Brushfire of Freedom 

Ram Rants

Note: Originally published February 17th, 2010 at Brushfire Sparks.

This is a story of a world-wide hoax that began nearly 30 years ago.  A hoax that has cost billions, if not trillions, of dollars.  A hoax that has been used to keep third-world countries in the third world.  It has cost lives, crushed economies, and crippled industries.

The hoax is “Global Warming”.  

First you should know that a hoax is a humorous or malicious deception.  This one certainly falls in the “malicious” category.  It is a purposeful act, not a series of errors.  In legal terms, it is “malfeasance” meaning an act is committed that is considered improper or illegal.  It denotes action taken, not events that occur.  So the idea that the entire global warming hoax was actually just a big mistake on the part of hundreds of scientists, journalist, and politicians is simply inaccurate.  The actions taken to perpetuate this hoax required that individuals and corporations actively and knowingly participated in the process.  This is why it is a hoax and not just a mistake.

So is this some type of conspiracy to bring about the destruction of the world?  Not really.  It’s more about the money.  There’s a lot of money in the “green energy” industry.  You’ve got the money in the various alternate power sources, including wind (hot air), solar (hot air), and ethanol (hot gas) to name a few.  Billions of dollars have gone into these various energy industries.  Most have little if any potential to make a significant contribution to the overall energy supply.  So the government has, and continues to, subsidize these industries because, without the government money, they probably would fail.  To keep the money coming they have to continuously raise the alarm of “global warming” so that they can justify their existence, get the grants, and stay in business.  

There’s also the actual “climate science” industry.  These are the guys who have been “researching” the effect of greenhouse gasses on our climate.  Well, researching is a bit of a stretch.  It’s more like they’ve been manufacturing the effect of the gasses on our climate.  Professor Phil Jones, the main man on climate in the UK and one of the key to the UN’s role, has admitted that his data has, well, gone missing.  There are of course the emails that detail his efforts to hide his data, his refusal to provide the data to other researchers, and his continued efforts to stifle all dissenting views of his “theories”.  

A brief pause here.  I’m using a lot of quote sin this little article and for good reason.  Words like “theory” and “research” have actual meanings.  They are defined by specific parameters and, when placed in the context of academics or science, denote specific processes and precautions.  Mr. Jone’s statement that his records have “gone missing” is an indication that he never really applied any of the rigor required to identify his work as “research”.  Thus calling his work, or its results, “research” is like saying Obama is “post-racial”. 

Mr. Jones has stated that there has been no global warming since 1995.  If you do that math, that’s 15 years.  When this little hoax first fired off, we had just 20 years to save the planet from the destruction that we were creating.  Man was the enemy of the planet.  Our cars, our power plants, our very existence and its advances were the reason that we would become extinct, taking precious “mother earth” with us as we went. Now, nearly 30 years into the game, and we find out that really the earth has not been warming at all, much less warming due to man’s evil existence.  In fact, Mr. Jones is now saying that there have been warming events earlier than 1984, even back in the middle ages, but not caused by SUV’s because, well, they didn’t HAVE SUV’s in the middle ages.

So what?  One scientist that was a supporter of “global warming theory” has changed his tune.  No big deal, right?

Wrongo.

Our boy Phil was (before his recent resignation) THE MAN at the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit.  It was his charts, graphs and reports that became the basis of the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) at the UN.  You see, the IPCC does not carry out its own research, but relies on the work of other “scientists” like Phil, or the random advocacy group like the World Wildlife Fund.  The IPCC is headed by Mr R.K. Pachauri  who, in 2007, shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore for their work on “climate change” awareness.  So, it could be said that Phil’s work won a Nobel Prize for Al Gore, and even bagged an Academy Award for “Father Al”.  

Still could be an accident, right?  Well, if you go through some of the “climategate” emails, you will see the efforts put forth by Phil and his cohorts to hide what was rapidly becoming an evident truth.  They stifled articles by other scientists who questioned their conclusions.  They used stalling tactics to prevent the release of their “data” for independent study.  They attacked those who questioned their position, calling them “deniers” and saying the science was “settled”.  Much like the “flat earthers” of earlier times, these “warm earthers” have created results that fit their theories, and refuse to allow any challenges.  Unlike real scientists, they choose to avoid the pursuit of the truth because, well, there’s no real money in it.  They would lose millions in grants, lose a lot of prestige, and all those invites to really cool parties would just dry up.

