[Bret L]

((A Bret Ludwig prediction: Obama will be a one term president and
will lose with a Jimmy Carter like margin in 2012. He will even have
less than 65% of the black vote as hard as that is to believe. Bret.))

Has Obama's Luck Run Out?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

"The sound alone was worth the $24 billion!"

So said fellow Nixon speechwriter Ray Price as the mighty Saturn V
rocket lifted Apollo 11 and Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins off the
launch pad, three miles away, on the start of their voyage to the
moon.

It was a splendid moment in that first year of the Nixon presidency, a
year that had gone remarkably well for a minority president who had
come to office with both houses held by the opposition.

Within weeks of taking office, Nixon had taken a grand tour of the
European capitals. He had proposed a Family Assistance Plan, cooked up
in Pat Moynihan's shop, to wide applause. He had announced a
withdrawal of 100,000 troops from Vietnam.

He would greet the astronauts on the aircraft carrier in the Pacific
on their return, travel to Guam to announce the Nixon Doctrine,
journey on to Vietnam and visit the troops, thence to Romania—the
first U.S. president to travel behind the Iron Curtain.

Returning in triumph, Nixon departed for his August vacation.

When he returned to D.C., the storm clouds had gathered.

In mid-October, hundreds of thousands of protesters surrounded the
White House demanding an immediate withdrawal from Vietnam, egged on
by a media establishment that had cheered JFK and LBJ all the way into
liberalism's war.

With David Broder writing of the "breaking of the president," Nixon
went on national television to implore the "great silent majority" to
stand with him for peace with honor in Vietnam.

The networks trashed the speech. But Vice President Spiro Agnew
launched a counter-attack on media power and prejudice. By December,
after another 500,000 had marched on Washington, Nixon was at 68
percent approval and Agnew, after Nixon and Billy Graham, was the
third most admired man in America.

Though elected in November 1968, it was November 1969 that made the
Nixon presidency and produced the New Majority Republicans would rely
on for decades. Obama is approaching such a moment of truth.

The universal health insurance plans being advanced all appear too
complex, costly, and non-credible to pass both houses. The cap-and-
trade carbon emissions bill, with its huge costs to be passed on to
U.S. producers and consumers, as China opts out, seems an act of
national masochism.

The $787 billion stimulus bill has done zip to stimulate the economy.
Less than 10 percent of the money has gone out the door, which makes
one wonder why it was called a stimulus package. Unemployment is at
9.5 percent, well above what the Obamaites predicted, and rising.

As worrisome is the situation in Afghanistan. The United States has
66,000 troops in country or on the way, as our NATO allies look for
the exit ramp. We are seven and a half years in and the Afghan army
is not remotely capable of defending the nation or regime.

Afghanistan is now Obama's war. He made the decision to deepen U.S.
involvement as we headed out of Iraq. Yet, it is unclear how many U.S.
troops will be needed, for how long, to create a stable government and
army that can secure the national territory and prevent a return of Al
Qaeda.

Moreover, Kabul continues to protest U.S. air strikes that continue to
kill civilians, as Pakistan protests the Marine offensive in Helmand
that is driving the Taliban into Baluchistan, where a secessionist
movement is developing.

Pakistan also seems more worried about shifting its army away from the
border with India than about defeating an Afghan Taliban with whom it
had a working relationship before 9/11.

We are thus today pushing the Afghan regime to do what it is not
capable of doing, and the Pakistani government and army into doing
what it would prefer not to do. This does not appear a formula for
victory.

Also looming is the issue of Iran's nuclear program.

Obama has moved up from December to September the deadline for serious
discussions to begun. If they have not begun by October, will Obama go
to the U.N. for sanctions? If the Russians and Chinese object, will
Obama and NATO impose sanctions of their own? Will Obama step on an
escalator leading inexorably to war? Or authorize Israel to launch an
attack?

Does Obama have the authority to take us to war against a nation that
has not attacked us? If so, where did he get this authority? While
Congress would readily agree to sanctions, would it sign off on yet
another war?

From North Korea to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, and Honduras, and
from the economy to health care to carbon emissions, things are not
going Obama's way. He is 10 points below where Nixon was after a full
year, and on economic issues—unemployment, the deficit, spending—he is
under 50 percent.

This presidency is not yet in trouble. But it is sure headed that
way."

http://www.vdare.com/buchanan/090723_obama.htm

[Trevor Wilson]

"Bret L" wrote in message
...
In other words, AGW is horse****.

**Well, no. Feel free to submit your evidence. Make certain it comes from a
reputable scientific source. Those whacko religious/right wing political
sources don't count. In your evidence, please explain how the glaciers in
Greenland are moving towards the sea at a rate which is much faster than a
few decades ago. Here's some cites that you need to refute:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0527121055.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet

http://images.google.com.au/images?h...title&resnum=4

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=3606

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/0...sea-level.html

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science...ing/index.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...glaciers-melti

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...aciers-melting

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...el-predicts-gr

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ise-sea-levels


OTOH, we may be in for an ice age,

**********. Complete ********, in fact. There is zero evidence of such a
thing. The TREND in world temepatures is clearly up. Year to year variations
are to be expected, but the TREND is up.

no matter what we do. In fact, doing nothing may be far better than
the wrong thing.

**More ********. Here's some stuff that we know (beyond any doubt):

* Since the dawn of the industrial revolution, CO2 levels have risen by more
than 30%.
* CO2 is a known greehouse gas (GHG).
* Ice core data tells us that the rise in temperatures is faster than at any
time in the last 600,000 years.
* Ice core data tells us that the rise in CO2 levels is faster than at any
time in the last 600,000 years.
* Ice core data tells us that CO2 levels and temperatures are closely
linked. Sometimes CO2 leads temperature rise and sometimes it lags.

