This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands,–
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.
-William Shakespeare, King Richard II, Act 2 scene 1
Liberty is all but lost in Britain, but the people make the fullest possible use of the little they still have: sexual freedom (a majority of children are now born to unmarried mothers), and the freedom to drink themselves sick.
Now we at The Atheist Conservative are libertarians, not prudes. It’s not the drinking of alcohol or extra-marital sex that we deplore, but the decadence of a nation whose recent ancestors governed – and governed well for the most part, in our opinion – the greatest Empire in the history of the world. (Our sympathies are with the Americans, however, in their revolution.)
This is how young Britons ‘saw in’ the freezing New Year a month ago, reported by the MailOnline. This England is a tawdry region on the western edge of the socialist European Union.
Binge-drinking revellers fuelled a chaotic start to 2008 as over-stretched ambulance workers battled to cope with emergency calls flooding in at a peak of one every eight seconds.
In the capital alone the London Ambulance Service had to deal with its highest number of emergency calls since the Millennium – the majority related to excess alcohol.
As midnight came and went there was mayhem as scores of drunken partygoers around the country tumbled into the streets, some wearing little more than their underwear.
Fights erupted and a string of dishevelled young men and women collapsed on benches and in doorways, too inebriated to remember or care that the night was supposed to be a celebration.
There to mop up the mess were thousands of emergency workers drafted in to provide cover on the busiest night of the year.
In the first four hours of 2008, London Ambulance Service (LAS) dealt with an astonishing 1,825 calls alone, peaking at over 500 calls an hour between 2am and 4am….
Meanwhile in the West Midlands the ambulance service fielded 1,400 calls in just five hours – a rate of one every 12 seconds. It was mirrored by the North East Ambulance Service which received 1,860 calls between 11pm and 5am.
Last night the astonishing number of calls to deal with booze-fuelled illness or injury prompted accusations that lives of those in real emergencies were being put at risk and demands for partygoers to wake up the costs of binge-drinking.
LAS spokeswoman Gemma Gidley said: “These calls put the Service under increased pressure to manage demand when we have to ensure we respond quickly to other patients with potentially life-threatening emergencies.
“People need to think about the real consequences of drinking so much that they require treatment.”
In the south, the South Central Ambulance Service dealt with three times more incidents that normal.
Control room duty manager Michele Foot said: “I think we should start charging people for the drink related stuff – it’s most self inflicted.” [The tax-payer paid for all the hospital treatment the drunks were given by the National Health Service - JB]
In some areas special temporary treatment sites were set up to cope, paramedics set out on foot in busy city centres and volunteers from the St John Ambulance Service and Red Cross were drafted in.
Alternative transport was arranged for drunken revellers to take the strain off ambulances.
Hundreds of arrests were made by police for public order offences, as well as violence and sex and drug-related crime.
Riot vans parked in city centres prepared to deal with the inevitable fall out of a night of excess….
In Birmingham a group of friend bragged they would be “crawling” by the end of the night.
In Newcastle, in scenes mirrored everywhere, a young woman – shoeless and seemingly very much the worse for wear – had to be aided by paramedics while nearby a well-built man lay face down in the street after being set upon by four other men.
“This is going to be a long night,” said one weary paramedic, confiding: “We will spend all night picking up people who are too drunk to walk and people who got into fights.”
Everywhere revellers who had lost all their inhibitions were happy to brag about their drinking exploits.
Sisters Sarah and Teri Crame, both dancers, wore burlesque outfits better-suited to the boudoir as they strutted through the rain-soaked street.
“We’ve been drinking since about seven,” said Teri. “We’re both wrecked and loving it. Mixing our drinks always leads to trouble – we’ve had wine, lager and vodka tonight.”
In Cardiff a group of young women, who would have been well-advised to cover up, tottered along in nothing more than heels and white underwear. …
Bearing the brunt of the chaos, Paramedic Martyn Sullivan said: “We’ve had a lot of drunken calls and a lot of assault. I’ve been threatened myself tonight.”
In Bristol, a young woman wearing a tiny black dress despite the elements slumped on the floor as a friend, laughing, spent five minutes trying to lift her.
Meanwhile a semi-naked man argued with police and other partygoers vomited over railings into the river.
