

The truth is, there are many kinds of stem cells, the two basic kinds being bone marrow and fetal. Bone marrow stem cell research has directly benefited over 70 diseases. Fetal stem cell research, to date, has benefited zero diseases.

Most conservatives favor marrow stem cell research. President Bush decided, early in his first term, to allot government funding to bone marrow stem cell research because it has proven to be of benefit to society. At the same time, however, he did not approve of government funding for fetal stem cell research because it has NOT been proven effective. He believed, that at that point in time, it was not prudent to send government money to an unproven science.

There is, however, great hope that the new science of fetal stem cell research will one day benefit society, so, in making his decision regarding the controversial issue, Bush decided NOT to ban independent businesses from performing fetal stem cell research. And, therefore, stem cell research goes on to this day -- legally.

Therefore, President Bush, republicans and conservatives alike are NOT AGAINST stem cell research, but for it.

Remember just prior to the 2006 mid-term elections when the media showed Rush Limbaugh on the news chanting about how Michael J. Fox was faking his Alzheimer’s to benefit his political stance. Well, what I’m talking about here is exactly what Rush was talking about on that day. Fox, an ardent supporter of stem cell research, implied in an ad for a democratic candidate that only democrats support stem cell research.

Rush said (I‘m paraphrasing here), “That is not true. It is a lie. Republicans, too, support stem cell research. Fox, and democrats, are trying to tell the people that if they want to find the cures for all these diseases, that they have to vote for a democrat. This is a lie."

And, while Rush could have simply stopped there in making his point, he went on to imply that Fox purposely didn’t take his Parkinson’s medication in order to make his symptoms look worse just so he could get public sympathy.

The media made Rush look like an idiot. (Or, I suppose, Rush made himself look like an idiot. But that’s beside my point.)

One of my friends said, “I knew Rush was an idiot, and now he has proven it to me.”

I said, “How did you learn about what Rush said? Did you learn about because you watched the Rush Limbaugh show? Or, did you learn about it through the media?

“Oh, I watched CBS news last night.”

“Bingo.” I said, “That’s the problem right there. The media hates Rush Limbaugh. Rush is in direct competition with them. The media will do anything in their power to make Rush look bad. And, what better way than to show Rush himself mocking a sick actor.

“What you need to know,” I continued, “Is that the media only showed half of Rush‘s monologue. If they had shown the entire monologue, you might have thought differently of Rush, and you would have seen first hand the point Rush was trying to make. Instead, you only saw what the media wanted you to see.”

“What do you mean.”

“Well, earlier in his monologue Rush quoted Fox saying, “I purposely didn’t take my medication before going before the Senate in order to get sympathy. “ And, Rush said, “If he did this once, who’s to say he didn’t do it again.”

This is where Rush went into his chant about Fox faking his disease. And, because this part made Rush look bad, this is the part the media ran with. Thus, the media twisted his words like onions in a blender.

Had a democrat said something like this, the media never would have shown it. A perfect example is when Rosie O’Donnell claimed the U.S. government was the reason 9-11 happened. If Ann Coulter had said this, it would have been plastered all over the media. But, since what Rosie said supported the point-of-view of the media, it never even made the news -- except for on Rush and the Internet.

Not that I don’t like Rosie, it’s just what she said came to mind here. And, not that Rush needs me to defend him. He has a million more brain cells than I do. And, not that I don’t like Fox, because he’s a hero of mine. Family Ties is my all time favorite sit-com, and the Back to the Future movies were among the best ever.

I know some of my examples here are old news, but the point I wanted to make was that conservatives are not anti-stem cell research, and that conservatives, like liberals and all Americans, want to find cures to the many diseases America faces today, diseases I have to deal with at my work as an RT on a regular basis

Global warming does not cause more bad weather

I was reading this other blog and came across a post the author wrote regarding climate change. She wrote a list of the complications caused by climate change, or a warming planet. I stopped after I read the first one on the list, and came here.

Number one on her list was this: "Warmer temperatures can generate extreme weather and increase natural disasters like Katrina that endanger the food and water supply and disease control."

That's the thing about liberals, is that they are too ready to believe every single new idea that is released by a media outlet that supports the THEORY of global warming. And, since a majority in the media are liberals, there are few attempts to refute these claims, and anyone who does is called a moron, or at least thought to be a moron.

In fact, Hurricane Katrina was a perfect example of this, as after the Hurricane hit George Bush was blamed for it because he didn't do enough to combat global warming.

