The Lambert Commentary will return after Labor Day.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
And Yet They Still Don't Get It
This week's post will be short and sweet. The reason: I'm going to point you to a document that everybody (especially those on the man-made global warming bandwagon) needs to read.
It continues to boggle my mind how people like Al Gore, Robert Kennedy, Jr., and chief climate change correspondent at The Weather Channel Heidi Cullen repeatedly ignore any news that would cast doubts on their theory that carbon emissions are destroying our planet. Their strategy seems to be twofold:
1. When scientific data comes out that refutes our claims of man-made global warming, we either look the other way or we vilify the person, persons, institution or institutions that are reporting the data.
2. Every time there is a heat wave anywhere in the world, immediately proclaim that it was caused by global warming. If some region is experiencing abnormally cold temperatures, let people know how that too is caused by global warming. Oh yeah, and if temperatures are running at normal levels, well, it must be global warming.
The problem with the climate change crowd comes down to two things: money and politics. For many scientists, their livelihood depends on an ongoing climate crisis. If there is no global warming, there will be no funding for them and they'll have to figure out another way to make a living. For politicians who pander to the environmentalist fringe, coming out now and admitting that they've been wrong about global warming is tantamount to political suicide.
And so, the misinformation campaigns go on, and good people continue to be called despicable names all because they dared to have a difference of opinion.
Everybody do me a favor and read this. Then decide for yourself whether Gore, Kennedy, Cullen and the rest are giving us all the facts.
It continues to boggle my mind how people like Al Gore, Robert Kennedy, Jr., and chief climate change correspondent at The Weather Channel Heidi Cullen repeatedly ignore any news that would cast doubts on their theory that carbon emissions are destroying our planet. Their strategy seems to be twofold:
1. When scientific data comes out that refutes our claims of man-made global warming, we either look the other way or we vilify the person, persons, institution or institutions that are reporting the data.
2. Every time there is a heat wave anywhere in the world, immediately proclaim that it was caused by global warming. If some region is experiencing abnormally cold temperatures, let people know how that too is caused by global warming. Oh yeah, and if temperatures are running at normal levels, well, it must be global warming.
The problem with the climate change crowd comes down to two things: money and politics. For many scientists, their livelihood depends on an ongoing climate crisis. If there is no global warming, there will be no funding for them and they'll have to figure out another way to make a living. For politicians who pander to the environmentalist fringe, coming out now and admitting that they've been wrong about global warming is tantamount to political suicide.
And so, the misinformation campaigns go on, and good people continue to be called despicable names all because they dared to have a difference of opinion.
Everybody do me a favor and read this. Then decide for yourself whether Gore, Kennedy, Cullen and the rest are giving us all the facts.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Blame It All On Bush: Part Deux
First it was Katrina. Then it was global warming. Then it was the terrorist attacks in Great Britain. All three catastrophic events attributable to the same person: President George W. Bush. So it was only a matter of time before our commander in chief instigated another dastardly plot to put good, innocent people in harm’s way. What did the president do this time? He caused a bridge to collapse in Minnesota.
That’s what the liberals want you to believe. Their line of thinking: If it weren’t for all the money Bush is spending in Iraq, we’d have plenty of money to fix America’s aging infrastructure. Never mind that Minnesota has been running a 2.1 billion dollar surplus in recent years. Never mind that they’re using that money to build things like stadiums and other entertainment venues (not that there’s anything wrong with that). Never mind that keeping this bridge safe was a state responsibility, not a federal one. None of those things matter to liberals who wait breathless with anticipation for the next major tragedy that they can blame on George W. Bush.
What will be next? What if Amtrak had a derailment? We all know that’s never happened before. So of course, when that does happen for the first time (yes, I’m being sarcastic), some liberal blogger will, within 12 hours, issue a statement vilifying President Bush for his complicity in the accident. Within 24 hours, untold numbers of journalists in the mainstream media will jump on the “blame Bush bandwagon.” I can already hear in my mind the opening line of The CBS Evening News with Katie Couric:
Yesterday’s derailment of an Amtrak passenger train is being blamed on worn out railroad tracks, which are a result of the Bush administration’s total and complete irresponsibility in dealing with the problem of catastrophic global warming. Had the president been more concerned about the environment, he would have encouraged more people to take the train rather than drive their gas-guzzling SUV’s. With the White House promoting Amtrak to combat climate change, more federal money would have been shifted to repair the aging rails in this country. And fewer people would have died. Thanks a lot, Mr. President!