Fights broke out long before midnight and continued into the small hours.
In Slough, Berkshire a crowd of drunken teenagers was involved in a punch up which ended with a 17-year-old boy being stabbed in the chest. Another person was stabbed in Woking, Surrey after a mass brawl.
In Hampshire every custody centre in the county was full. …
Go to the article to see the pictures.
And here are some more in the Mail.
And here are some in the Sun.
It looks very much as if the Conservative Party (the Tories) will be returned to power in this year’s general election under the leadership of David Cameron.
It will not be a big change. Such differences as there are between Cameron’s Conservatives and Brown’s (or Blair’s) New Labour socialists are small and few. The Conservative Party of today bears little resemblance to that of Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher.
Our British editor, Sam Westrop, has posted two articles in which he expresses his disappointment with the character and behavior of several people who may well be future leaders of the Conservative Party, not this year but in a few years from now.
While this is chiefly of interest to our British readers, it does give Americans a glimpse into what is happening in the political arena over there.
The only Party which could make a difference if it came to power is the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), which wants above all to detach Britain from the undemocratic, politically-correct, incorrigibly collectivist European Union (EU), governed by ukase from Brussels. But although UKIP might win some seats in Parliament, it cannot hope to become a governing majority.
The greatest threat to the nation is Islamization, but no political party is willing to tackle it, or even talk about it above a low murmur, except the British National Party (BNP), which is neo-Nazi (and not so very neo). The refusal of both the major parties, the Conservatives and New Labour, to formulate policies that might deal effectively with it, is driving many voters into the arms of the BNP.
The result is highly likely to be civil strife, violent and bloody.
Last week, posted at The Atheist Conservative, decrying the existence of Conservative Party members who choose to realise the (usually false) stereotype peddled by the Left – that of the uncaring, vain, white-bread, poor-hating, out-of-touch, arrogant, vulgar, sherry-swilling Conservative party member.
While there is certainly nothing wrong with sherry, it became apparent to me that on the night that the article described, there were a few individuals who choose to fulfil the afore-mentioned image and believed that sherry helped complete the picture. If they must act so boorishly, must they really draw upon such a wonderful fortified wine to do so?
The event was an annual reunion of Conservatives from around the country. The event has in the last few years been punctuated with screaming, shouting, spewing of Monday Club ideals, heavy drinking and the throwing of Brussels sprouts. [The Monday Club is a right-wing Conservative Party pressure group.]
Mere minutes after the article was posted, the accused persons spouted furious tirades through the frantic exchange of phone calls, texts and that tiresome tool known as Facebook.
Furthermore, I received a politely worded message from one attendee of the event. Duncan Flynn informed me that my article was “highly libellous” while at the same time conceding that: “you are entitled to your opinion.” A lawyer by profession (albeit I believe currently unemployed), he wondered if I had the “decency to apologise”. I replied that of course I would apologise if anything I had said was factually incorrect; I have received no reply as of yet.
What was much more heartening was the large number of messages, sent to me through many mediums, that wholeheartedly agreed with me and proclaimed the existence of such persons as a blight on the Conservative Party. These words were sent from local Tories, national Tories, ex-Tories, and even from some very un-Toryish folks in the US.
One such message however, while agreeing that the particular people mentioned were nuisances, did question whether or not my article, entitled ‘Another Reason I will not be Voting Conservative’, was giving a relatively unimportant incident too much publicity. Why, the message read, did the article not provide reasons that explained much more cogently my misgivings regarding Cameron’s Conservatives?
This is, of course, a very fair point. I might have tried instead to pen an article that laments, for example, Mr Cameron’s success at letting the Conservatives become yet another social democratic party.
I have no doubt that author raised a justified point, and it makes one wonder whether my article was somewhat superficial. I must reply: yes! – It was very superficial; incredibly superficial; monstrously superficial.
There are powerful reasons for advocating close examination of such people. It is partly a manifestation of contending with three very similar political parties that perhaps cause the voter to examine the idiosyncrasies of political figures to determine their choice of vote. However, the much more important reason is that, at least for me, the persons I met in that inn were most certainly not representative of the entire Conservative Party; but they are certainly the most loud and the most visible.