The National Hurricane Center’s own website notes that the average number of yearly hurricanes per decade has neither increased nor decreased since 1900. Tropicalweather.net makes a similar claim.

Likewise, the greatest spike in this average came in the 1940s during a period of global cooling, and the greatest decrease in the 1990s during a period of global warming.

Or, to put it another way, the average number of major hurricanes (category 3, 4 or 5) per year from 1930 to 1950 was nine. (A period of global cooling was from 1945 to 1970.)

Today the average number of yearly major hurricanes is three.

Furthermore, according to an editorial, "Gore In The Balance," Investor’s Business Daily, September 16, 2005:

"Nor are hurricanes intensifying in strength. According to the United Nations Environment Program of the World Meteorological organization: ’Reliable data... since the 1940s indicate that the peak strength of the strongest hurricanes has not changed, and the mean maximum intensity of all hurricanes has decreased.’"

Likewise, as reported in "Hurricanes aren’t Caused by Global Warming but Political Hot Air Is," H. Sterling Burnett, Human Events, Sept 9, 2005:

"At the 27th annual National Hurricane Conference University of Colorado atmospheric scientist, Dr. William Gray, explained that nature is responsible for hurricane cycles, not humans. Periodically changing ocean circulation patterns, he explained, led to the cycle of increasing hurricane activity that the world is currently experiencing. 2004s above average hurricane season was part of a completely natural and normal cycle that scientists have monitored for more than 100 years. In fact, for about the past 25 years there has been a relative lull in hurricane activity in the U.S."

These are just a few statistics that don't necessarily disprove the theory of global warming (which hasn't been proven yet by the way), but do disprove the theory that warmer temperatures cause bad weather.

It's easy to join the majority and believe every theory that supports the THEORY of global warming, but it takes a wise person to stay open minded and consider the facts.

The democratic party controls the media

While conservatives keep chanting that the media is bias, many liberals continue to chant that conservatives are full of crap; that the media is not bias whatsoever.

Better yet, liberals chant that liberals do not control the media. However evidence going all the way back to 1964 says they do.

According to a survey done at George Washington University in 1981 of 240 journalist on their political attitudes and voting patterns, "The data demonstrated that journalists and broadcasters held liberal positions on a wide range of social and political issues."

As you can see from the chart to the right, on a year by year basis, greater than 80% of journalists supported the democratic party, as compared with fewer than 20% in any given year supporting republican social and political issues.

To view other key findings of this study and other similar studies click here.

A similar study done in 1995 by U.S. News and World Report of White House Correspondents found that of the 57 members of the White House Press core, 50 of them would vote for a democrat, while only seven would vote for a republican.

Studies have shown that in successive presidential elections, a whopping majority of journalists voted for the democratic candidate. For example, 81% of journalists surveyed said they voted for the democratic candidate in every election from 1964 and 1976. And later, 76% of journalists said they voted for Dukakas, and 91% for Bill Clinton in 1992.

Likewise, while 43% of the public voted for Clinton in 1992, 58% of editors voted for him. And, in 1996, 49% of the public supported Clinton, and 57% of editors voted for him. And, as you might have guessed these are only a few of the statistics.

Here are some of the trends from the last election based on a University of Connecticut survey of 200 journalists:

1. More than half of the journalists surveyed (52%) said they voted for Democrat John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election, while fewer than one-fifth (19%) said they voted for Republican George W. Bush. The public chose Bush, 51 to 48 percent.
2. When asked “generally speaking, do you consider yourself a Democrat, Republican, an Independent, or something else?” more than three times as many journalists (33%) said they were Democrats than said they were Republicans (10%).
3. While about half of the journalists said they were “moderate,” 28 percent said they thought of themselves as liberals, compared to just 10 percent who said they were conservative.
4. One out of eight journalists (13%) said they considered themselves “strongly liberal,” compared to just three percent who reported being “strongly conservative,” a four-to-one disparity.
5. When asked about the Bill of Rights, nearly all journalists deemed “essential” the right of a fair trial (97%), a free press (96%), freedom of religion (95%) and free speech (92%), and 80 percent called “essential” the judicially-derived “right to privacy.” But only 25 percent of the journalists termed the “right to own firearms” essential, while 42 percent called that right “important but not essential,” and 31 percent of journalists rejected the Second Amendment as “not important.”

A June 25, 2007 post on MSNBC.com titled, "Journalists dole out cash to politicians (quietly)," reported that "MSNBC.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties."