OK, so that last sentence probably won’t be aired, but you know that’s what Katie will be thinking. Other than that, I don’t think my little assumption is too far-fetched. It may be Diane Sawyer or Jack Cafferty instead of Katie, but you get the idea. Actually, they’ll all just be singing a different verse of the same tune.
Of course, my hope and prayer is that there will be no natural disasters or infrastructure failures in the foreseeable future. But as long as Bush is president and tragedies continue to happen, the liberals in this country will always have something to look forward to.
That’s what the liberals want you to believe. Their line of thinking: If it weren’t for all the money Bush is spending in Iraq, we’d have plenty of money to fix America’s aging infrastructure. Never mind that Minnesota has been running a 2.1 billion dollar surplus in recent years. Never mind that they’re using that money to build things like stadiums and other entertainment venues (not that there’s anything wrong with that). Never mind that keeping this bridge safe was a state responsibility, not a federal one. None of those things matter to liberals who wait breathless with anticipation for the next major tragedy that they can blame on George W. Bush.
What will be next? What if Amtrak had a derailment? We all know that’s never happened before. So of course, when that does happen for the first time (yes, I’m being sarcastic), some liberal blogger will, within 12 hours, issue a statement vilifying President Bush for his complicity in the accident. Within 24 hours, untold numbers of journalists in the mainstream media will jump on the “blame Bush bandwagon.” I can already hear in my mind the opening line of The CBS Evening News with Katie Couric:
Yesterday’s derailment of an Amtrak passenger train is being blamed on worn out railroad tracks, which are a result of the Bush administration’s total and complete irresponsibility in dealing with the problem of catastrophic global warming. Had the president been more concerned about the environment, he would have encouraged more people to take the train rather than drive their gas-guzzling SUV’s. With the White House promoting Amtrak to combat climate change, more federal money would have been shifted to repair the aging rails in this country. And fewer people would have died. Thanks a lot, Mr. President!
OK, so that last sentence probably won’t be aired, but you know that’s what Katie will be thinking. Other than that, I don’t think my little assumption is too far-fetched. It may be Diane Sawyer or Jack Cafferty instead of Katie, but you get the idea. Actually, they’ll all just be singing a different verse of the same tune.
Of course, my hope and prayer is that there will be no natural disasters or infrastructure failures in the foreseeable future. But as long as Bush is president and tragedies continue to happen, the liberals in this country will always have something to look forward to.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
The Laws We Enforce
My life is in danger. In fact, I’m not so sure it’s safe to leave the house anymore. And the tragedy of it all is that it doesn’t have to be this way. There are already laws on the books to protect me, and yet nobody seems to be enforcing those laws. I’m contemplating becoming a monk and living the rest of my life in a monastery just to ensure a safe existence.
What has me so frightened? Dozens, possibly even scores of people driving on federal, state and local highways while completely ignoring the laws mandating that they wear a safety belt. And considering that nobody enforces those laws, I shudder in fear to think of the homeland security implications of it all.
But wait a minute. Those laws are being enforced. In my state, for instance, we are continually being told to “click it or ticket.” Local and state police are on a vigilant search for anybody violating the seat belt laws that are already on the books. Whew! Maybe I can forego that vow of silence and continue to set foot outside my door every now and then.
My question, however, is this: Why do we spend millions of dollars to go after those who violate seat belt laws but hardly lift a finger to prosecute people who violate our immigration laws?
Not that I’ve got anything against wearing a safety belt; I think it’s the wisest choice every time. But wouldn’t it make more sense, from a safety and security standpoint, to take the money, time and manpower we use to catch seat belt lawbreakers and reallocate it to go after immigration lawbreakers? After all, the laws are already on the books. What if we prosecuted illegal immigrants and those who employ them with the same determination that we display when we prosecute unbuckled drivers? Which laws, if properly enforced, would make our nation safer and more prosperous?
Well, some cities in our country have decided to do the right thing. Hazelton, Pennsylvania, for example, has been enforcing laws that punish those who would do business with illegal immigrants. Their town has grown by 50% in recent years, but the tax base in Hazelton has increased not one iota. Zilch! Nada! None! But then, that’s what happens when illegal immigrants move in and enjoy the benefits of being a member of the community without all those pesky responsibilities that go along with citizenship.