I am a Conservative at heart, a slightly apprehensive one at present, but a Conservative nonetheless. I do not want such people to plague the party with which I have some connection and I do not want such people to despoil politics any further. It is sad yet laughable that they then admit their vulgarity and follies by frantically and angrily protesting, and then set about plotting a response to the accounts of their behaviour.
It would be wonderful to be part of a political party that only contains politicians of integrity – politicians that hold office because of worthy reward; rather than career politicians who still seek to desperately re-live their university days and who possess no abilities or experience that would make them good politicians.
This superficial inspection of our politicians-to-be is exceptionally important – these are persons who will lead our country and, in these big-government days, run our lives.
And so should I now refrain from naming those who were involved? Have their names been not mentioned enough times? Can I resist the urge to state such names again? Yes! – yes I can; but I simply choose not to:
Now that the global warming scam has been blown wide open, those responsible for perpetrating it should meet with condign punishment. Michael Mann of the hockey-stick-graph fraud; Al Gore, profiteer from the sale of carbon indulgences; Phil Jones who conned donors into giving him more than $20 million in grants to pursue his alchemy: on the necks of these and all the others who would have impoverished us and subjected us to collective misery on the ludicrous pretext that the earth is burning up, may the sword of justice fall!
It’s a wish that just may come true.
James Delingpole writes in the Telegraph:
Dr Phil Jones – the (suspended) head of the Prince of Wales’s favourite AGW-promotion institution the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia – had a narrow squeak the other day. Though the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) found his department in breach of Freedom of Information laws (Jones and his team had deliberately withheld or conspired to destroy data), Jones was able to escape prosecution on a technicality.
Next time, he may not be so lucky. Our friend John O’Sullivan at Climategate.com has been looking closely at the Climategate emails and reckons there is still a very strong case for a criminal prosecution, which could see Dr Jones facing ten years on fraud charges.
John O’Sullivan argues (at length, in an article well worth reading in full):
Yesterday the London Times broke the latest news on the fate of disgraced British climatologist Phil Jones, of the University of East Anglia (UEA). Jones breached the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming. The Times reports that the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) decided that the UEA failed in its duties under the Act but said that it could not prosecute those involved because the complaint was made too late. …
What is not being intelligently reported is that Jones is still liable as lead conspirator in the UK’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and may face prosecution under the United Kingdom Fraud Act (2006). If convicted of the offense of fraud by either false representation, failing to disclose information or fraud by abuse of his position, he stands liable to a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment.
And in this article Delingpole reports how happy that would make him and one professor of Biogeography:
A mighty outpouring of rage today from [Professor] Philip Stott, foaming with righteous indignation, on the life and imminent death of the AGW scam.
Part of him is naturally enthralled:
“… as an independent academic, it has been fascinating to witness the classical collapse of a Grand Narrative, in which social and philosophical theories are being played out before our gaze. It is like watching the Berlin Wall being torn down, concrete slab by concrete slab, brick by brick, with cracks appearing and widening daily on every face – political, economic, and scientific.” …
But his overwhelming mood is one of white-hot fury at the way so many of his fellow scientists have colluded in this nauseating conspiracy:
“And what can one say about ‘the science’? ‘The ‘science’ is already paying dearly for its abuse of freedom of information, for unacceptable cronyism, for unwonted arrogance, and for the disgraceful misuse of data at every level, from temperature measurements to glaciers to the Amazon rain forest. What is worse, the usurping of the scientific method, and of justified scientific scepticism, by political policies and political propaganda could well damage science … in the public eye for decades… ”
I’m in no mood for being magnanimous in victory. I want the lying, cheating, fraudulent scientists prosecuted and fined or imprisoned. I want warmist politicians like [Prime Minister] Brown and disgusting [Foreign Secretary] Miliband booted out and I want Conservative fellow-travellers who are still pushing this green con trick … to be punished at the polls for their culpable idiocy.
Yet another revelation about the bad science behind the IPCC report on global warming. They’re coming thick and fast now.
From Canada Free Press, by Barry Napier:
IPCC [the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] Again Shown to Be Liars!
This is the fourth exposé of IPCC lies and deception to emerge in the past two weeks. This time the lies are documented in a scientific paper, issued 27th January, 2010 (‘Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception?’ by Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts, in the SPPI Original Paper series. Copies from the Science and Public Policy Institute).