So they perpetuate the hoax, sticking to their manufactured facts even as they resign their posts.  The recent record levels of snow around the globe are solid evidence of “global warming”.  Their position regarding the melting and eventual disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers may have been wrong, but they were right overall.  The polar bears are dying off, even as all evidence indicates their populations are expanding.  They’ve been wrong over, and over, and over, yet they continue to stick to their story and try to find ways to perpetuate the lies.

Record global snows (check).  Record low temperatures (check).  Missing (or lost) “data” (check).  Evidence of tampering (check).  Evidence of obfuscation (check).  Evidence of obstruction (check).  Continuing to lie in the face of the truth (check).  Houston, we have a hoax.         

Contact Ramarious                                            | Brushfire Home

Copyright 2010.  The published content is the sole property of the author.  Any copy, use, or redistribution of any portion of the material without the written consent of the owner is a violation of international copyright laws.

 Brushfire of Freedom

The Conservative Cowboy

One of my favorite people in history is John Adams.  There are many reasons why he is one of my favorites and the quote at the end of this post illustrates one of the main reasons.  You see John Adams was very foreword thinking, and that is why I think he deserves more credit then he will ever receive for the birth of this nation.  Ok of the soap box now and back to the point.  Fence sitter’s as they are known like to be in the middle of things, and no I do not mean they are fighters, quite the opposite actually, fence sitters are afraid to offend anyone, afraid of confrontation, afraid to offend anyone and afraid to fail.  You know who you are and you know who I am talking about, they are the ones that are quite for most of any conversation and just agree with everyone.  Now before you start the lynch mob, I married a fence sitter (sort of) because there is a place for those kinds of people, they slow down the type A’s of the world.

So now you have a little background about the type of people I am talking about now I want you to imagine those people on the senate floor, too afraid that something they say will offend someone, or that they don’t have clear evidence from either side of the argument to agree or disagree.  I know that was sort of a tricky fantasy because the people I am talking about would never go onto the senate floor to argue a point, for the very simple reason that they have no idea what side to argue for, or against.  In politics one must chose a side, whenever any situation arises, evidence for and against is analyzed and they take a side.  In politics that is a must, when voting that is a must, I think that our current situation in Washington illustrates that very clearly.  You see the voters in the middle put us in this situation.  You will always have some people that are separated from reality agree with punishing the successful with higher taxes and giving that money to the lazy.  On the other side you will have people like me that just want to be left alone, and reap the benefits of a hard day’s work.  But it is you fence sitters that elected BHO, easily swayed by fancy words from a teleprompter and bright colors in a television ad. The people that answer questions with a headline from the New Your Times or some other biased media outlet without any facts or opinion of their own. 

You may be thinking of what this has to do with any of the current events taking place right now?  Well the election season is in full swing and has been for a while.  The ads have started and will only get more abundant as November gets closer.  My only hope is that the current situation in Washington will prove as a lesson for the “moderates” in this country and they will educate themselves on their respective candidates before they vote this November.

Remember to learn from history, no one is infallible but we must learn from the successes and failures of the past.  In my experience I always look to the founders when I have to look for answers simply because they created the greatest country this world has ever seen and that is more than enough credibility when it comes to matters of government.  

I was going to leave you with something profound but I think I will let John Adams take care of that for me.

“In politics the middle way is none at all.” John Adams

                                           Brushfire Home

Copyright 2010.  The published content is the sole property of the author.  Any copy, use, or redistribution of any portion of the material without the written consent of the owner is a violation of international copyright laws.

 Brushfire of Freedom 

Ram Rants

Ah yes, Liberal politics.  The legislation passed without completion.  The votes on bills that have not been read.  The violations of Senate rules, and the broken promises of transparency.  Hope and change at its finest.

In an effort to pass ANYTHING that can be called health care reform, the Libs are wheeling and dealing like a used care salesman in mid July.  This stopped being about health care, or about the American people, about the time that Harry realized that this bill was a load of bovine excrement and it was his career as a Democrat on the line.  Now there is no compromise too big to make, and no price too big to pay.  Harry giveth, Harry taketh away.

The chants of “that’s how it’s done” are echoing in the halls of Washington, but that’s not an accurate statement.  There is a process that is normally followed when legislation is brought to either floor of Congress.  First, it is usually brought to the floor.  Harry has missed that step, keeping his latest version of the bill on his desk rather than having it read into the record on the floor of the Senate.  An effort to read one amendment of the bill on the Senate floor resulted in a violation of Senate rules just to stop the reading.  If this is such a great plan, why not announce it to the world?  Why the need to vote at one o’clock in the morning or to cast your ballot on Christmas Eve?

