Tyrant-O-Saurus Rex

TiedUpby Deana Chadwell    11/11/13
Ever since Barak Obama was elected many of us have used the word “tyrant” to describe his administration. It was, perhaps, at the beginning, a bit hyperbolic. No one was hauling us off in freight cars; we weren’t being starved to death or shot by firing squads made up of people who had once been our friends. People died, but not in large numbers – just here and there an ambassador, a Marine, a reporter. We watched that Hitlerian nomination display and got edgy, but it was mostly a hunch.

Not any more. We can look at Obama’s personality traits and behavior and conclude that he’s a dangerous man, but even more telling is to look at what we’ve lost and what we’re losing. Tyrants take. The T-rex took anything he wanted. This one has taken, or is trying to take, everything we hold dear – not just as Americans, as human beings.[pullquote]With this presidency we have lost our feeling for truth. He has lied so smoothly, so glibly, evidently for some, so believably that he has made chumps out of us all. [/pullquote]

With this presidency we have lost our feeling for truth. He has lied so smoothly, so glibly, evidently for some, so believably that he has made chumps out of us all. Nothing is more humiliating than to be brazenly lied to – again and again and again. After five years in office we still don’t officially know who he is – this man with several names, differing birth certificates, a hand-full of Social Security numbers, but no school records. Not only do we know nothing of his past, we know very little about his present – nothing he says appears to be true. Benghazi, IRS, NSA – he has been forthright about none of them. Evidently a lot of people bought his sugar-coated version of his fairytale insurance plan; from those people he stole not only any hope of health care, but any likelihood that they will believe anyone again.

Because he lied about Obamacare, by the time the dust finally settles, he will also have taken life from many people. We’ve all seen the news stories about Edie Sundby and Bill Elliot –both have been fighting extremely difficult cancers and as of January will have no health insurance, will be severed from their oncologists, severed from what thin chances they had for living. Estimates run from 93 million to 120,000 million Americans will lose their private or employer-based insurance in the next year. There will be actual blood on Obama’s hands. Tyrants are usually bloody – this one is no exception.

He has also stolen from us our sense of justice. No one close to his administration ever suffers for the damage they are allowed to do. Lois Lerner is just fine despite her unabashed harassment of tea-party groups. Kathleen Sebelius is a little grumpy right now, but she’ll be fine. Of course, things aren’t fine for the nine generals who’ve been fired recently – for little to no reason. Things aren’t fine for Audrey Hudson who suffered unreasonable search and seizure when the feds stormed into her home and stole sensitive files for an Obama exposé she was writing. This president is guilty also of setting a terrible precedent – trickle-down injustice. I think of the man in Southern New Mexico last week who, stopped for a traffic infraction, ended up spending twelve hours undergoing multiple anal exams, including a colonoscopy, for which he was billed $6,000.* The news is filled with this kind of un-American injustice from the top of the chain to the bottom.[pullquote]He has also stolen from us our sense of justice. No one close to his administration ever suffers for the damage they are allowed to do. Lois Lerner is just fine despite her unabashed harassment of tea-party groups.[/pullquote]

No doubt that part of the problem comes from the disrespect our president shows for the law. He has enacted over a thousand laws just by decree; he has unilaterally changed laws that were duly produced. He quite clearly sees the Constitution as an obstacle to his reign. He piles laws on us, but obey none of them himself. With that example, why should American citizens obey the law? As the citizenry becomes more recalcitrant, the constabulary becomes more frustrated and emboldened. Law enforcement is now an us against them phenomenon.

Our foreign policy looks that way, too – us against everyone; he has robbed us all of our status in the world — we are no longer a beacon of hope – not for Israel, whom he is feeding, little by little, to the Muslim wolves, not for our European allies, not for Egypt, not for those who would come here for freedom. There is no freedom here, no honor, no integrity. He has taken from us our national self-respect.

He has so abused the election process that he has effectively pilfered our voting rights – all the time hollering about disenfranchising illegal voters. Any election he gets close to is rife with questionable voter registration practices, crony payoffs, dead men voting, preposterous counts (all those precincts in Ohio that voted 100% for Obama?!), and voter intimidation. His pro-amnesty policies are all aimed at procuring a permanent Democratic voting block. The lack of trust in election fairness has produced two terrible results: people stay home from the polls or they join a third party, both ensure Democratic victories.