The incriminating paper shows how the IPCC eliminated GHCN [Global Historical Climatology Network] weather recording stations, starting in 1990. In the 1970s there were more than 6000 GHCN stations that helped to give average temperatures. In 1990 the IPCC dropped all but 1500 of these stations. Therefore, the same method of calculation was used even though the number of stations providing measurements fell to less than one quarter of all stations. This is one reason why the Russians warned the figures were fake. …
It is a simple fact that if the number of measurements went down by three quarters, then the size of anomalies must grow with it. That is, the areas covered by the remaining stations must be huge, with many variables in between.
But that is only the start. The IPCC then based their fake figures on stations that were mainly sited in the USA, and in places affected badly by urban heating! If that isn’t fakery, then what is?
There is plenty of evidence that urban heating is a very real problem when calculating actual temperatures. It is impossible to provide actual temperatures for urban heating areas, because one would have to also provide a very wide adjustment value, which would make measurements useless. But, the IPCC was desperate to convince us that big global warming was a reality. So, they literally cooked the books.
You will have to read the paper for yourselves, because it is 111 pages long – but it is an eye-opener. On its fourth page, there is the claim that instrument data has been “widely, systematically… tampered with (so that) it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant ‘global warming’ in the 20th century”. …
As for the oceans: “data are missing and uncertainties are substantial. Comprehensive coverage has only been available since 2003, and shows no warming.” From 2003 to now is a ‘nothing’ time scale in which to claim warming of the seas! I think you will find that any reports that claim such warming are either written as second-source articles by gullible scientists who accept prejudiced first-reports, or by greeny activists, not by genuine oceanologists.
Though the IPCC claims the CRU was only one of many sources on which it based its 2007 report, this is shown to be a lie: “NOAA [National Oceanic and Athmospheric Administration - the US national weather service] and NASA [National Aeronautics and Space Administration], along with CRU [ Climatic Research Unit in Britian], were the driving forces behind the systematic hyping of 20th century ‘global warming’. “ The CRU, then, was a major source, not just one of many. And we now know the CRU was involved in fraud and lies.
“Changes have been made to alter the historic record to mask cyclical changes that could be readily explained by natural factors like multidecadal ocean and solar changes.” Lies and more lies based on a deliberate alteration of data! As we keep saying – what we see today is consistent with natural cyclical patterns, with a few extremes thrown in… but all are natural. CO2 has nothing to do with it!
“Global terrestrial data bases are seriously flawed and can no longer be trusted to assess climate trends or validate model forecasts.” The paper calls for an independent assessment undertaken by scientists who have “no vested interest in the outcome of evaluations.” The last of 15 summaries is that the IPCC and the US GCRP/CCSP [Global Change Research Program/Climate Change Science Program] require a “full investigation and audit” of their data.
So, we challenge all greenies and supporters of global warming to justify their stance! The data are corrupt; the IPCC has lied; governments are ruining their countries and paying out vast sums to Third World countries over a deception!
I repeat my legitimate question – how many more Climategates will it take to shut down global warming, climate change and CO2 frauds? How much longer will pro-greens continue to support climate change theories? And when will you at last oppose governments who want to strip you of every cent in your pocket, because of these climate frauds? Obama and Gordon Brown are driving hard to bring about huge changes to the USA because of fake climate change ideas. This has nothing to do with your well-being – it is to do with their Marxist ideals and your demise as free people.
Footnote February 1, 2010: It turns out that the scare over the Amazon rainforest was based on a false report too. Read about it here.
Here’s more on the great global warming scam. This is about the flimsiness of evidence and the sloppiness of the scientists who are responsible for assessing it.
From the Telegraph:
The United Nations’ expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world’s mountain tops on a student’s dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.
The revelation will cause fresh embarrassment for the The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which had to issue a humiliating apology earlier this month over inaccurate statements about global warming.
The IPCC’s remit is to provide an authoritative assessment of scientific evidence on climate change.
In its most recent report, it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information.
However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.
The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master’s degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.
The revelations … raised fresh questions about the quality of the information contained in the report, which was published in 2007.