Several Liberal Senators have “taken a stand” against the bill.  For those of you who’ve not been watching, “taking a stand” means “holding out their hand”.  Mary Landrieu, Liberal Democrat from Louisiana, garnered $300 million to ensure she would consistently cast her vote for legislation that is destined to enslave her constituents.  There’s provisions to use tax dollars from Louisiana to kill unborn children.  Think for a moment, Louisiana, New Orleans, Mardi Gras...ah, you may not be aware that Mardi Gras is a Catholic holiday.  The feast before the fasting of “lent” which precedes Easter.  Yes, a Senator from a largely Catholic state took money to vote for a bill that supports tax-payer funded abortions.  Nice job representing your voters, Mary.

A note to the fine people of Louisiana, Mary herself claims to be a Roman Catholic.  She’s up for re-election in 2014.

Then we had the “independent” Joe Lieberman.  Joe took a “courageous” stand against the bill, claiming he could not support a bill that contained a “public option”.  The public option was promptly removed, prompting outcries from the far-left of the Liberal wings.  Joe then demanded that the provision allowing early buy-in to Medicare be removed.  Harry removed the buy in.  Joe most recently demanded that a new ice cream stand be built on the Senate floor as a provision of the bill, or he could not give the bill his vote.  Ok, so I made up the last part, but this process with Joe has been a lot like a shopping list.  He asks, Harry gives.  Joe’s not getting any direct cash from Harry, he’s getting his pockets lined by others who have a specific agenda.  They’re called “lobbyists” and they use money to lead Senators in any direction they’d like.  That is Joe’s definition of “independent”.

A note to the folks in Connecticut, Joe is up for re-election in 2012.  We have no idea on which ticket he will run (Dem, GOP, Independent, other).

One of the lesser known bandits at the banquet has been our other friend from Connecticut, Chris “Country Wide” Dodd.  Yes, the man who oversaw the collapse of Fannie and Freddie while taking money from their shill Country Wide is getting more of your tax dollars to make this health care thing happen. Recent reports are that Chris has raked in an additional $100 million for his own benefit while he takes a greater percentage of your tax dollars.  But that’s not all.  Chris is also getting some extra cash from his buddies in the financial sector.  You see, Chris runs the Senate banking committee.  You know, the guys who make laws about banks.  Chris is lining his pockets on both sides, ensuring his success even when banks fail.  And don’t forget the $100 million for the new hospital.  Hey, you gotta give him credit, he knows how to watch out for himself.

Dear Connecticut - this guy’s been a loser for a while.  Do us a favor in 2010 and retire Chris and his banking buddies.  They have enough of our money.

Now for the “big hold out”, Ben Nelson from Nebraska.  In the game of “name your price”, Ben is most certainly the winner.  He waited until the very last minute to ensure he would get the biggest prizes.  Hey, Harry’s got billions in unspent TARP and Stimulus cash scattered all around, and Ben wanted his piece.  By waiting until the very last minute, Ben ensured he would get the biggest possible cut “for his state”.  Hey Ben, you can stop pretending any of this is about “the people of Nebraska”.  It’s all about you, baby.  Ben got $100 million in expanded Medicaid funds, just so he can buy votes in Nebraska.  That benefit is indefinite, meaning that $100 million is sure to swell.  It’s a perpetual jackpot for Ben, as long as he can hold office.  

The folks in Nebraska already know that Ben is up in 2012.  There’ve been rallies against him, and a great media outcry in his home state.  Dear Cornhuskers, don’t forget.

The only thing that is certain is that these aren’t the only deals.  With all of the “closed door” negotiations, smoke-filled rooms and hand-shake agreements, there is no question that billions of your dollars are being spent to ensure that Congress can spend billions more.  Harry has to have this bill, or his future as a leftist is lost.  Barry has to have this bill, or his future as a President is lost.  Nancy has to have this bill or, well, Nancy just wants it, she’s a bit of a nut (ACORN).  If this is the way it’s always been done, it’s never been done so openly.  Truth is, considering that these types of deals on the GOP side would be screaming headlines until someone was impeached, we can be fairly certain that this is a new level, if nothing else.  For the Liberal Senators smart enough to hold out, and hold out their hands, this is just cha-CHING.                            

Contact Ramarious Brushfire Home

Copyright 2009.  The published content is the sole property of the author.  Any copy, use, or redistribution of any portion of the material without the written consent of the owner is a violation of international copyright laws.

 Brushfire of Freedom 

Ram Rants

I am often asked, “So Ram, what’s wrong with Liberalism?”  Well, maybe not as often as I’d like to be, but I do get asked.  I may not be the best person to ask such a question, but I think I know enough about liberals that I can speak to some of the issues.  Here’s a short list.