With the city’s resources being stretched to the max by the influx of illegals, the mayor of Hazelton, Lou Barletta, has taken notice and cites some disturbing statistics: “Thirty percent of the gang members we have arrested in Hazelton are illegal aliens. Thirty percent of the drug arrests in the last two years are illegal aliens. I don’t have a magic number that I need to convince me that I shouldn’t be spending taxpayers` money on people who shouldn’t be here.”
So Hazelton did something revolutionary. They got tough on those who break their laws. And what was their reward? A federal judge, with the blessings of the ACLU, has told them they’ve got to quit enforcing these laws. The rationale for the decision by U.S. district judge James Munley is that immigration is a national issue and local initiatives might interfere with congressional objectives. And why wouldn’t he rule that way? After all, there’s no better organization to handle the current immigration crisis than our elected legislators in the U.S. Congress. I’m sure they’ll handle this about as well as they did their checking accounts at the Capitol Hill Bank back in the early nineties.
Judge Munley refused to use the term “illegal” to describe the immigrants in question, choosing instead to call them “unauthorized.” Radio and television personality Glenn Beck, who has an amazing ability to speak basic common sense, made a great observation: “I was thinking maybe we should start saying that bank robbers are just making unauthorized withdrawals.”
And so illegal immigration continues to be a problem in our country, and will probably continue to be as long as we’ve got activist judges and the ACLU leading the way. The message to illegal immigrants in the United States: you can sleep well tonight; secure in a country that won’t enforce the laws that would prosecute you.
Unbuckled drivers, however, had better watch their backs.
What has me so frightened? Dozens, possibly even scores of people driving on federal, state and local highways while completely ignoring the laws mandating that they wear a safety belt. And considering that nobody enforces those laws, I shudder in fear to think of the homeland security implications of it all.
But wait a minute. Those laws are being enforced. In my state, for instance, we are continually being told to “click it or ticket.” Local and state police are on a vigilant search for anybody violating the seat belt laws that are already on the books. Whew! Maybe I can forego that vow of silence and continue to set foot outside my door every now and then.
My question, however, is this: Why do we spend millions of dollars to go after those who violate seat belt laws but hardly lift a finger to prosecute people who violate our immigration laws?
Not that I’ve got anything against wearing a safety belt; I think it’s the wisest choice every time. But wouldn’t it make more sense, from a safety and security standpoint, to take the money, time and manpower we use to catch seat belt lawbreakers and reallocate it to go after immigration lawbreakers? After all, the laws are already on the books. What if we prosecuted illegal immigrants and those who employ them with the same determination that we display when we prosecute unbuckled drivers? Which laws, if properly enforced, would make our nation safer and more prosperous?
Well, some cities in our country have decided to do the right thing. Hazelton, Pennsylvania, for example, has been enforcing laws that punish those who would do business with illegal immigrants. Their town has grown by 50% in recent years, but the tax base in Hazelton has increased not one iota. Zilch! Nada! None! But then, that’s what happens when illegal immigrants move in and enjoy the benefits of being a member of the community without all those pesky responsibilities that go along with citizenship.
With the city’s resources being stretched to the max by the influx of illegals, the mayor of Hazelton, Lou Barletta, has taken notice and cites some disturbing statistics: “Thirty percent of the gang members we have arrested in Hazelton are illegal aliens. Thirty percent of the drug arrests in the last two years are illegal aliens. I don’t have a magic number that I need to convince me that I shouldn’t be spending taxpayers` money on people who shouldn’t be here.”
So Hazelton did something revolutionary. They got tough on those who break their laws. And what was their reward? A federal judge, with the blessings of the ACLU, has told them they’ve got to quit enforcing these laws. The rationale for the decision by U.S. district judge James Munley is that immigration is a national issue and local initiatives might interfere with congressional objectives. And why wouldn’t he rule that way? After all, there’s no better organization to handle the current immigration crisis than our elected legislators in the U.S. Congress. I’m sure they’ll handle this about as well as they did their checking accounts at the Capitol Hill Bank back in the early nineties.
Judge Munley refused to use the term “illegal” to describe the immigrants in question, choosing instead to call them “unauthorized.” Radio and television personality Glenn Beck, who has an amazing ability to speak basic common sense, made a great observation: “I was thinking maybe we should start saying that bank robbers are just making unauthorized withdrawals.”
And so illegal immigration continues to be a problem in our country, and will probably continue to be as long as we’ve got activist judges and the ACLU leading the way. The message to illegal immigrants in the United States: you can sleep well tonight; secure in a country that won’t enforce the laws that would prosecute you.
Unbuckled drivers, however, had better watch their backs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)