It comes after officials for the panel were forced earlier this month to retract inaccurate claims in the IPCC’s report about the melting of Himalayan glaciers. …
Professor Richard Tol, one of the report’s authors who is based at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin, Ireland, said: “These are essentially a collection of anecdotes.
“Why did they do this? It is … illustrative of how sloppy Working Group Two (the panel of experts within the IPCC responsible for drawing up this section of the report) has been… what they claim is complete nonsense.”
The IPCC report, which is published every six years, is used by government’s worldwide to inform policy decisions that affect billions of people.
The claims about disappearing mountain ice were contained within a table entitled “Selected observed effects due to changes in the cryosphere produced by warming”. It states that reductions in mountain ice have been observed from the loss of ice climbs in the Andes, Alps and in Africa between 1900 and 2000.
The report also states that the section is intended to “assess studies that have been published since the TAR (Third Assessment Report) of observed changes and their effects”.
But neither the dissertation or the magazine article cited as sources for this information were ever subject to the rigorous scientific review process that research published in scientific journals must undergo.
The magazine article, which was written by Mark Bowen, a climber and author of two books on climate change, appeared in Climbing magazine in 2002. It quoted anecdotal evidence from climbers of retreating glaciers and the loss of ice from climbs since the 1970s. …
The dissertation paper, written by professional mountain guide and climate change campaigner Dario-Andri Schworer while he was studying for a geography degree, quotes observations from interviews with around 80 mountain guides in the Bernina region of the Swiss Alps.
Experts claim that loss of ice climbs are a poor indicator of a reduction in mountain ice as climbers can knock ice down and damage ice falls with their axes and crampons…
Who would have thought it? Osama bin Laden has a better understanding of what a ‘green economy’ would do for the United States than Obama and the Democrats.
The world’s terrorist-in-chief is all for intensifying the hysteria over climate change, and he ardently urges that draconian measures be taken to reduce ‘man-made global warming’, because he clearly sees it is a sure way to destroy American wealth and power.
From Investor’s Business Daily:
In the Obama worldview, fighting climate change will “finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.”
In the Osama worldview, it will “bring the wheels of the American economy” to a halt.
The president spoke those words to Congress last week during his State of the Union message; the head of al-Qaida was delivering his latest rant for broadcast to his followers.
The president and the Democrats running Congress fail to see the dangers that environmentalist extremism poses to the U.S.
But bin Laden has concluded it is a powerful weapon that can destroy us.
The Saudi-born patriarch of Islamist terrorism, from whatever cave he currently calls home, devoted his entire latest audiotape message to global warming. “Talk about climate change is not an ideological luxury but a reality,” bin Laden declared. “All of the industrialized countries, especially the big ones, bear responsibility for the global warming crisis.” …
Environmentalist extremism has made the leap from a politically-correct fetish of leftist utopians who resent capitalists to an economic weapon highly recommended by America’s international Public Enemy No.1. …
Among the corrupt hypocritical bleeding-heart lefties who like to live high and party up there at the tax-payer’s expense, is Drinker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
From Judicial Watch:
Last year, Judicial Watch made big news by exposing Nancy Pelosi’s boorish demands for military travel. According to the internal DOD correspondence we uncovered the Speaker has been treating the U.S. Air Force as her own personal airline. And not only was her staff demanding, arrogant and rude, but the Speaker cost taxpayers a lot of money by making last minute cancellations and changes to the itinerary.
This week, Judicial Watch obtained documents from the Air Force that shed a bit more light on this ugly story.
According to the documents, which we obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the Speaker’s military travel cost the Air Force $2,100,744.59 over a two-year period — $101,429.14 for in-flight expenses, including food and alcohol. (Lots and lots of alcohol.) The following are highlights from the recent release of about 2,000 documents …
Speaker Pelosi used Air Force aircraft to travel back to her district at an average cost of $28,210.51 per flight. The average cost of an international congressional delegation (CODEL) is $228,563.33. Of the 103 Pelosi-led CODELs, 31 trips included members of the House Speaker’s family.
