If We, At MAXINE, Wanted A Free And Constitutional America To Fail ...

A central understanding of why nations fail has found that political institutions and the behavior of ruling elites largely determine the economic success or failure of the countries they operate in. If most Americans have experienced virtually no economic gains for decades, perhaps we should cast our gaze on the Constitutional and political factors in/or out of effect throughout our own society. Image Credit: investorcentric

If We, At MAXINE, Wanted A Free And Constitutional America To Fail ...

Today on the Rush Limbaugh radio program, Rush mentioned and played a few snippets of a video produced and posted by FreeMarketAmerica.org. The presentation gave light to the how and why America appears to be going backward and failing on the goals and opportunity that had once been hallmarks to a free and Constitutional America.

Ryan Houck, the Executive Director of FreeMarketAmerica.org, a project of Americans for Limited Government, produced this opinion presentation which was inspired by Paul Harvey’s “If I were the Devil” published in 1964 and 1996.

Paul Harvey was a cultural and news story commentator that became one of the first to reach millions of people with his presentations. He used the medium of radio in the form of a 15 minute syndicated show that generally aired around noon and The Paul Harvey Show helped to stitch part of the fabric of a true American culture or insight on a way to think or view the world around us.

This excerpted and edited from TruthOrFiction.Com -

“If I were the Devil”
By Paul Harvey

I would gain control of the most powerful nation in the world;

I would delude their minds into thinking that they had come from man's effort, instead of God's blessings;

I would promote an attitude of loving things and using people, instead of the other way around;

I would dupe entire states into relying on gambling for their state revenue;

I would convince people that character is not an issue when it comes to leadership;

I would make it legal to take the life of unborn babies;

I would make it socially acceptable to take one's own life, and invent machines to make it  convenient;

I would cheapen human life as much as possible so that life of animals are valued more than human beings;

I would take God out of the schools, where even the mention of His name was grounds for a lawsuit;

I would come up with drugs that sedate the mind and target the young, and I would get sports heroes to advertise them;

I would get control of the media, so that every night I could pollute the minds of every family member for my agenda;

I would attack then family, the backbone of any nation. I would make divorce acceptable and easy, even fashionable. If the family crumbles, so does the nation;

I would compel people to express their most depraved fantasies on canvas and movies screens, and I would call it art;

I would convince the world that people are born homosexuals, and that their lifestyles should be accepted and marveled;

I would convince the people that right and wrong are determined by a few who call themselves authorities and refer to their agendas as politically correct;

I would persuade people that the church is irrelevant and out of date, the Bible is for the naive;

I would dull the minds of Christians, and make them believe that prayer is not important, and that faithfulness and obedience are optional;

I GUESS I WOULD LEAVE THINGS PRETTY MUCH THE WAY THEY ARE!
[Reference Here]

So how does this approach to understanding give us insights on how American life has changed under a Barack Obama presidency and have us understand the power of progressive thought as it is applied to our every day lives?

This excerpted and edited from NetRightDaily.Com -

If I wanted America to fail (video)
By Ryan Houck

If I wanted America to fail …

To follow, not lead; to suffer, not prosper; to despair, not dream — I’d start with energy.

I’d cut off America’s supply of cheap, abundant energy.  Of course, I couldn’t take it by force. So, I’d make Americans feel guilty for using the energy that heats their homes, fuels their cars, runs their businesses, and powers their economy.

I’d make cheap energy expensive, so that expensive energy would seem cheap.

I would empower unelected bureaucrats to all-but-outlaw America’s most abundant sources of energy.  And after banning its use in America, I’d make it illegal for American companies to ship it overseas.

If I wanted America to fail …

I’d use our schools to teach one generation of Americans that our factories and our cars will cause a new Ice Age, and I’d muster a straight face so I could teach the next generation that they’re causing Global Warming.

And when it’s cold out, I’d call it Climate Change instead.

I’d imply that America’s cities and factories could run on wind power and wishes.  I’d teach children how to ignore the hypocrisy of condemning logging, mining and farming — while having roofs over their heads, heat in their homes and food on their tables.

I would never teach children that the free market is the only force in human history to uplift the poor, establish the middle class and create lasting prosperity. Instead, I’d demonize prosperity itself, so that they will not miss what they will never have.