In a way he has taken from us our very citizenship. Time was when citizenship was a valued commodity, a station in life much to be cherished. It provided you with the right to vote, with the protection of the United States military and state department. It gave you access to government programs and the security of living in a country whose government was controlled by a priceless constitution. But now, thanks to Obama (and the entire Democrat party) most of these advantages are now awarded to illegal aliens. They can vote in many states, they can plug into dozens of government welfare programs, they are privy to any and all the rights true citizens enjoy. He has done to our citizenship what he has done to our wealth.

A free country is a place where one can earn a living in whatever decent way he wants. It is a place where people can save and invest in the future. Obama has ruined all that. Now 49 million of us live in poverty – not bottom-rung poverty, hopeless poverty, stuck in part time jobs or in the unemployment lines for as far into the future as they can see. One can’t be free and unable to provide for one’s family at the same time. He has taken our jobs, our savings, and our health care. You see, poor people are easier to control, and more than anything else tyrants like control.

He also wants to control what our children learn – or more importantly – what they don’t learn. The Common Core push frightens more every day. We may soon lose our right to educate our children as we see fit.[pullquote]In tiny, chipping movements he has pulled the support of faith out from under our servicemen, and his courts are whittling away at our right to express our religious beliefs in public. [/pullquote]

As if taking our children’s minds isn’t enough, he also wants to take our guns. If we get totally fed up, he doesn’t want us able to do anything about it. He wants us powerless in the face of the over-armed Homeland Security goons. He wants us dependent and powerless, easy to herd into rail cars.

And just to make sure we have no power at all, he’s trying to separate us from our beliefs, from our God. In tiny, chipping movements he has pulled the support of faith out from under our servicemen, and his courts are whittling away at our right to express our religious beliefs in public. The gay rights agenda has provided him with the lever to do that, and I doubt he knows it, but his policies regarding Israel are pulling us from God’s protection as well (See Genesis 12 and God’s promise to Abraham).

We have lost so much to this giant lizard of a man that it’s hard to believe we can ever have any of it back, but I believe in prayer; I believe in the entrepreneur and in the innovator and much that is good is happening despite T-rex and those who still support him. I also know from history that tyrants don’t usually last long; they tend to implode. I mean, ever met a has-been dictator? No. They end up – well, I probably shouldn’t say. The NSA might take it wrong. Guess we’ve lost that, too.

* Man Subjected to 8 Anal Exams After Routine Traffic Stop  •  Infowars.com  •  PrisonPlanet.com
__________________________________________________
Deana Chadwell blogs at ASingleWindow.com. • (2800 views)

Share
Deana Chadwell

About Deana Chadwell

I have spent my life teaching young people how to read and write and appreciate the wonder of words. I have worked with high school students and currently teach writing at Pacific Bible College in southern Oregon. I have spent more than forty years studying the Bible, theology, and apologetics and that finds its way into my writing whether I'm blogging about my experiences or my opinions. I have two and a half moldering novels, stacks of essays, hundreds of poems, some which have won state and national prizes. All that writing -- and more keeps popping up -- needs a home with a big plate glass window; it needs air; it needs a conversation. I am also an artist who works with cloth, yarn, beads, gourds, polymer clay, paint, and photography. And I make soap.
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to Tyrant-O-Saurus Rex

  1. Glenn Fairman Glenn Fairman says:

    Without the constitution, we are at his mercy, and this is why Progressives so despise its bulwark. I cannot help the feeling in the pit of my soul that we are approaching a critical mass and that its chain reaction will create a state of disorder and injustice in American that is impossible to control or to predict where it will take us. In sowing to the wind, the tyrant reaps the whirlwind because he has exceeded the boundaries we have set for him. Obama’s trajectory is off its ordered mark, and what will be left can only be a tragedy unparalleled in the history of the American regime.

  2. Kung Fu Zu says:

    “this giant lizard of a man”

    What a perfect and vivid description of this scoundrel!

    Thulsa Doom.

  3. Timothy Lane says:

    I’ve called the First Sociopath the Fascist Messiah for years because his policies, his disregard for dissent, and his methods (such as using the Occupiers and unions such as SEIU as his equivalent of storm troopers) — as I pointed out to one liberal who complained about the comparison. You certainly do a good job of summarizing the more recent evidence that, if one rates Obama as a 1 on a 1 to 10 scale of presidents, the next worst (the really bad ones like James Buchanan) would have to be about 8.

