Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : THE WHITE HOUSE -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (11606)	11/29/2007 2:46:31 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25737

Global Warming Shakedown Begins By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY \| Posted Tuesday, November 27, 2007 4:20 PM PT Climate Change: Al Gore was smiling like the proverbial cat that ate the canary following his 45-minute talk Monday with President Bush. Does he know something about U.S. global warming policy we don't? We hope that's not the case. The two men refused to talk about details of their conversation. But Bush is preparing for a global conference next week in Bali, Indonesia, and we'd like to think he isn't still swallowing Gore's line about taking drastic action to curb greenhouse gases. "It was a private conversation," Gore said after the meeting. "Of course we talked about global warming . . . the whole time." As news accounts note, Gore was instrumental as vice president in negotiating the 1997 Kyoto Accord. But President Clinton never submitted the treaty to Congress, and Bush has steadfastly opposed costly green mandates in favor of voluntary caps on CO2 emissions. So was Bush just being polite to his one-time political rival? Again, we hope so. But who can be sure in an atmosphere where the nonstop propaganda on global warming has become almost intolerable. Just listen to the United Nations, which released a green-themed Human Development Report just one week before the Bali meeting. "Unless the international community agrees to cut carbon emissions by half over the next generation," the report says (according to Reuters), "climate change is likely to cause large-scale human and economic setbacks and irreversible catastrophes." If that sounds terrifying, it's meant to. But there isn't a shred of science to back it up — only spurious "models" based on an incomplete picture of how nature and the climate work. If you don't believe us, just ask any of the politically hand-picked U.N. scientists who concocted these models if they can tell you, within one degree, what the temperature in your town will be one week from today — or one month. The answer will be no. Yet we're expected to believe they can predict a rise in temperature of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit — or higher — over the next century, unless we take immediate and dramatic action to halt it. By the way, over the last century, the world's climate warmed just 1.3 degrees. Undeterred by the crumbling of the much-touted "scientific consensus," the U.N. is charging ahead, claiming the world has just 10 years to "fix" the climate — or face doomsday. The claims are getting extreme, and bizarrely specific. The headline on one story about the report — "Poor In Need of Help From Global Warming" — sounds like the old joke about the New York Times: "World to End Friday: Women, Children Affected Most." But it's no joke. And why would the U.N. say all this, if it isn't true? In a word, money. The U.N. has bungled virtually every job it's been given — from peacekeeping in Africa to monitoring sanctions on Iraq. As an organization, it's rife with corruption and overpaid bureaucratic time-servers. They need a new mission, which always means American taxpayers will have to reach for their wallets. Which explains why the "Development Report" can claim that floods, droughts and other climate-related disasters "could stall and then reverse human development," robbing millions of food, schools and even shelter — unless, that is, rich nations pony up $86 billion by 2015 to help the poor adapt to global warming. Oh, and by the way, the U.N. says $40 billion of that will have to come from the U.S. Of course, the U.N. will oversee that money. The U.N.'s shrill warnings have reached a hysteric pitch — the equivalent of shrieking "fire" in a packed theater on the theory there might be one in the future. But what's really taking place is a massive shakedown in which our sympathies for the poor are being played while our pockets are being picked. The United Nations should be ashamed of itself.

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (11606)	11/29/2007 2:48:05 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25737

Liar, Liar (Pants On Fire) By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY \| Posted Wednesday, November 28, 2007 4:20 PM PT Politics: Hoping to improve his co-president's chances in Iowa, Slick Willie says he was against Iraq from the beginning. So just who signed the Iraq Liberation Act? Millard Fillmore? Speaking in Muscatine, Iowa, on Tuesday, William Jefferson Clinton uttered perhaps the mother of all falsehoods when he tried to explain that wealthy people such as himself should pay more taxes in time of war. Rewriting history, Clinton said: "Even though I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning, I still resent that I was not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers." First, let us repeat our observation that if wealthy liberals feel they are undertaxed, they are free to write a check to the U.S. Treasury at any time. But opposed to Iraq from the beginning? Perhaps he forgets that, with co-president Hillary at his side, he signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998. That law made it the official policy of the United States "to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace the regime." Jay Carson, a spokesman for the Clintons, says Bill didn't mean military action necessarily: "As he said from the beginning and many times since, President Clinton disagreed with taking the country to war in Iraq without allowing the weapons inspectors to finish their jobs." Are these the same inspectors that Saddam Hussein kicked out of Iraq in 1998, months before Bill Clinton launched air strikes against Iraq designed to take out Saddam's allegedly nonexistent WMD facilities? Explaining the air strikes to the nation in December 1998, Clinton said: "Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors." Clinton added: "Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly . . . . The international community had little doubt then, and I have little doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use those terrible weapons again." On July 22, 2003, Clinton called in to the Larry King Show to congratulate Bob Dole on his 80th birthday. When King asked him about Iraq, Clinton responded: "Let me tell you what I know. When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes, and that was a lot. "And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in. And this time if you don't cooperate, the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions." Which is exactly what President Bush did. U.N. Resolution 1441 was the 17th and last in a series demanding that Saddam behave and the one that ordered Saddam to make a "full accounting of his WMD program and to cooperate with inspectors" or there would be "serious consequences." Saddam didn't and there were. Bill Clinton supported both military action against Iraq and regime change from the beginning. The Clintons better start telling the truth or there will be serious consequences at the ballot box.