Liberalism is reactive.  Liberal policies are most likely established during some type of crisis, whether real or imagined.  Man-made global warming, which recent studies show to be a farce, is fostering policies including Cap and Trade, the “Cash for Clunkers” process that pays you to buy a “greener” car, and the CAFE standards, which force auto makers to make cars that buyers won’t buy.  There are massive lists of “unexpected impacts” of all of these policies, and all of those “impacts” might have been avoided if someone had stopped to think the issue through.  No one thought about the impact of CAFE standards on the safety of automobiles.  That is the problem with Liberalism.  These reactive policies, where solutions are offered before problems are understood, always result in some type of unexpected crisis that must then be addressed by another reactive policy.  

Liberalism makes “feeling” decisions.  Most of us use our heads to think about what needs to be done.  Liberals make their decisions because they “care”.  They care about the plight of the poor, then create a dependent class of poor people.  They care about the uninsured, then take health insurance away from 90% of the people in this country.  You can’t argue the facts with them, because they are not concerned with facts.  They are concerned about how they feel, and make no mistake, it is about how THEY feel.  It’s not about how you feel.  It is about how Cap and Trade will help the environment so that they can feel good about driving their SUV’s.  

Liberalism is class-based.  One need look no further than Noam Chomsky to understand that without a class system, Liberalism can not survive.  Liberals see the poor, the middle class, and the rich, and varying degrees of each.  They characterize the rich as the “evil” industrialists that steal from the middle class and the poor to build their massive, bloated empires.  They ignore the fact that many of these rich people started out as middle class or poor.  It’s mostly rich Liberals that come from rich families, like Kennedy, Rockefeller, or Heinz-Kerry.  Yet Liberals declare war on the rich with taxes and policies that drive them out of cities like New York and Los Angeles.  They set these policies because they believe it draws favor from the other two classes, the middle and the poor.  This becomes the basis for their political campaigns and policies.  A class system, whether existent or not, is necessary to the Liberal ideology to create the enemy needed to run against in elections, and to punish for the failures of Liberal policies.

On a related subject, Liberalism is also focused on victimhood.  Not in a way that would help victims, though they do sometimes state that as their cause.  Rather in a way that uses victims as props and center pieces for displaying Liberal causes.  Because victims play such a key role in Liberal theatrics, Liberals are always in search of, or creating, new victims.  There are the minorities, victims of perpetual persecution.  There’s the children, victims of everything, including their families, and always hardest hit by any crisis.  Don’t forget the endless parade of new victims who suffer from newly discovered syndromes, diseases, or maladies that are inevitably the result of evil “man”.  Victims are a sub-class of the middle class or the poor, and are NEVER rich.  You will find them on display at nearly every Liberal press conference, particularly if they think they are losing a political battle (see recent health care press conferences).

Liberalism is a belief system.  Try having an intellectual discussion with a Liberal and begin presenting facts.  Once they realize that you know more on the subject than they do, usually near the beginning of the discussion, they will take one of three evasive tactics.  First, they will try fallacy, creating false arguments in an effort to deflect the discussion.  Second comes the diversion, where they will try to shift the discussion off topic.  Finally, when these first two have failed, they will resort to name calling.  The most recent example of this last and final tactic is, “It’s all Bush’s fault and Bush is an idiot”.  Liberals take these steps because they know that in a fact-based discussion, their beliefs will not survive.  But, Liberalism is a belief system so they must defend it to the end, because to do otherwise would to be without their faith.  

The last thing on this list of things wrong with Liberalism is that it is racist.  This may come as a shock to many of you, but it is a fact.  They are not the overtly racist caricature that they use to paint others.  Liberals are closet racists.  They hide behind their claims of equality while destroying minorities with policies like welfare, which ruined the black family, or amnesty and sanctuary for illegal aliens, which is creating criminals and slaves out of hard-working hispanics.  Liberals create policies with the described intention of helping these minority victims, but the real purpose is to enslave them to their Liberal ideology.  Ask a Liberal about amnesty and they will tell you it is to help those who have entered this country to get a new start.  But push them just a bit and they will tell you that we need to have people in this country who will do the jobs that “Americans won’t do”.  In other words, Liberals believe we need slaves.  If you know your history, you know that this is not an unusual position for Liberals.  After all, it was the Liberals who fought to keep slaves in the civil war.  It was the Liberals who filibustered the Civil Rights act of 1964.  And it was a Liberal who stood on the steps of the schools in Alabama to keep the young minorities segregated.  Liberalism has a long history of racism, including the 2008 election where time and again Liberals brought race into the campaign.  Bill Clinton did not accuse John McCain of bringing race into the Democrat primaries, he accused B. Hussein.