If I wanted America to fail …

I would create countless new regulations and seldom cancel old ones. They would be so complicated that only bureaucrats, lawyers and lobbyists could understand them.  That way small businesses with big ideas wouldn’t stand a chance — and I would never have to worry about another Thomas Edison, Henry Ford or Steve Jobs.

I would ridicule as “Flat Earthers” those who urge us to lower energy costs by increasing supply. And when the evangelists of commonsense try to remind people about the law of supply and demand, I’d enlist a sympathetic media to drown them out.

If I wanted America to fail …

I would empower unaccountable bureaucracies seated in a distant capitol to bully Americans out of their dreams and their property rights.  I’d send federal agents to raid guitar factories for using the wrong kind of wood; I’d force homeowners to tear down the homes they built on their own land.

I’d make it almost impossible for farmers to farm, miners to mine, loggers to log, and builders to build.  And because I don’t believe in free markets, I’d invent false ones.  I’d devise fictitious products — like carbon credits — and trade them in imaginary markets.  I’d convince people that this would create jobs and be good for the economy.

If I wanted America to fail …

For every concern, I’d invent a crisis; and for every crisis, I’d invent the cause. Like shutting down entire industries and killing tens of thousands of jobs in the name of saving spotted owls.  When everyone learned the stunning irony that the owls were victims of their larger cousins — and not people — it would already be decades too late.

If I wanted America to fail …

I’d make it easier to stop commerce than start it — easier to kill jobs than create them — more fashionable to resent success than to seek it.  When industries seek to create jobs, I’d file lawsuits to stop them.  And then I’d make taxpayers pay for my lawyers.

If I wanted America to fail …

I would transform the environmental agenda from a document of conservation to an economic suicide pact.  I would concede entire industries to our economic rivals by imposing regulations that cost trillions.

I would celebrate those who preach environmental austerity in public while indulging a lavish lifestyle in private.  I’d convince Americans that Europe has it right, and America has it wrong.

If I wanted America to fail …

I would prey on the goodness and decency of ordinary Americans.  I would only need to convince them … that all of this is for the greater good.

If I wanted America to fail, I suppose I wouldn’t change a thing.
[Reference Here]

If we, at MAXINE, wanted a free and Constitutional America to fail ... we wouldn't change a thing either - Vote Obama 2012! ... click link :) and donate now.


** Article first published as "If We Wanted A Free And Constitutional America To Fail ..." at Technorati **

Al Gore's World ... Cools

The Gores e-mailed their friends to tell them of the separation. They called it "a mutual and mutually supportive decision that we have made together following a process of long and careful consideration," in the e-mail, which was obtained by the Associated Press. Image Credit: CultureMap Houston

Al Gore's World ... Cools

In a report that even has political insiders surprised ... Tipper and Al Gore are getting separated from their marriage union of forty (40) years.

The funny thing about the timing of this announcement is that it comes just about nine months after the revelation that all of the core information from the University of East Anglia in England that the Oscar Award winning movie (some insist that it was a documentary) was trumped up, fixed, fitted, and distorted in order to prove the theory of AGW ... or human caused climate change.

Nine months just happens to be the gestation period for humans to create a baby. In this case, given the announcement itself now that the Gore family has two multi-million dollar mansions, one has to ask ... does this prove that the world is actually cooling and not warming?

What is next, will the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences be asking for their statue back?

Will carbon credits end up having to be refunded? ... Probably, but not until after Tipper Gore gets her share of the presumed profits from the Gore Family fortune!

Obama Administration diverts CIA resources to AGW Scientists

Obama Administration diverts CIA resources to AGW Scientists

Acting CIA Director, Leon Panetta, has directed the CIA to share data collection assets, time, and classified information with about 60 select scientists. The National Reconnaissance Office, which operates the nation’s fleet of spy satellites, is providing much of the data.

Former Vice President Al Gore is credited with helping restart the collaboration by urging Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, to convince the CIA and others it was time to bring Medea (Measurements of Earth Data for Environmental Analysis - a Clinton Administration program that operated from 1992 to 2001) back to life.

This excerpted and edited from The National Center for Public Policy Research -

Experts with The National Center for Public Policy Research are decrying this practice as a distraction from important counter-terrorism duties. They further question if it a possible avenue to renew climate change subterfuge already plaguing some of these scientists.

