Settled Science = Oxymoron

Progressive Liberals like to say that man made global warming is "settled science."  "Settled science" is an oxymoron. Scientific theory is always open to change due to new experimental results. Global Warming's scientific foundation is rotten to the core. The raw, unadjusted, data supporting the initial "hockey stick" graph of global temperature was "accidentally" erased. Only the "adjusted" data remains. This is the scientific equivalent of the dog ate my homework. Models predicting global warming have a uniformly dismal record in predicting future temperature averages in the real world. Global Warming is a cult, not a scientific result.

Remember that the original climate hockey stick work depended on raw data that was "accidentally" erased. To this ignorant red neck, that sounds like the scientific equivalent of the dog ate my homework. As someone with a little bit of statistics training, I have always been amazed that climate scientists are willing to use less than 150 years of rigorous temperature records and proxies for earlier observations to predict temperature patterns that unfold over thousands and tens of thousands of years. For just one example, look up the patterns of Lake Missoula glacial floods over time. During a 2000 year period between 15,000 and 13,000 years ago, ice dams would build up a huge amount of water, then burst. Geological evidence indicates that this happened at least 25 times. Missoula is a town of about 45,000 people today. There is no lake. (I used to live in Missoula.) It's clear that temperatures varied widely over the period of time before man was a factor. Anthropomorphic global warming has always struck me as extreme hubris. 

Mean Greens want to prohibit the use of petroleum products and natural gas.  However, we can't go back to whale oil lamps, as you might suggest, because we have to save the whales. Animal tallow lamps offend animal rights folks in PETA, so they are out. I think the only solution is a banner I saw on a college dorm window years ago. It said, "US OUT of North America."

Orwell's New Speak Becomes Progressive New Read

Orwell's New Speak seems to have been augmented with New Read with regard to the Constitution. Using New Read, "choice" is absolutely part of a Constitutional Right to Privacy even though the words "right to privacy" are not written into the physical document. However, freedom of speech and the press, as well as the right to bear arms, are virtual. They appear to be there in the written document, but using New Read they disappear. 

Obama Wants to Govern Like It's 1649

George Washington has universal approval because he refused to be crowned as a king or dictator with emergency powers for life.  He believed the central government had to be strong enough to defend the country, but he believed in limits to power.  Washington, like all of the founders, believed in checks and balances.  The One We All Were Waiting For, by contrast, wants to be a king or dictator.  Like Charles I of England, our Dear Leader wants to rule by decree without having to get anything past the legislature, as his constant unilateral revisions of Obamacare “settled law” demonstrate. Progressive condescension conceals their ignorance of history, specifically the history of England from 1600 to 1789 that informed the drafters of the Constitution. The antics of Charles I (1600-1649) and his son James II (1633-1701) lead to the English Civil War (1646-1651) and later to the overthrow of James II in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The idea that government exists by the consent of the governed was first advanced by John Locke in 1688 in reaction to James II's claim to be king by divine right. Charles I and James II both had a habit of ignoring or bending the laws. This history lead to the Constitutional provision that the president "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." The Community Organizer in Chief has a habit of revising the laws by decree to suit himself, which undermines the rule of law. Since Progressive Liberals, like the author of this article, find little intellectual content in Conservative thought, it's likely they have no knowledge of this relevant history and are in favor of repeating it. I guess they have the benefit of a Progressive Liberal education. But I'm just an ignorant red neck, so don't mind me.

To me, the Community Organizer in Chief. looks like Charles I of England (1600 - 1649). Charles tried to rule without Parliament for 11 years. Our Dear Leader is talking about using his pen and phone to rule by decree. Charles thought he should be an absolute monarch by divine right. This is quite similar to the thoughts of The One We Weren't Really Waiting For. The Constitutional Professor in Chief believes he can grant exemptions to any law at any time, like refusing to collect Obamacare employer mandate taxes or the ordering the enforcement of the Dream Act for illegal aliens brought here as children after it failed to pass Congress. I believe we can solve our problems with the Smartest President Ever without following the historical pattern of Charles I. Charles' insistence on absolute power lead to the English Civil War. Charles I lost the Civil War he initiated by trying to arrest 5 members of Parliament on the floor of the house. Oliver Cromwell became a military dictator and executed Charles. We have the next 2 elections to fix the problem. It's important we give it our best shot to win these elections.

Article I was reacting to: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/02/17/3297131/george-washington-tea-partys-worst-nightmare/

Liberal Motives For Increased Minimum Wage

Increasing the minimum wage helps unions who negotiate their pay based on a percentage over the minimum wage. It also means that 2 unskilled workers become too expensive to compete with one skilled (union) worker. Finally, by eliminating most of the low wage chances to learn how to get and keep a job, it increases dependency on government and makes it cheaper and easier for Democrats to buy votes with taxpayer money. So Liberals sell it as a "living wage" when actually it suppresses employment, which is what they want. Progressives are now saying that Obamacare suppressing employment is a good thing. They finally came out of the closet on this.