Limited Government is the Key

Much of the media focused it's coverage of the protests on Sept. 12th on a minority of outliers who were ignorant or racist. The most important message we should be giving the president is the people's belief in freedom. Freedom means all choices are available. The current government is taking away our choices and our freedom. All reasonable people need to be upset about the spread of government into our lives. Below are some related links.

Limited Government Links
"In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control."
http://principlesofafreesociety.com/

"The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law."
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/

Tea Party Express Takes Washington By Storm - Political News - FOXNews.com

Tea Party Express Takes Washington By Storm - Political News - FOXNews.com

Posted using ShareThis

Global Warming Hoax

Monckton Testimony Before US House Committee

By Bob Ferguson, SPPI

On March 25th, Christopher Monckton gave testimony before the US House Committee on Energy and Commerce. That testimony gave rise to a letter to both Democrat Ed Markey and Republican Joe Barton, members of the committee. The letter has been formatted and posted at SPPI here.

As context, the Committee held a hearing on the desirability of, and opportunities for, adapting to anthropogenic “global warming”. Congressman Joe Barton introduced Monckton to the Committee as “the world’s most knowledgeable climate skeptic.” His opening statement concentrated on three scientific graphs and an economic graph. The scientific graphs (each featured in SPPI’s Monthly CO2 Report, showed that global temperature had been falling for seven years; that CO2 concentration had been rising at about half the UN’s central estimate, requiring its warming projections to be halved and rendering them harmless; and that 20 years of satellite observations of changes in outgoing long-wave radiation had demonstrated conclusively that the UN had exaggerated the effect of CO2 on temperature by a factor of 7-10. The economic graph showed the cost of adapting to “global warming” (if and when it resumed) as being many times cheaper than the cost of attempting to mitigate it.

These graphs aroused considerable interest. Provoked by Congressman Markey’s alarm at hearing real science, Mr. Tom Karl, the Director of the US National Climatic Data Center, a Democrat witness, disputed the temperature graph on the insubstantial ground that Monckton had compiled it by inappropriately combining two satellite and two surface temperature datasets; disputed the CO2 graph on the ground that carbon emissions were rising far faster than the UN had predicted; and disputed the satellite data on outgoing long-wave radiation on the ground that all satellites are prone to orbital degradation.

Monckton replied that each of the four temperature datasets individually demonstrated that global temperatures had been falling for fully seven years; that it is not CO2 emissions but CO2 concentrations remaining in the atmosphere that matter, and the concentrations, while rising, were doing so far more slowly than even the lowest of the UN’s projections; and that the analysis of the satellite data that he had displayed had been confirmed - precisely because the results were so surprising to those who believed the UN’s exaggerated estimates of climate sensitivity - by at least four further scientific papers.

Congressman Barton said it was essential that the Committee should know who was telling the truth, and he invited Mr. Karl and Lord Monckton to write to the committee, giving further and better particulars in support of what they each had said.

Icecap Note: This letter is Monckton’s reply. It is a remarkable work and you should take the time to read it. Hopefully it will influence some of the fence sitters in congress on this issue and help derail congressional action on cap-and-trade (tax-and-trade) and other similar efforts to drive up the cost of energy to benefit the government, NGOs, traders and corporations who care less about the environment but see profit in green efforts.

Delicate Subjects

So I had a great time in St. George playing tennis and just relaxing. My husband was great about watching her and my parents helped out too. One of our team members (now a friend I hope) has an amazing home there and ten of us stayed at her house. It was really nice to be able to read, take long showers and be a little girly. Although I was the youngest, I still had a great time talking and playing tennis with the ladies. On the way home we started talking about religion. We started talking about how I had left the Mormon church when I was younger and how one of the ladies had also left, but changed religions. She (lets call her Sara -- changing the name just in case) had become a Baptist, was a missionary for many years and has a Masters degree in Theology. Since I am always curious about other people's beliefs, especially people who leave Mormonism, I asked Sara some questions about what she believed. There were several practicing Mormons in the car, and we had a great discussion. I learned alot about what other Christians believe and how it differs from the mormon ideas.

But why is it so hard to have these type of discussions and not hurt people's feelings? I avoid talking about it with friends and family, but I find it very interesting. The key is being open minded and actually listening. The problem I have with most people is that faith is kind of a taboo (or it's a circular argument - it's true because I believe it and I believe it because it is true) so if the topic turns to faith, and by religion's nature it has to in the end, there is no way to discuss it without feelings getting hurt. So, if you are reading this please know, I'm not trying to hurt any one's feelings, this is just what I think.

When I say that I don't believe in anything, I mean that I don't believe in anything that has no scientific proof to back it. Science does change, and I'd like to think I review the evidence for myself and use my reasoning mind to discover new things about the world. I was asked in our discussion what the difference was between "believing in science" and "believing in God." My answer was that science can change with new evidence, but I should have added several other things. Mormons' response has been that they also change their beliefs with new "revelation" from their prophet. (I think it's a bit ironic that an omnipotent being has new revelations, but that's a separate issue). I struggled to express the difference, but I think I've got it now-- any person can start from the beginning of science and come up with the same answers using experimentation and their own collected evidence, because science was not "revealed" by one prophet or even 12. Many people over generation of time have built upon the knowledge and evidence of the previous generations.
I think it is also interesting that after the civil rights movement the Mormon church had a revelation to allow black men to have the priesthood. How omnipotent was that? It wasn't all knowing, it wasn't even forward thinking. It seems silly to me that "God or any higher power" would suddenly change the rules just as it was becoming politically incorrect not to change them. The work of men, not God, seems pretty clearly at hand in that case.

I may not have all of the exact details about Mormon revelation, but generally I don't see how someone can go through years of collegiate science, math and logic classes and still have any semblance of faith. By definition, they are a contradiction in terms.
There are several other sources that are better than I, such as The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand. I wish I remembered all of the great things I have read and could spell them out as well as these books do, but alas, I'm not a great writer --- but I can blog right along with all of the other millions of bloggers spouting off into the great abyss of the Internet.
Goodnight and Sweet Dreams,
KD

What Stimulus?

There has been a big story about how a CNBC reporter ranted about the stimulus package. Although overall, the stimulus package is a waste of money, there is a point to be made about the foreclosure help. If lots of people in your neighborhood have to move out of their houses, it devalues your home and you lose equity. The problem is that only a small portion of this Stimulus is even going to foreclosed homeowners. It is ridiculous how all encompassing this bill is turning out to be. Money is going to welfare aid, health care provisions, car makers and of course the big bad bankers. Why are we printing money that we don't have to pay for things that won't help the economy? This bill is a bunch of socialist BS that no senator or congressman should have voted for if they have any sense whatsoever. Not to mention that so many things were snuck in at the last minute, people are just now finding out about all the other "earmarks." Our President is a great campaigner with a great image, but in truth it's back to politics as usual and idiotic democratic ideals. Check out http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/02/cnbc_rick_santelli_tea_party.html for more info and interesting commentary.