"This is another example of President Obama not taking terrorism seriously," said Deneen Borelli, a fellow with the National Center's Project 21 black leadership network. "Our enemies must be laughing at the Obama Administration's incompetence."
----
"Given the very real threat posed by terrorists, it is ridiculous and downright dangerous to divert any intelligence resources to monitoring polar ice," added Project 21's Deneen Borelli. "Its said this won't hinder regular intelligence-gathering, but it's also clear that agencies can't yet share data and track a terrorism suspect who was identified by his own father. It's unwise to further distract our intelligence network by forcing it to consult with scientists about icebergs, polar bears and sea lions. The Obama Administration appears to be putting a left-wing political agenda before the safety and security of our nation."

Speaking on the involvement of Al Gore, Tom Borelli, Ph.D., director of the National Center's Free Enterprise Project, noted: "If anything, Al Gore is the real national security threat. Gore's climate change fear mongering, which lines his own pockets with cash has stoked a war against the fossil fuels so vital to our nation's economic prosperity and national security. His self-serving agenda is stymieing domestic energy exploration and production efforts. Now, he successfully lobbied to resurrect this diversion of our intelligence assets after the Bush Administration wisely ended it."

The claims of some scientists are already suspect after the Climategate scandal. Tom Borelli pointed out: "We've already seen climate scientists discussing the idea of destroying raw data to preserve climate change models that may be seriously flawed, and then it turns out that very same sort of data was allegedly 'lost.' How can we trust them to not behave similarly with CIA data - such as denying the proper peer review under the guise that the data is secret? The real question is: who's going to be watching the scientists?"
Reference Here>>

Additional Question:

Will the Obama Administration vet these scientists as it relates to their involvement with "Climategate" tactics ... or will they just be vetted as other Czars and advisors to the Obama Administration have been in the last 11 months (Van Jones, Mark Lloyd, Timothy Geithner, Harold Koh, John HoldrenCass Sunstein and others)?

Problem:

Scientific Method is the search for Truth ... Climate Change data collection is the gathering of information in search for data that supports an AGW Ideology!

This process of diverting classified CIA assets and time takes away from their real job ... to gather information about real threats and assaults on the sovereignty of the United States.

Truth? Fiction? A Sense Or Nonsense Film Premier

“An Inconvenient Truth ... Or Convenient Fiction?” is an entertaining, fact-based look at the climate change issue featuring Dr. Steven Hayward, PRI Director of Environmental Studies and F.K. Weyerhauser, Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Image Credit: Pacific Research Institute

Truth? Fiction? A Sense Or Nonsense Film Premier

Today, the film premier of "An Inconvenient Truth … Or Convenient Fiction?" is being presented by the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco at the Embarcadero Center Cinema - 1 Embarcadero Center, San Francisco, CA 94111.

The film will be premiered at NO COST with the Reception to start at 7:00 pm, with the Screening to begin at 7:30 pm.

Further, two more movie premieres are scheduled for:

April 18, 2007 Movie screening – Washington, D.C.

April 24, 2007 Movie screening – New York City

The movie is the work of Dr. Steven Hayward, PRI Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies, American Enterprise Institute F.K. Weyerhaeuser Fellow. Image Credit: Pacific Research Institute

To provide an additional insight to the work of Dr. Steven Hayward, here is an assay about the alarmist focus being brought to the issue of climate change, and more specifically, the hysteria that is intention of Al Gore's recent Oscar winning film, "An Inconvenient Truth".

This from an opinion essay posted at the Pacific Research Institute -

Gore on the Rocks
by Steven F. Hayward - March 21, 2007

Consensus is reached: Gore’s global-warming alarmism is overblown.

As international celebrity and film star Al Gore prepared to testify about global warming on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, it was already apparent that the hot air may be leaking out of the global-warming balloon.

After a year of concentrated effort that includes a multimillion-dollar p.r. campaign on top of An Inconvenient Truth and slavish media coverage parroting the climate-alarmist line, recent polls show that public opinion has barely budged. Only about a third of Americans, according to a recent Gallup survey, are agitated about climate change, and even people who say the environment is their most important issue rank climate change behind air and water quality in importance.

Meanwhile a backlash in the scientific community has begun. Last week, New York Times veteran science reporter William Broad filed a devastating article about scientists who are “alarmed” at Gore’s alarmism; Gore’s account of global warming goes far beyond the evidence. The dissents from Gore’s extremism, Broad explained, “come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists” who have “no political ax to grind.” It appears Gore refused to be interviewed directly for the article; he responded to e-mail questions only.