    • Totally agree. Thanks for the compliment. I guess I stated things pretty strongly — so far today several folk on my contact list have asked to be removed. The truth is so often painful.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        …so far today several folk on my contact list have asked to be removed. The truth is so often painful.

        Oh, dear god. I mean, that’s typical these days. Narcissism reins. It’s as if people have got it into their head that they have a “right” to believe whatever nonsense they want to believe.

        • Which they do — their mistake is in thinking they can do so with no attendant consequences. They can pretend the world is warming, that peace can be had with a protest or two, that laws can make people equal — but they have no idea that pretense will destroy everything. Alas.

          • faba calculo says:

            Brad: It’s as if people have got it into their head that they have a “right” to believe whatever nonsense they want to believe.

            Deana: They can pretend the world is warming…

            Me: Ah, irony!

            • Kung Fu Zu says:

              “Ah, irony”

              This coming from a dupe who believed he could predict the second coming of Christ using numerology is quite rich.

              Ah, irony.

              • faba calculo says:

                Yes, 25 years ago (1988) I got caught up in a the common evangelical fascination with eschatology.

                But there’s a difference between the foolish religious mistakes of a 22-year old over matters of prophecy on the one hand and (apparently) denying the evidence of no fewer than five separate major organizations (and additional minor ones) who assemble records of world temperature empirically, as they happen, via both satellite and ground-based observation, no?

            • NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

              People can believe what they want, Faba, but they are not entitled to expect the rest of us to accord their beliefs a respect the facts of reality do not warrant.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            Great points, Deana.

      • NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

        Yes, the truth hurts, especially for the Progressive, whose entire world-view is constructed on a fragile tissue of lies. Don’t let these folks discourage you for one minute – keep writing, and good riddance to the lot of them!

  4. Timothy Lane says:

    The world has indeed warmed since about 1850 (the end of what is known as the Little Ice Age), but at least much of this is due to natural cycles (the major increases in carbon dioxide began no more than a century ago, maybe less). Not only that, but there has been a hiatus in warming for 15-18 years (different figures again), which the models you trust didn’t predict. (Note that a failed prediction invalidates a scientific theory.) There are in fact many scientists, including many climate scientists, who have been skeptical about catastrophic anthropogenic global warming from greenhouse gases (which is what we’re talking about), as I know because I have a lot of books by them. Just because the political culture considers CAGW sacrosanct and refuses to acknowledge the opposing case doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

    • faba calculo says:

      I disagree with nothing you say here. But…

      1) I never said anything about trusting the models. All I’m saying is that the Earth is, decade to decade, warming (or, less frequently, staying the same temperature). I deal in (economic) models every day, especially forecast models, and their only real virtue is that they (usually) do better than out and out guesses. My forecasts are for ten years into the future, but ever that is VERY long in terms of economic models. So, when I hear about 100-year predictions, you can imagine how much faith I put in their exact outcomes. Over such long periods of time, all a model can really do is tell you what direction things seem to be heading.

      2) As for the hiatus, it’s hardly surprising. If you look at the actual data, you’ll see that there was an earlier pause, except that this one ran from around 1940 to 1980, with strong increasing trends both before and after that. If it can pause for 40 years, a pause of 18 years is hardly shocking. Obviously, the fact that the last pause came to an end isn’t proof that this one will. If I die without it ever having ended, I’ll be just as happy. But it should act as a warning to those who are inclined to declare victory too quickly.

      3) While surface temperatures have, indeed, paused, I see zero indication that the same is true of the net balance of energy coming in and going out of the atmosphere. And if more is still coming in than is going out, that extra energy has got to be going somewhere. However, this is an area of the global warming debate I know even less about than I do of other areas. Still, it does lend credence to the claims that the energy that isn’t currently heating the surface is heating the oceans. Personally, I think that global warming advocates have been too sure of themselves that this is the reason for the hiatus, as is frequently their wont, but, gain, this should warm us away from being too eager to declare ourselves to have been right all along.

      4) At no point did I embrace catastrophic global warming. Nor could I without placing far more faith in the precise results of the current models.