So, to summarize what is wrong with Liberalism.  It is a reactive, purely emotional, class-based, victim-based, racist belief system.  While they hide behind a mask of intellectualism, they focus their arguments on crisis and emotion.  It is not wrong to feel, and it is not wrong to care for victims.  We as Americans are some of the most compassionate and giving people on the planet.  But, when all of these factors become part of a political power structure, you have a recipe for disaster, and that is what makes everything that is Liberalism, well, wrong.            

Contact Ramarious Brushfire Home

Copyright 2009.  The published content is the sole property of the author.  Any copy, use, or redistribution of any portion of the material without the written consent of the owner is a violation of international copyright laws. 

 Brushfire of Freedom

The Irritable Pundit

Greetings one and all!  Welcome to this semester's orientation at the University of Irritable Punditry!  

We here at Old U-IP, hope you all have a pleasant and uplifting time in your studies.  However, due to the current abysmal lack of understanding in America, there are a few changes to the published curriculum.    I, the one and only Irritable Pundit, have decreed that all students must complete a brief introduction to common sense and rational thinking.  Do not think of it as remedial education, but rather as an opportunity to have your educational footing assessed by your extraordinarily handsome and sane guide to life! The one, the ONLY, Irritable Pundit!

Now, now.  Do not try to curry favor with a standing ovation (however well deserved).  It will not affect your grade as we are not part of the Teacher's Union here at Old U-IP.   So, please open your course handbook (page 1, dear friends) and lets begin with the assessment questionnaire.  

Question 1 - Relationships. 

Describe the relationships between the first and second occurrence of each paired item below.

1) Watching Sean Penn act.

2) Hearing Sean Penn's twisted political concepts

1) Listening to Madonna

2) Watching Madonna try to convince us she is still sexy and young

1) Jeannine Garofalo quietly staring at you

2) Jeannine Garofalo uttering so much as a single syllable

1) Waterboarding

2) Bamboo shoots driven under your nails with a hammer

Answer

In each case, the first is unpleasant, the second is torture. 

Question 2 - Please choose the most correct

A promise to "live within our means" is to "4 trillion in increased spending" as:

a) "fiscal responsibility" is to "Democrats"

b) "honest journalism" is to "MSNBC"

c) "fair documentary" is to "Michael Moore" 

d) All of the above

Answer

d) All of the above!   As we say in Latin,  "DVH!"

As a clever side-note for the class, mathematicians have proven that "an MSNBC report by Keith Olbermann on a documentary by Michael Moore covering Obama's fiscal responsibility" would create such a density of male bovine excretions that the weight thereof could not be contained within any structural form -- instantly causing it all to collapse into a black hole.  Life on Earth would end within 24 hours, Jack Bauer's best efforts aside.  

And you thought the Hadron Collider was scary. Sleep well.

Now then, enough of the witticisms and bon mots, back to the class material! Huzzah!

Question 3

As president you have authorized 4.3 trillion in unfunded spending, with an already existent fiscal year forecasted budget deficit of 1.75 trillion, backed by Treasury notes purchased on the international market.  The debt will require it to be serviced over 50 years.  To assist in retiring the debt, you cut current spending by a one-time amount of 100 million dollars.  How much of the interest will be covered by that 100 million?

a) 10 year's interest

b) 2  year's interest

c) 1 year's Interest

d) 1 day's interest

Answer

d) 1 days interest.   

Yes, I am serious. Though to be fair, it IS a trick question so try not to be too upset if you missed that one.  As the 100 million in "cuts" was based on a vastly increased budget beyond the previous baseline, it is actually only a decrease on the increase, which makes it a pseudo-cut at best.  More to the point, if you think even that pseudo-cut will actually materialize you haven't been paying attention in class.

Pencils down!  Well students, how did you do?

Grading:  

3 of 3 - Congratulations! You exceed the minimum requirements for this University. You are obviously a conservative and we look forward to your studies here at U-IP!

2 of 3 - Well done!  Though the mainstream media is still weaving its spell around you, you have the requisite ability to break free of those ideological chains!  Welcome to U-IP!

1 of 3 - The truth is starting to sink in, but only just.  You need this institution.  Study very hard while here, and turn off the evening news.

0 of 3 - You are an idiot, and an Obama supporter.  But I repeat myself.

Contact The Irritable Pundit   Brushfire Home