And, overall, according to the same article, 9 out of 10 times a political contribution is made by those in the news media, it is given to democratic or liberal causes.
Technically speaking, it should not matter that a majority of reporters are liberal, as per the rules of journalism 101, they should be fair and balanced in their reporting, giving an open ear to both sides of the story.

Yet, as is proven on a daily basis, that is not always the case. One prime example is how, even in my local newspaper, I read stories by the Associated Press about global warming where they talk about global warming as though it were a fact not to be disproved.
However, the theory that man is the cause of global warming is disputed, and it is disputed not just by 50% of Americans, but 50% of scientists as well.

Again, I don't care what reporters believe in, all I want from them to report the news as it happens, not try to inculcate their liberal views on my children, and not to twist the views of people they disagree with, which is what they tend to do to conservative thought.

And this is not just my opinion that the media tends to twist conservative thought, as there is a growing number of Americans who are losing faith in the media to report the news fairly and accurately, according to the MSNBC report listed above.

Now, it can be argued that just because most journalists identify themselves with the democratic party doesn't necessarily mean they are all liberals. However, a majority of liberals tend to align themselves with the democratic party. To be fair, some liberals do align with the republican party.

Still, the fact that a majority of journalists align with the democratic party is scary, considering the fear is that they do not represent the other half of the country who do not align with the democratic party.

A 1996 poll by Rassmussenreports.com has noted that 34.5% of Americans align themselves with the republican party, and those who align themselves with the democratic party is 37.3%. Yet at least 80% of journalists align themselves with the democratic party.

I'm confident there are fair journalists out there, but if the news is going to be spun, chances are it will be spun to the left for obvious reasons.

Either way, I've proven here that the democratic party and liberals control the media.

To be continued...

Conservatives are uncaring, idiots, fools & bigots; That's what they'd have you think anyway

Be careful what you read, because they will try to hypnotise you into believing you are a fool. Do not look at the object on the right, as they will try to spin your ideas and beliefs and make people think you are wrong when you are actually right.

You know it and I know it, but they will have you made to be nothing more than an idiot who is too blind to see the truth: that conservatives are blubbering idiots who fail to see the truth.

That is what the liberal campaign has been for the past several years, and, to some extent, they are succeeding in this attempt at shaping the minds of people across the fruited plain. And why not, they have the resources available of which to do this: they own the majority of mainstream media outlets and the schools.

According to most liberals in the media, and most liberals in general, conservatives are anti-stem cell research, anti-gay, racist and bigoted. I’ve seen all of these terms used at one point or another. Conservatives also don't care about the environment, don't want all people to have health care, don't care about a woman's right to chose, are pro-war and anti-peace, arrogant, Hitler-like and the list goes on.

The positions that conservatives take, the comments conservatives make about their positions, are spun by liberal elites and taken out of contexts to convince the general public that conservatives are idiots and liberals are the messiah.

It’s as though any conservative remark is twisted and twirled and chopped like an onion caught up in the blades of a blender at high speed, the resulting product needing to be poured out because it’s a liquid pile of gook.

When a conservative talks about how he is against government funding of FETAL stem cell research, liberals claim that “he is against ALL stem cell research.”

When a conservative talks about being against gay marriage, liberals write, “She is anti-gay.”

When a conservative says he’s against Affirmative action, liberals write, “he is a racist bigot.”

When a conservative says he’s pro life, liberals chant, “He’s against a woman’s right to choose.”

When a conservative charges that she supports the idea of going on offense in the overall War on Terror, it's because she does not want to see world peace, and would prefer to do the opposite and start an unnecessary war, resulting in the killing of millions of innocent civilians and American soldiers.

That conservative support of Israel and conservatives unwillingness to talk with terrorists means again that they are anti peace warmongers; cowboys if you will.

I am here today, and in various posts in the next few weeks, to reassure you that none of these liberal chants are true, and I will tackle each issue one at a time, in a pithy manner, and prove liberals wrong once again.

While the new media is making strong headway in making sure the American people are not mislead by the mainstream media or liberal teachers, there is still a lot of progress to be made.

While the New York Times continues to release articles about how arrogant cowboys who don't care about the planet, new media outlets like Fox News, talk radio, the blogosphere, and making sure that people get all the facts so they can make in informed opinion, rather than absorb the spin from the media as the way it is.

And then, thank God, we have the blogosphere, and that is where you and I fit in. With this new revolution, we now all have a voice. Stay tuned.