      5) While I agree with you about the importance of prediction in determining the value of a given model, a failed predication hurts a specific model far more than it does the general theory the model was based upon. Furthermore, it is my understanding that there were scientists saying that future pauses could be expected (again, you can’t look at the data and miss that earlier pause), just as I know that there are going to be future recessions, even though the forecasts from my models don’t show any. The business model is just too random, so while I know they will come, that doesn’t do anything to help me predict when they will be. Of course, for the exact same reason, my models can’t predict when the booms will be. Over time, the two failings (hopefully) cancel out leaving me (hopefully) correct on average, but I still know that I’ll my predictions will be too large in the bust years and too low in the boom years. That’s just forecasting for you.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Very good, but you were mocking people for not believing in global warming. Actually, most people who pay attention are aware that there has been some warming; the dispute is over the cause and the extent.

        • faba calculo says:

          I was mocking someone for complaining of people who believe what they want, and citing the apparently false belief that the world is getting warming.

          One more, if Deana wish to restate that she was talking about the hockey stick, or catastrophic warming, or the century-long predicted values, fine. Or, hell, even if she doesn’t want to restate but something similar was, in fact, her point, equally fine.

          But the issue of just whether or not the world has been warming is scarcely debatable (apart from a mere desire to believe what one wants to believe), unless really can give SOME sort of at least marginally rational reason for denying the report of multiple sources which are largely in agreement (yes, the satellites still show a slightly more moderate warming trend).

          Call it sunspots. Fine. Point out that Mars is also warming. Groovy. Say it’s the end of the Little Ice Age. You go. But, if I can take “the world is warming” to mean “the world is warming”, then, yes, complaining about people believing what they want and then turning around a complaining of people who believe that the world is warming is, in fact, highly ironic.

      • NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

        Faba, there is no “general theory” of AGW the “model is based on” – the model is the theory! There is no equation, no nothing except perhaps a single sentence: “Man-made carbon dioxide is causing the earth’s temperature to increase”. Now technically, this is almost a scientific hypothesis, but its vagueness as to the exact nature of the supposed causal relationship disqualifies it. Since the models have already been shown to be wrong (and as Tim points out, this disproves the “hypothesis” the models represent), the discussion should by rights be just about over at this point, especially since the “scientists” involved in AGW, who are committed Leftists and therefore have an agenda, have been caught lying, hiding evidence, and using mathematical formulae guaranteed to give the desired result regardless of the data set used as input! (The infamous “hockey-stick” graph). The most our side should agree to is to start gathering new data, and then review it after 50 to 100 years.

        I’m afraid to ask if you’re in favor of cap-and-trade. Since you believe in the global warming fable and would rather make nice to the enemy (the Left) rather than fight them, is there any way I can persuade you to join the Democratic Party and be done with it? You could then happily peck away for the Huffington Post where none of us here would bother you. Heck, if the Democrats’ economic policies hadn’t cost me my job, I’d even be willing to pay your first year’s membership dues .

        • faba calculo says:

          Are you really saying there was no logical, experimentation-based reason to think that C02 can act as a sort of greenhouse before the models were created?

          By the reasoning you express here, one could just as easily say that the idea that massive increases in the Fed’s portfolio and the attendant increase in the money supply causes general inflation is dead, as its portfolio has been massively increased and general inflation remains quiet.

          Again, I’m not saying it’s man made. I’m not saying that the long-run predictions of the models are anything close to correct. I’m not saying it’s going to be catastrophic. Hell, I’m not even saying it’s going to be a bad thing. I’m saying that the evidence that surface temperatures have increased, decade to decade, with pauses in the mid-20th and early-21 century seems pretty bulletproof.

          As for a carbon tax, I don’t see any reason to believe that a moderate tax on greenhouse gasses is any more economically damaging that many other taxes, so trading some other tax out and replacing it with a carbon tax, were the world as a whole to decide to get serious about reducing carbon admissions this way, that means everyone, then, once we’re a good deal more recovered from the Great Recession, I would see that as prudent.

          Btw, before the mutual spleen venting resumes, for what (if anything) it’s worth (which is likely very little), I’m very sorry to hear about your job. I’m fine coming here for a little rock ’em sock ’em with you, but I work in the office of BLS where the unemployment rate is calculated (though my work is for a different project), and I just look at the numbers, especially of long-term unemployed, and it just looks miserable. I wish you the best in your job hunt.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            One thing to consider is that while carbon dioxide does block certain infrared wavelengths (which is what causes the greenhouse effect), this obviously has a law of diminishing returns effect, even more so since water vapor blocks the same wavelengths. I found this out researching the subject for an article on global warming for Salem Press’s The Encyclopedia of Environmental Issues.