The real concern is that we *may* be approaching a 'tipping point', beyond
which there is nothing humans can do to stave off disaster. Most scientists
feel that this level is around 500ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. A handful of
scientists believe it is already too late. Either way, we need to address
the issue right now. There is deep concern that the release of methane from
permafrost areas will cause global warming to become unmanageable. Methane
is a more powerful GHG than CO2.



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Bob Eld]

"Bret L" wrote in message
...
((A Bret Ludwig prediction: Obama will be a one term president and
will lose with a Jimmy Carter like margin in 2012. He will even have
less than 65% of the black vote as hard as that is to believe. Bret.))

Has Obama's Luck Run Out?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

"The sound alone was worth the $24 billion!"

So said fellow Nixon speechwriter Ray Price as the mighty Saturn V
rocket lifted Apollo 11 and Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins off the
launch pad, three miles away, on the start of their voyage to the
moon.

It was a splendid moment in that first year of the Nixon presidency, a
year that had gone remarkably well for a minority president who had
come to office with both houses held by the opposition.

Within weeks of taking office, Nixon had taken a grand tour of the
European capitals. He had proposed a Family Assistance Plan, cooked up
in Pat Moynihan's shop, to wide applause. He had announced a
withdrawal of 100,000 troops from Vietnam.

He would greet the astronauts on the aircraft carrier in the Pacific
on their return, travel to Guam to announce the Nixon Doctrine,
journey on to Vietnam and visit the troops, thence to Romania—the
first U.S. president to travel behind the Iron Curtain.

Returning in triumph, Nixon departed for his August vacation.

When he returned to D.C., the storm clouds had gathered.

In mid-October, hundreds of thousands of protesters surrounded the
White House demanding an immediate withdrawal from Vietnam, egged on
by a media establishment that had cheered JFK and LBJ all the way into
liberalism's war.

With David Broder writing of the "breaking of the president," Nixon
went on national television to implore the "great silent majority" to
stand with him for peace with honor in Vietnam.

The networks trashed the speech. But Vice President Spiro Agnew
launched a counter-attack on media power and prejudice. By December,
after another 500,000 had marched on Washington, Nixon was at 68
percent approval and Agnew, after Nixon and Billy Graham, was the
third most admired man in America.

Though elected in November 1968, it was November 1969 that made the
Nixon presidency and produced the New Majority Republicans would rely
on for decades. Obama is approaching such a moment of truth.

The universal health insurance plans being advanced all appear too
complex, costly, and non-credible to pass both houses. The cap-and-
trade carbon emissions bill, with its huge costs to be passed on to
U.S. producers and consumers, as China opts out, seems an act of
national masochism.

The $787 billion stimulus bill has done zip to stimulate the economy.
Less than 10 percent of the money has gone out the door, which makes
one wonder why it was called a stimulus package. Unemployment is at
9.5 percent, well above what the Obamaites predicted, and rising.

As worrisome is the situation in Afghanistan. The United States has
66,000 troops in country or on the way, as our NATO allies look for
the exit ramp. We are seven and a half years in and the Afghan army
is not remotely capable of defending the nation or regime.

Afghanistan is now Obama's war. He made the decision to deepen U.S.
involvement as we headed out of Iraq. Yet, it is unclear how many U.S.
troops will be needed, for how long, to create a stable government and
army that can secure the national territory and prevent a return of Al
Qaeda.

Moreover, Kabul continues to protest U.S. air strikes that continue to
kill civilians, as Pakistan protests the Marine offensive in Helmand
that is driving the Taliban into Baluchistan, where a secessionist
movement is developing.

Pakistan also seems more worried about shifting its army away from the
border with India than about defeating an Afghan Taliban with whom it
had a working relationship before 9/11.

We are thus today pushing the Afghan regime to do what it is not
capable of doing, and the Pakistani government and army into doing
what it would prefer not to do. This does not appear a formula for
victory.

Also looming is the issue of Iran's nuclear program.

Obama has moved up from December to September the deadline for serious
discussions to begun. If they have not begun by October, will Obama go
to the U.N. for sanctions? If the Russians and Chinese object, will
Obama and NATO impose sanctions of their own? Will Obama step on an
escalator leading inexorably to war? Or authorize Israel to launch an
attack?

Does Obama have the authority to take us to war against a nation that
has not attacked us? If so, where did he get this authority? While
Congress would readily agree to sanctions, would it sign off on yet
another war?

From North Korea to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, and Honduras, and
from the economy to health care to carbon emissions, things are not
going Obama's way. He is 10 points below where Nixon was after a full
year, and on economic issues—unemployment, the deficit, spending—he is
under 50 percent.

This presidency is not yet in trouble. But it is sure headed that
way."

http://www.vdare.com/buchanan/090723_obama.htm

Naw, Pat Buchanan's wishful praying for the demise of Obama is way over
blown. Of course the stimulus hasn't worked, yet. How could it, being only
10% spent. The whole thing hinges on the economy. If we are truly in
recovery as it appears, the prognostications of the Buchanan's out there
will not happen. What would the republicans replace the stimulus with, NO
stimulus? No Tarp? While we can argue that things are going more slowly than
we would like, what is the party of NO's alternative? What would they do?
Their answer was tried with Herbert Hoover and it didn't work so well. What
would make it work this time? It's easy to sit on the sidelines and carp
about everything it's quite another to actually do the heavy lifting. Obama
is doing a lot of lifting and it will pay off.