One CODEL traveling from Washington, D.C. through Tel Aviv, Israel to Baghdad, Iraq from May 15-20, 2008, “to discuss matters of mutual concern with government leaders” included members of Congress and their spouses and cost $17,931 per hour in aircraft alone. Purchases for the CODEL included: Johnny Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Bailey’s Irish Crème, Maker’s Mark whiskey, Courvoisier cognac, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewars scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin, Jack Daniels whiskey, Corona beer and several bottles of wine.
According to a “Memo for Record” from a CODEL March 29 – April 7, 2007, that involved a stop in Israel, “CODEL could only bring Kosher items into the Hotel. Kosher alcohol for mixing beverages in the Delegation room was purchased on the local economy i.e. Bourbon, Whiskey, Scotch, Vodka, Gin, Triple Sec, Tequila, etc.”
The Department of Defense advanced a CODEL of 56 members of Congress and staff $60,000 to travel to Louisiana and Mississippi July 19-22, 2008, to “view flood relief advances from Hurricane Katrina.” The three-day trip cost the U.S. Air Force $65,505.46, exceeding authorized funding by $5,505.46. ..
At the heart of the issue of corruption, is a sense of entitlement on the part of our elected officials. Nancy Pelosi clearly believes she deserves special treatment at taxpayer expense. This message comes across loud and clear in the disrespect she has demonstrated towards the U.S. Air Force and the American taxpayer.
The food police, led by First Busybody Michelle Obama, are on the warpath.
Why can’t these obominable people mind their own business? Medium-sized people as we are, we libertarians of this website stand in solidarity (as the left would say) with our large-sized fellow citizens against these interfering bossieboots.
U.S. health officials have leveraged the star power of first lady Michelle Obama to roll out a new campaign against obesity, a preventable condition that drains billions of dollars from the economy.
Could someone explain to us how on earth obesity, or for that matter any other condition of the human body, can ‘drain billions of dollars from the economy’?
If there was a nationalized health service in America the government would be sure to claim the right to interfere with what and how much people eat – Fat Panels alongside the Death Panels - but as there is no such thing at least for the present, neither the government nor its henchwomen have any excuse to monitor and complain about individual choices even if they affect those individuals’ health.
[Michelle] Obama, who plans to take on childhood obesity as a cause, headlined the launch on Thursday of Surgeon General Regina Benjamin’s blueprint for what can be done at home, school and work to reverse the epidemic.
Hasn’t the First Busybody got anything better to do? Actually no, probably not.
In her first initiative since becoming “America’s doctor,” Benjamin issued a report on the consequences of obesity to start a national dialogue on the subject.
“The number of Americans, like me, who are struggling with their weight and health conditions related to their weight remains much too high,” she said.
Benjamin’s report lists recommendations for preventing obesity. They range from simply eating more fruit and vegetables to adding “high-quality physical education” in schools and bringing more supermarkets to low-income communities.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said at the launch that the Obama administration was investing $650 million in economic stimulus money in wellness and prevention programs aimed at obesity and stopping smoking.
Ah, now we see! So the government is going to waste hundreds of millions of tax-payer’s money on this busybodying in order to claim the right to interfere? Waste the money and then accuse those they’re interfering with of being the wasters?
She introduced the first lady as “everyone’s favorite vegetable gardener.”
Charmingly sycophantic. But – everyone’s? Not ours! And wasn’t there something about the soil in the White House garden being too full of chemicals to grow edible vegetables? If so, it’s gone down the official memory hole.
[Michelle] Obama, who created a White House garden with local school children, said the solution to the obesity epidemic cannot come from government alone. Everyone has to be willing to do their part to end the public health crisis.
Here it is – the community organizing. The mind of the collectivist at work. ‘Don’t make me alone bear this burden of ordering the lives of 300 million people – be kind enough to share it with me by co-operating.’ That, in coy terms, is what happened in China when Mao launched the Cultural Revolution.
“This will not be easy and it won’t happen overnight. And it won’t happen simply because the first lady has made it her priority,” Obama told an audience of children’s advocates [?] at a recreation center in Alexandria, outside Washington.
“It’s going to take all of us. Thank God it’s not going to be solely up to me.”
The United States spends nearly $150 billion a year on obesity and related complications — twice what it cost in 1998 and more than every cancer cost put together, Sebelius said.
Note - in their minds it is the ‘United States’ that spends this money.