  5. Kung Fu Zu says:

    “But there’s a difference between the foolish religious mistakes of a 22-year old over matters of prophecy on the one hand and (apparently) denying the evidence of no fewer than five separate major organizations (and additional minor ones) who assemble records of world temperature empirically, as they happen, via both satellite and ground-based observation, no?”

    Absolutely! Any adult believing he can predict the return of Christ by use of numerology must be much more disconnected from reality that an adult who is skeptical of anthropogenic global warming claims.

    This is particularly the case when such basics as Mann’s hockey stick, information put out by The University of East Anglia and the IPCC’s (?) reports have all been found to be either downright false, modified to fit a premise or based on faulty science. I personally recall the global cooling of the 1970’s. I knew it must be true as I read about it in Time and Newsweek.

    Timothy has gone into further problems with your global warming faith, below. There are other problems such as reliability of instruments over the last hundred years. Location of instruments and the fact that satellites have only been measuring temperatures since 1960’s at the earliest.

    You seem to have exchanged one faith for another, yet have learned nothing of humility or wisdom. Otherwise, you would not have written such a smart-ass remark as the one you wrote to Deanne. What is particularly humorous is you show all the arrogance and ignorance of the Leftist ideologues we are trying to fight. You are so smug in your belief that you resort to sarcasm when you would be better advised to think a little before you spew such nonsense.

    • faba calculo says:

      1) You first paragraph is true but irrelevant to the conversation. At no point did I (or Deana) mention anthropogenic. What got mentioned was whether or not the world was warming. If she would like to extend and revise her remarks, fine. But she doesn’t need you to do it for her.

      2) Mann’s hockey stick is a matter of paleo-climatology, the inferring of the climate in the deep past using means other than direct observation. But, again, I didn’t say anything about paleo-climatology. Nor was Deana talking about whether or not the Earth warmed millions of years ago. The issue is whether or not it IS warming, and my sole point was about current actual observation via ground-based and satellite-based methods.

      3) As I’ve mentioned to Timothy concerning climate forecasting, I place very little faith in their precise predicted outcomes over the time span required to get (or not get) catastrophic results. But, do I really need to say it again? My comment said nothing about climate forecasting, just the direct observation of the recent past using ground and satellite-based methods.

      4) Of course there are problems with ground-based measurements from decades and decades ago. All empirical observations involving the melding of that much data is going to have problems, especially when 70% of the world’s “ground” isn’t ground but water. But for the last 35 years we’ve had the satellite measurements to back up the ground-based ones and the results have been very similar. In fact, if you think back, you might remember the day when deniers of warming could point to the satellite data with some satisfaction as it showed a good deal less warming than the ground-based data (much more of a divergence than the small amount there today). And it did indeed turn out that the problem was faulty instrument…just not on the ground. Once the problem with the satellites was corrected, the two sources came into (near) agreement.

      5) You have no idea what I’ve traded for what as you are a very shallow thinker most of the time. If my sarcastic response to an (apparent) denial of what has been directly observed and recorded both from the ground and from orbit over the last 3 to 4 decades is too hot for you, get out of the kitchen.

      6) To conclude, please do not kid yourself into thinking that you are in any position to correct me on smugness. Take the beam out of your own eye first.

  6. Kung Fu Zu says:

    Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. I am cut, I say I am cut to the quick.

    If someone such as yourself, who:

    1. Believed in numerology
    2. Mistakes obscure verbosity for profundity
    3. Uses sarcasm to mock a lady, instead of rational argument to discuss a point with her
    4. When caught in disingenuous arguments, tries to divert attention from the point without replying to the question at hand
    5. Demands the world discard language, history, biology, tradition and religion for an abstract idea yet claims to be conservative
    6. Mistakes the superficial for the basic

    considers yourself a deep thinker, then I am happy you consider me a shallow one. You obviously have no idea whereof you speak.

    The thought that you work for the government is alarming.

  7. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Anyone who doesn’t understand that the whole man-made global warming things is a fad is a fool. It was global cooling one decade. Now it’s global warming. And when no connection could be made between man and whatever warming occurred (and last report I heard, we are cooling), they then shifted to “climate change.”