This backlash has been quietly building for a while. In November, Mike Hulme, director of Britain’s Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research, expressed his unease about climate alarmism to the BBC:

I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric. It seems that it is we, the professional climate scientists, who are now the [catastrophe] skeptics. How the wheel turns. Why is it not just campaigners, but politicians and scientists too, who are openly confusing the language of fear, terror and disaster with the observable physical reality of climate change, actively ignoring the careful hedging which surrounds science’s predictions? To state that climate change will be ‘catastrophic’ hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions which do not emerge from empirical or theoretical science.

Then in December, Kevin Vranes of the University of Colorado, by no means a climate skeptic, commented on a widely read science blog about his sense of the mood of the most recent meeting of the American Geophysical Union, where Gore had made his standard climate presentation. “To sum the state of the climate science world in one word, as I see it right now, it is this: tension,” Vranes wrote. “What I am starting to hear is internal backlash. . . None of this is to say that the risk of climate change is being questioned or downplayed by our community; it’s not. It is to say that I think some people feel that we’ve created a monster by limiting the ability of people in our community to question results that say ‘climate change is right here!’”

Gore and other climate extremists have been hammering away at “consensus” science for years now — especially the assessments produced by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). So it is a highly inconvenient truth that the latest IPCC scientific assessment undermines many of Gore’s most spectacular claims. The IPCC says the worst-case sea-level rise this century would be 23 inches; Gore portrays 20 feet or more in his horror film. Ditto for Gore’s claims about hurricanes and melting ice caps; the new IPCC fails to bolster Gore’s alarmism. Already climate alarmists are starting to mutter under their breath that the IPCC is now “too conservative,” but having built up the IPCC as the gold standard of “consensus” science, the alarmists are in the awkward position of being hoist by their own petard. It could be an inconvenient moment for Gore on Wednesday if someone asks him why he is so far outside the scientific consensus on so many aspects of the issue.

A new anti-alarmist documentary from Britain’s iconoclastic Channel Four, The Great Global Warming Swindle, is attracting Internet viewers by the millions. And the most significant blow to climate alarmism came last week in New York, where in a formal debate MIT’s Richard Lindzen and author Michael Crichton decisively defeated the alarmists in an audience vote. You know there is something fundamentally weak about the case for climate catastrophe when you see an alarmist attributing the skeptics’ victory to Crichton’s height rather than the substance of the arguments.

The biggest blow to the climate catastrophists is not any scientific problem, but the hypocrisy of Gore and his Hollywood cheering section, whose profligate energy use cannot be mitigated in the popular mind through “carbon offsets,” even if such offsets worked as advertised. Liberals in the 1960s and 1970s never comprehended how damaging “limousine liberalism” was to their cause. They seem even more oblivious to the self-inflicted wounds of “Gulfstream liberalism.” Whatever the intricacies of climate science, middle-class citizens understand that Gore wants them to use less energy and pay more for it, while he and his Hollywood pals use as much as they want and buy their way out of guilt, like a medieval indulgence. In the companion book to An Inconvenient Truth, Gore writes that “a good way to reduce the amount of energy you use is simply to buy less. Before making a purchase, ask yourself if you really need it.” Gore decided that he does need it — for all four of his homes and his pool house.

The ultimate sign that climate change is more about politics than science is the repeated “go-slow” statements of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders. If climate change is really the greatest threat in mankind’s history, with the catastrophic tipping point less than 10 years away, why go slow in crafting legislation to save the planet? Perhaps Pelosi and other congressional Democrats have paid attention to the overwhelming consensus of economists — one climate consensus that Gore resolutely ignores — that serious greenhouse-gas emission cuts fail every conceivable cost-benefit test. Faced with the climate-policy equivalent of HillaryCare, Pelosi would prefer to save her majority rather than save the planet.
Reference Here>>

We are told at MAXINE, that DVD's and clips of the movie will be made available at the Pacific Research Institute website and that it is expected to be posted on YouTube. When it becomes available at YouTube ... it will be posted here.

UPDATE: Video
(ht: Power Line)

The Doom Of Profit

The happy couples at the Oscars - Tammy Lynn Michaels, Melissa Etheridge, Al Gore, Tipper Gore - Image Credit: Jeff Vespa/WireImage.com

The Doom Of Profit

It strikes me that the posting below should be titled "The Doom Of Profit".

