Why Global Warming is the Perfect Liberal Issue

Global Warming is the perfect issue for liberals. Here are few reasons.

1. It’s a “can’t lose” argument. Global warming (ehem… “Climate change.” Excuse me.) can’t be defeated. Ever heard “if we don’t change NOW, our planet will be destroyed in (ehem) 100 years”? None of them will ever be around when it’s disproven. And it can be supported no matter what the weather. Temps go up. Warming. Temps go down. Warming. More hurricanes. Warming. Less hurricanes. Remember… it will be 100 years before we get more hurricanes! And, God forbid, the temps stay the same, that means that we are experiencing global warming and global cooling AT THE SAME TIME!!! HELP MEEEEEE!!!

2. It requires more government. The solution to global warming requires MORE government and the unification of governments around the world. They used to argue at we needed more government (i.e. less freedom) for the purposes of a “fairer” society as well as nanny-state purposes. But that wasn’t working. Now, they can argue that we need more government (i.e. less freedom) in order to survive! Who can argue against survival?

3. It advances elitism. Appeals to the liberal notion that “experts” know better (i.e. liberal gov’t elitists) and we must “trust” them with full power which they will promise they will use with tremendous generosity. And conveniently, Americans have forgotten all the cruel 20th century dictators who used the same argument.

4. It’s non-negotiable. It requires no debating, something liberals avoid at all costs. “The argument is settled,” Al says. And 400 of the world’s best scientists (sorry, we can’t provide the list) agree. And don’t ask how many disagree. We don’t count them. They’re just “deniers” of the truth. Besides, we can’t spend time arguing when our children’s future is in peril.

5. It’s third world regressive. (This one’s their favorite) It requires that we punish ourselves back into the dark ages. No more setting our thermostats at 72. No more driving comfortably. No more commuting to a good job. No more keeping our cell phone chargers plugged in 24/7. No more watering our lawns. No more buffets (“eating as much as we want”). No more incandescent light bulbs… Heck… No more light bulbs, period! REMEMBER… these apply ONLY to the non-elites. Elites will be allowed to break these rules in order to save us from ourselves.

Well, that’s my top five. What are yours? I’m sure this list is hardly complete.

New Kind of Politics? I’ll pass

Barack says he’ll change Washington with a new kind of politics. Yet he continues to say he’ll meet with Aquavelvajad “without condition” within the first 100 days of his presidency. This is foolish. No president has ever made this kind of step towards a thug so infamous. All the comparisons to other presidents and their visits to other world leaders fall flat. Those were always preceeded by careful back-door negotiations and talks and predetermined conditions. And the comparison to the careful back-door talks that are no doubt taking place between the Bush Administration and Iran are bogus comparisons. These are the proper kind of “talks.” Obama’s idea of “talks” would make America a weak embarrassment to the rest of the world.

So why does he maintain this foolish policy stance? Because, as some commentator said this weekend, Barack has turned a “debate blunder” into “policy.” That is, instead of being a new kind of politician (honest with the American people) and admitting to the debate blunder, he pretends he meant this. Instead of putting America’s standing in the world before his pride, he is determined to save face by turning this into actual policy. So his foreign policy is determined by his need to look good for the American people. Isn’t this the same guy who decries Bush for not admitting failure in Iraq. How about Obama show us how that works by admitting the failure of his idea? Or is HE the Bush Three?

Where’s the authenticity? Where’s the honesty? If this is the new politics, I’ll pass.

What Kind of America?

McCain gave a speech a few days ago to a group of concerned citizens of Portland, Oregon about the hazards of global warming and it’s affect on the planet.  He vowed to put the government into action to force businesses to help prevent this from getting worse.  He sides with changing America for the sake of the planet.

I’m voting for McCain because he likes to kill terrorists – a good way for an American president to spend his time.  Without our freedom from radicals, what kind of country do we have.  McCain helps protect us and our way of life.

But I must ask, what good is saving a country from terrorists if we’re going to cave in to environmental terrorists who are using “climate change” scare tactics to undermine our way of life, to force us into becoming an extension of European whimpyism, and to live like hermits in worship to Mother Earth.  Environmental terrorism isn’t a lot different than Islamic terrorism.  Islamic extremists believes that the world would be a lot better without unbelieving humans on the planet.  Well, the greenies believe that the earth would be a lot better off if there weren’t these dad gum humans on the planet.

I know what McCain is trying to save us from.  But what is he trying to save us for?