Perhaps the First Busybody, obviously having too much time on her hands, could use some of it to learn some basic Economics.
“The unhealthier we are as a nation, the more our health care costs will continue to rise and the less competitive we will be globally,” she said.
Good grief! What a silly woman!
He lies! 1
President Obama has no respect for the truth.
John Ellis has posted a long list of his lies at Front Page.
And Erick Erickson provides a list of lobbyists who are serving in his administration even as Obama continues to claim falsely that he’s ‘excluded lobbyists from policy-making jobs or seats on federal boards and commissions’.
Obama is not merely an occasional liar as politicians tend to be. He apparently lies as a matter of habit, and with such conviction that he probably believes his own whoppers as he tells them. This characteristic dishonesty is one of the many facts about him that make him unfit for the office he holds.
Now Hans von Spakovsky, who has served on the Federal Election Commission, writes at The Foundry of the Heritage Foundation:
The two claims President Obama made [in his State of the Union speech] about the Court’s decision … in the Citizens United case are categorically and undeniably false.
President Obama claimed that the Supreme Court had “reversed a century of law to open the floodgates – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections.” Justice Alito seemed to shake his head and mouth the words “not true.” And well he should. …
First of all, the 100-year claim is completely wrong. In 1907, Congress passed the Tillman Act that banned direct contributions by corporations to federal candidates – there was no ban on independent political expenditures in the law. “Contributions” are funds given directly to candidates for their election campaigns; independent expenditures are funds spent by third parties on things like political advertisements without any coordination with the candidate.
The Tillman Act was sponsored by South Carolina Senator Ben “Pitchfork” Tillman, probably the most vicious racist to ever serve in Congress. Tillman was a Democratic segregationist who was chiefly responsible for the imposition of Jim Crow in South Carolina after the end of Reconstruction when he was governor. This federal law, that so-called “progressives” like the President are constantly praising, was intended by Tillman to hurt the Republican Party – the party of abolition and Abraham Lincoln – because many corporations contributed to the Republican Party, not the Democratic Party. These corporations did not like segregation in the South – it cost them money and made it more expensive to sell their goods and services.
Congress did not ban independent political expenditures by corporations and labor unions until 1947. For three decades after the passage of that law, the Supreme Court went out of its way to avoid upholding its constitutionality, and the Court actually struck down a separate ban on independent expenditures … It was not until 1990 in the Austin case that the Court, in a 5-4 decision, upheld a state ban on independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation (a trade association) in a case completely at odds with prior precedent. The actual electioneering communications provision at issue in the Citizens United case was part of the McCain-Feingold amendments to federal campaign finance law in 2002. …
While the Supreme Court in Citizens United found that the corporate ban on independent political expenditures is unconstitutional, it did not touch the ban on direct contributions to federal candidates. That is the ban that represents “a century of law” and it remains in force today contrary to the President’s assertion.
The President’s second point about those evil foreign corporations is also totally wrong. … It is simply not true that Citizens United freed foreign corporations to make independent expenditures in American elections… Under current law, there are multiple layers of protection to prevent foreign influence on our elections. …
Foreign corporations are prohibited from participating in American elections. But their domestic subsidiaries that are American companies, employ American workers, have American officers, and pay American taxes, are able to participate in the American election process to the same extent as other U.S. companies as long as all of the money and all of the decisions are American. …
The Citizens United decision did not even consider this ban on foreign nationals.
So the President was completely out-of-line when he made the claim that foreign corporations would be able to spend without limit in our elections, a claim that seems to have become a talking point for critics of the Supreme Court’s decision.
The President should know better than to make these false claims. After all, he taught a voting rights class at the University of Chicago that loosely covered campaign finance law, and his new White House counsel is Bob Bauer, probably the leading Democratic campaign finance lawyer in Washington. Bauer even wrote one of the only books that exists explaining the nuts and bolts of federal campaign finance law.
The President owes Justice Alito and the other justices of the Supreme Court an apology for completely mischaracterizing their opinion, an opinion that helped restore the full protections of the First Amendment. It was a decision that upheld some of our most basic principles, principles about the freedom to engage in political speech that are incorporated into the Constitution, a document that the critics of this decision seem all to willing to ignore when its requirements don’t fit their political objectives.