It certainly put an end to the perceived purity of this (truly) evil man's character.

Just think, maybe this will put an end to all of this crazy talk about giving this guy the "Nobel Peace Prize"! Give us all a break from his overbearing and lecturing ways.

As he stated very clearly - This (his profiting from his own "doom prophecy") IS a moral issue. Hey, Al, go back to growing tobacco!

This posted at Now Public -

The Profit of Doom
... and it gets worse
by robert galbraith - February 28, 2007

"As the controversy over global warming doomsayer Al Gore's voracious energy-eater mansion rolls on, there's an angle I think merits deeper investigation than it is currently getting. While much of the focus has been on whether or not Gore is an environmental hypocrite, the story has raised the profile of the role of "carbon offsets" in achieving a "greener," more environmentally friendly world.

In its original story, The Tennessean reported that Gore buys "carbon offsets" to compensate for his home's use of energy from carbon-based fuels. As Wikipedia explains, a carbon offset "is a service that tries to reduce the net carbon emissions of individuals or organizations indirectly, through proxies who reduce their emissions and/or increase their absorption of greenhouse gases."

Wikipedia goes on to explain that "a wide variety of offset actions are available; tree planting is the most common. Renewable energy and energy conservation offsets are also popular, including emissions trading credits."

So far, so good. But how Gore buys his "carbon offsets," as revealed by The Tennessean raises serious questions. According to the newspaper's report, Gore buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management:

Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe...

Gore is chairman of the firm and, presumably, draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he "buys" his "carbon offsets" from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy "carbon offsets" through Generation Investment Management - he buys stocks."
Reference Here>>

Well, we just finished reading the website for Generation Investment Management.

As Simon Cowell of American Idol fame is prone to say when he gives his best critique ... "If I am going to be honest" - the website for a company that was "established" in 2004 is Nothing But A Bunch Of Fluff ... there is no "there", there ... this company should be based in Oakland! Jerry Brown would fit right in.

The richest statements on the site are:

Our Chairman, former Vice President Al Gore, has assembled Generation's Advisory Board which consists of global leaders and thinkers from capital markets, industry, sustainability, economics, and geopolitical fields. The Advisory Board plays an important part in establishing our long term thematic research agenda into global sustainability issues, such as poverty, climate change, ecosystem services, biodiversity, pandemics, demographics, migration, public policy and responsible lobbying.

We, at MAXINE, really love that word - SUSTAINABILITY - it actually sounds ominous and that we humans have the power to not just have control as to what happens here on earth - as if, but beyond.

And this:

Generation's Advisory Board consists of global thinkers who help us anticipate the changing context for business.

It makes one think, if Al Gore became President of the most powerful nation on earth, how would he use his power to Change The Context For Business!

A Hollywood Moment Meets An Inconvenient Truth

Former Vice President Al Gore is shown in a scene from his documentary "An Inconvenient Truth." The film received two Oscar awards - best documentary feature and best original song. Image Gerdit: Eric Lee / Paramount Pictures Classics via AP

A Hollywood Moment Meets An Inconvenient Truth

Can you say Al Gore? … I knew you could.

It is not enough that Al Gore, during the Oscar telecast last night, got everyone on camera (almost) to say the word CRISIS when they were hammering home the less than truthful message of his Oscar award winning lecture … ahh! … errr! … “Documentary”.

No, the seas are NOT going to rise 20 feet but the Gore household uses at least twelve (12) times the electricity than the average American household while he pursues the Nobel Peace Prize!

This in from Instapundit –

AN INCONVENIENT UTILITY BILL
By Glenn Reynolds - February 26, 2007 - posted at 06:46 PM

"Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES)…

. . . The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy.

In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average. Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359."
Reference Here>>

POV Point, Counterpoint – Global Warming Opinion Intentions

A general view shows the lower house of Parliament Bundestag inside the Reichstags building during a commemoration ceremony to mark the Holocaust memorial day in Berlin January 29, 2007. Image Credit: REUTERS/Fabrizio Bensch (GERMANY)

POV Point, Counterpoint – Global Warming Opinion Intentions

When we, at MAXINE, see, listen, or read anything from longtime flame-throwing MSM liberal hack (Boston Globe, The McLaughlin Group (NPR), and go to “talking head” for biting MSM POV commentary for any political talk enterprise) we are stunned at the echo chamber logic expressed given almost any topic she jumps off into.

Usually, it is easy to just discount the views as coming from a very liberal, journalistic, and socialist camp.

That is, until her latest attempt to place people who want to deny that the Holocaust (where people of the Jewish faith were rounded up, taken to prison camps, placed in gas chambers, and executed) actually happened during WWII are used as the measuring stick for people who wish to debate against the proposition that Human activity is the primary cause of Earth’s temperature changes (Global Warming).

Dennis Prager makes it very clear as to how WRONG, damaging, and piously-political her latest column is on the subject of Global Warming in the Boston Globe through his latest column featured in Townhall.

Point, Counterpoint!

This from Dennis Prager, contributing writer for Townhall –

On Comparing Global Warming Denial to Holocaust Denial
By Dennis Prager - Tuesday, February 13, 2007

In her last column, Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman wrote: "Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers . . . "

This is worthy of some analysis.

First, it reflects a major difference between the way in which the Left and Right tend to view each other. With a few exceptions, those on the Left tend to view their ideological adversaries as bad people, i.e., people with bad intentions, while those on the Right tend to view their adversaries as wrong, perhaps even dangerous, but not usually as bad.

Those who deny the Holocaust are among the evil of the world. Their concern is not history but hurting Jews, and their attempt to rob nearly six million people of their experience of unspeakable suffering gives new meaning to the word "cruel." To equate those who question or deny global warming with those who question or deny the Holocaust is to ascribe equally nefarious motives to them. It may be inconceivable to Al Gore, Ellen Goodman and their many millions of supporters that a person can disagree with them on global warming and not have evil motives: Such an individual must be paid by oil companies to lie, or lie -- as do Holocaust deniers -- for some other vile reason.

The belief that opponents of the Left are morally similar to Nazis was expressed recently by another prominent person of the Left, George Soros, the billionaire who bankrolls many leftist projects. At the World Economic Forum in Davos last month, Soros called on America to "de-Nazify" just as Germany did after the Holocaust and World War II. For Soros, America in Iraq is like the Nazis in Poland.

A second lesson to be drawn from the Goodman statement is that it helps us to understand better one of the defining mottos of contemporary liberalism: "Question authority." In reality, this admonition applies to questioning the moral authority of Judeo-Christian religions or of any secular conservative authority, but not of any other authority. UN and other experts tell us that there is global warming; such authority is not to be questioned.

Third, the equation of global warming denial to Holocaust denial trivializes Holocaust denial. If questioning global warming is on "a par" with questioning the Holocaust, how bad can questioning the Holocaust really be? The same holds true with regard to Nazism and the George Soros statement. Claiming that America in the Iraq War is morally equivalent to Nazi Germany in World War II trivializes the unparalleled evil of the Nazis.

Fourth, the lack of response (thus far) of any liberal or left individual or organization -- except to defend Ellen Goodman -- or from the Anti-Defamation League, the organization whose primary purpose has been to defend Jews, is telling. Just imagine if, for example, an equally prominent Christian figure had written that denying America is a Christian country is on a par with denying the Holocaust. It would have been front-page news in the mainstream media, the individual would have been excoriated by just about every major liberal individual and group, and the ADL would have cited this as an example of burgeoning Christian anti-Semitism and Holocaust trivialization. But not a word at the ADL on Soros's comments about de-Nazifying America or Goodman's Holocaust-denial comment.

Fifth, and finally, the Ellen Goodman quote is only the beginning of what is already becoming one of the largest campaigns of vilification of decent people in history -- the global condemnation of a) anyone who questions global warming; or b) anyone who agrees that there is global warming but who argues that human behavior is not its primary cause; or c) anyone who agrees that there is global warming, and even agrees that human behavior is its primary cause, but does not believe that the consequences will be nearly as catastrophic as Al Gore does.

If you don't believe all three propositions, you will be lumped with Holocaust deniers, and it would not be surprising that soon, in Europe, global warming deniers will be treated as Holocaust deniers and prosecuted.

Just watch.

That is far more likely than the oceans rising by 20 feet.

Or even 10.

Or even three.
Reference Here>>

Hey Ellen! ... Al! Surf's Up!

Good on ya', Dennis.