    There is no way to beat back the statist meme running through our culture as long as we remain useful idiots. Let the science speak for itself. But this issue has been taken out of science and has been turned into a mere fad-and-fashion cause célèbre. To be on the Chicken Little stump right now, after all we know, is to either be a severe low-information voter or so weak in personal character that one can have no existence outside of what “They” are saying.

  8. Gentlemen, Gentlemen — breathe. I didn’t mean to stir up a hornet’s nest — well, no, I did, but just not that one. I do have one remark to make re science and anthropogenic GW: I refuse to take too seriously ‘science’ that is paid for and practiced by those with unscientific agendas. We treat scientists as if they were divine oracles and yet they are just people, people who have their own biases and their own price. If GW didn’t translate into tremendous transfer of wealth and power I might not be so doubtful.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I think this whole global warming thing is highly instructive. I’ve tried to impartially gather enough info on this to form a good opinion. And my opinion is that this is so obviously a hoax/fad that it’s bizarre that we are even talking about it still.

      But this does go to show something that Mr. Kung once told me: Culture is everything. And so we see how powerful the religion of the Left is in shaping this culture (a religion that Dennis Prager says has been the most dynamic one over the last 100 years). This religion has actually replaced science in vast areas….by the same people who snidely dismiss conservatives as “anti-science.”

      That is, we are now living fully in an Orwellian world. That is the scary part.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        I refer to CAGW as Gorescam.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Good name. It is indeed a scam. One can also view it as the central religious-like rationale for statism.

          Granted, there are useful idiots such as Chris Christie who probably aren’t just a low-information voter but are merely pandering.

          But for many more it is the method to justify their cravings to use government to shape our lives to the nth degree according to their wishes.

          Also, granted, there are many people who are indeed low-information voters and/or simply view opposition to this scam to be from “the right” who are merely mouth pieces for the oil companies or whatever.

          But stranger still is the phenomenon whereby people actually abandon all skepticism and good sense and are quite pleased to be a global warming advocate. Even taking anti-humanist Leftist propaganda into account, it still escapes me why so many simply want to believe this myth, regardless of the facts.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            I also sometimes refer to the Gorescammers as the Branch Albertians, which links eco-fanaticism to the Millerites, a 19th century apocalyptic cult from which the Seventh Day Adventists sprang (and thus also the Branch Davidians).

          • Kung Fu Zu says:

            I think for some of those for whom AGW is a religion, dire predictions of an impending cataclysm take the place of the apocalypse in Christianity.

            Instead of God calling humanity to account for our sins, it will be nature, mother earth, Gaia who will be holding humanity to account. And the rotten thing is that in the religion of AGW even the true believers will not be saved as we are all guilty of consuming earth’s resources which is BAD. But at least when humanity is extinct, peace, balance and bounty will again rule the planet. Sort of like heaven.

            OK, maybe I’m stretching it a bit.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              The Daily Caller has an article by Michael Bastach on a liberal theologian who has called not only carbon dioxide pollution, but global warming denial, sinful. Some of us would find that very appropriate (I would have said as much if someone hadn’t beaten me to it).

              • faba calculo says:

                One thing that environmental economics is good at pointing out is that “pollution” is in the eye of the beholder. The best example of this was the extension of an underwater reef system using porcelain toilets. Hell, people in Pennsylvania used to complain about that black liquid oozing out of the ground. Then one day someone found a use for oil and, though the black liquid was still there, the pollution was gone.

  9. justawatchin says:

    I think that Deana’s was an honest mistake. Some of us are still caught up in last years terminology. It wasn’t us that had to suddenly move the goalposts to line up with current numbers, and where will they have to be moved next year. I think that you know what I mean. It wasn’t THAT long ago that “global warming” was synonymous with anthropogenic GW.

    Also, if I’m not mistaken, NASA still (well, after they had to change the dates back) has 1934 as the hottest year on record.

  10. NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

    A very good short philippic against Obama. Truly, he is a tyrant, and his facial expressions are rather cold and reptilian.

  11. Just — when I chose the word “warming” I wasn’t being sloppy with words; I simply refuse to bow to leftist redefinitions. They waxed alarmist over “global warming” until we had a few record low winters and then, presto changeo, the problem morphed into “climate change,” and now, that it’s becoming apparent that actual cooling is going on, they’re saying we’re in a “hiatus.” How convenient.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *