In his new book Climate Change, Climate Science and Economics: Prospects for an Alternative Energy Future, Dr. Cornelis van Kooten, Professor of Economics and Research Chair in Environmental Studies and Climate, University of Victoria, BC, Canada writes this:

A significant number of economists and policy analysts predicted that the Kyoto Process would fail, because it hopes to achieve greenhouse gas emission-reduction objectives that cannot possibly be attained. The problem is that 80% of the world’s peoples live on $10 per day or less, and 1.5 billion people currently have no access to electricity (Pielke 2010) – climate policies that prevent economic development will certainly be objectionable to them. Further, non‐OECD countries are projected by the OECD and International Energy Agency to account for 93% of the increase in global demand between 2007 and 2030, and this will be driven largely by economic growth in China and India. Growth in emissions resulting from the increased consumption of coal by China, India and other Asian countries, let alone growth in consumption of oil and gas, will exceed any possible reduction in emissions that OECD countries could implement. The only conclusions that a realistic observer could possibly come to are that (1) energy prices are currently too high as too many of the earth’s citizens are unable to afford to purchase the energy they need to attain even modest standards of living, and (2) addressing climate change by targeting CO2 emissions is a futile project.

This conclusion makes much of the current debate moot. It asserts that the economically harmful policy initiatives that are currently being adopted throughout much of the Western World are pointless. Perhaps we can quit arguing about hockey stick graphs and polar bears and start looking at alternative policies. Perhaps we can get past some idiotic politician suggesting that Republican skeptics of AGW are to blame for the devastation caused by the recent EF5 tornado in Moore, OK. Most importantly, perhaps we can look at adapting to changes in climate (assuming they are real and long term) rather than slowly crushing ourselves under the weight of a fruitless enterprise.

My thanks to Dr. E. Calvin Beisner for alerting us to this new work by Dr. van Kooten

The post Targeting CO2 Emissions: “A Futile Project” appeared first on Caffeinated Thoughts.

Jay Carney has become absolutely breathtaking in his willingness to spout unmitigated crap to the American people. I don’t remember anyone even in the Nixon Administration that was so willing to continue to make pronouncements that virtually everyone knew weren’t true. This guy appears to be in a class by himself. If there is a Mt. Rushmore to honor those who spread political bovine excrement, Jay Carney needs to have his face chiseled into the rock there.

Ben Stein wrote this last September: “Incredibly, Jay Carney, White House spokesman, is spinning a complete fairy tale that the Islamists really like America and Mr. Obama. The murderers are just upset about a movie trailer that came out months ago. How stupid do they think we Americans are? If Mr. Obama really believes (this), he belongs in a straitjacket. If not, his spokesman is the biggest fantasist of all time.”

I have concluded that Carney isn’t a fantasist. He’s just a guy that can maintain a whopper of a lie longer and better than anyone in recent memory. He’s the kind of a guy that, when the Emperor himself realizes that he has no new clothes and is in reality buck naked, can continue to tell the masses that the Emperor is wearing Armani. As I said, the guy appears to be in a class by himself. An artist, a master at his craft. A National Treasure.

The post Jay Carney: A National Treasure appeared first on Caffeinated Thoughts.

Nothing of the kind will take place, of course, assuming the sequestration actually happens. I am concerned, however, that those things might eventually take place if it doesn’t. Well, okay, maybe old people won’t spontaneously combust, but we are in deep fiscal trouble as a country. Failure to implement something as minimal (yes, I said minimal) in its austerity as is sequestration suggests that we are indeed fiscally doomed.

As I’ve written before, I think more people are starting to catch on to this, but these across the board “cuts” in Federal spending aren’t really cuts at all. They are merely reductions in the rate of growth. It’s never reported that way by the media, and, other than guys like Rand Paul and Tom Coburn, the politicians don’t speak in those terms either. So how does this work?

Graphic from the Cato Institute

The big problem here is baseline budgeting. The Federal government has been using it in one form or another for decades now. It assumes an automatic increase in the Federal budget of roughly 3% plus the rate of inflation. The budget projections are now done over a ten year period as well. The Congressional Budget Office’s baseline budget projection from 2012 through 2022, for example, would increase annual spending by around two trillion dollars (to well over $5 trillion per year) by 2022. And, so far as I can tell, this assumes no spending for future government programs that might be created along the way (a dubious assumption if there ever was one), although it does take into consideration future spending mandated by existing legislation.

So when you hear a politician say they’ve “cut” a trillion dollars out of the budget, what they are really saying is that they have reduced the rate of growth of government by $100 billion per year. Sounds like a lot until you realize that the Federal deficit has exceeded a trillion dollars for each of the last four years, and that the baseline increase for a given year is twice the amount that they just claimed to “cut”.

You’ve probably heard by now that sequestration will cut $85 billion (or roughly 3%) from where Federal spending otherwise would have been in 2013. The reality is (according to the CBO) that the cut will be around $44 billion (or 1.2%). Does anyone really think that a 1.2% reduction in the rate of spending growth is Draconian?

And, given our debt situation, if we can’t even stomach something as pathetically insufficient as the sequester, how can we possibly avoid the fiscal train wreck that much of Europe has become?

The post We NEED “Sequestration” And We Need It Now appeared first on Caffeinated Thoughts.

1. She takes responsibility for the matter.

2. She gets a lot of communications via cable (over a million per year), and she can’t possibly read them all.

3. Congress won’t give her the funding she needs.

4. If the administration blew smoke at the American people, it doesn’t make any difference. After all, she didn’t do it.

5. She’s not really responsible for the matter.

Actually, I think we really only learned one thing last week, and that is that our questions about the Benghazi attack will never be answered.
During the second Presidential debate last Fall, Mitt Romney brought the Benghazi issue up, specifically charging that ”it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.” Obama was offended that Romney would make such a charge. Here are some excerpts from PolitiFact on the exchange:

Obama had bristled at the idea that his administration had played politics with the attack. He called the suggestion “offensive”.

Obama: ”The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened — that this was an act of terror — and I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime.”

Romney: “I think interesting the president just said something, which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.”

Obama: ”That’s what I said.”

Romney: “You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you’re saying?”

Obama: ”Please proceed, governor.”

Romney: ”I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.”

Obama: ”Get the transcript.”

We went to the transcript, and the president has a point. On September 12, the day after the attack, in the Rose Garden, Obama condemned the attack and said, “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation”…

…However, in the days that followed, the White House spokesman and the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations suggested that the attack seemed to have taken advantage of a demonstration over an American-made video that disparaged Islam.

On Sept. 13, White House spokesman Jay Carney said, “The protests we’re seeing around the region are in reaction to this movie. They are not directly in reaction to any policy of the United States or the government of the United States or the people of the United States.”

The next day, a State Department spokeswoman said, “We are very cautious about drawing any conclusions with regard to who the perpetrators were, what their motivations were, whether it was premeditated.” But she ended with this: “Obviously, there are plenty of people around the region citing this disgusting video as something that has been motivating.”

On Sept. 16, five days after the attack, Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said, “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.”

On Sept. 20, Carney told reporters, “It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials.”

But that same day, Obama told an audience at a town hall meeting, “What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”

It wasn’t until Sept. 21 that everyone in the administration as a whole stated publicly that the attack was planned and executed by a terrorist group.

Throughout all of this, Ben Stein was incredulous. He wrote this on September 16th: 

Incredibly, Jay Carney, White House spokesman, is spinning a complete fairy tale that the Islamists really like America and Mr. Obama. The murderers are just upset about a movie trailer that came out months ago. How stupid do they think we Americans are? If Mr. Obama really believes (this), he belongs in a straitjacket. If not, his spokesman is the biggest fantasist of all time.

For my part, I can only conclude that the Obama Administration tried to give a giant snow job to the American people, and that they did so because what really happened in Benghazi didn’t fit their narrative. The war on terror was over. Bin Laden was dead. That’s all they wanted us to know, especially in the midst of a re-election campaign.

And their narrative now? The President was re-elected and we’ve all moved on. What difference does it make now, anyway?

If we can’t even get any answers on the snow job we were treated to, it’s an absolute certainty we’ll never know what happened (or didn’t happen) relative to the attack itself.

The post Benghazi Questions Will Never Be Answered appeared first on Caffeinated Thoughts.

This is where the problem lies. Setting aside the question of whether certain gun control measures would be effective or not, the real issue we need to consider as a country is whether we want to be a free people.

Tyranny can always find a starting place in the matters of safety, security, and the common good, and it does so regardless of whether these matters are real concerns or merely imagined. A truly free society must therefore be willing to risk a great deal with respect to these matters in order to preserve liberty, even if the concern is very real, lest it destroy liberty attempting to preserve itself.

The post James Taylor: We Must Sacrifice Our Freedoms appeared first on Caffeinated Thoughts.

So Europe got the American president it wanted – the one who would present no threat to its own delusions. The United States is now officially one of us: an Old World country complete with class hatred, ethnic Balkanisation, bourgeois guilt and a paternalist ruling elite. And it is locked into the same death spiral of high public spending and self-defeating wealth redistribution as we are. Welcome to the future, and the beginning of what may turn out to be the terminal decline of the West.

Not to be outdone, here’s Gerri Willis:

Think we’re different from the Europeans? Think again. The proportion of Greek men in their 30’s that are working is higher than the proportion of men who work in the United States. That’s what this election was all about. People voted for free stuff, free money, and free benefits. A chicken and health care in every pot.

These women have correctly observed the alarming signal this election sent: We were warned almost nightly on the evening news about the disaster that awaits us if we follow in Europe’s footsteps and we appear to be Hell-bent to go there anyway. Daley concludes that we may yet rediscover our soul as a nation but Willis laments that we’ve lost our way:

So here’s where we are; nearly 200 years after Francis Scott Key penned the national anthem and immortalized the phrase, “Land of the Free.” We’ve become just that, but not in the way we quite expected. We’re the land of the free because an increasing number of us are getting a free ride. That, my friends, is not the American way.

There’s been a lot of suggestions as to what the GOP should do moving forward: They should work to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants, they should become more pro-choice, they should be more conservative, they should be more moderate, they should throw out the RINOs and be more consistent conservatives, and so on and so forth. I’m not sure that it matters. A large portion of the electorate at present wants government provided goodies. And everyone knows what party to vote for in order to get them.

We have become “just another declining society”, writes Daley. And we did it while we watched and then imitated a self-destructing Europe. And most of us didn’t seem to care.

The post Europe, Here We Come! appeared first on Caffeinated Thoughts.

Only in America can a president who inherits a deep recession and whose policies have actually made the effects of that recession worse get re-elected. Only in America can a president who wants the bureaucrats who can’t run the Post Office to micromanage the administration of every American’s health care get re-elected. Only in America can a president who kills Americans overseas who have never been charged or convicted of a crime get re-elected. And only in America can a president who borrowed and spent more than $5 trillion in fewer than four years, plans to repay none of it and promises to borrow another $5 trillion in his second term get re-elected.

What’s going on here?

What is going on is the present-day proof of the truism observed by Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, who rarely agreed on anything in public: When the voters recognize that the public treasury has become a public trough, they will send to Washington not persons who will promote self-reliance and foster an atmosphere of prosperity, but rather those who will give away the most cash and thereby create dependency. This is an attitude that, though present in some localities in the colonial era, was created at the federal level by Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt, magnified by FDR, enhanced by LBJ, and eventually joined in by all modern-day Democrats and most contemporary Republicans.

Mitt Romney is one of those Republicans. He is no opponent of federal entitlements, and he basically promised to keep them where they are. Where they are is a cost to taxpayers of about $1.7 trillion a year. Under President Obama, however, the costs have actually increased, and so have the numbers of those who now receive them. Half of the country knows this, and so it has gleefully sent Obama back to office so he can send them more federal cash taken from the other half.

It is fair to say that Obama is the least skilled and least effective American president since Jimmy Carter, but he is far more menacing. His every instinct is toward the central planning of the economy and the federal regulation of private behavior. He has no interest in protecting American government employees in harm’s way in Libya, and he never admits he has been wrong about anything. Though he took an oath to uphold the Constitution, he treats it as a mere guideline, whose grand principles intended to guarantee personal liberty and a diffusion of power can be twisted and compromised to suit his purposes. He rejects the most fundamental of American values — that our rights come from our Creator, and not from the government. His rejection of that leads him to an expansive view of the federal government, which permits it, and thus him, to right any wrong, to regulate any behavior and to tax any event, whether authorized by the Constitution or not, and to subordinate the individual to the state at every turn.

As a practical matter, we are in for very difficult times during Obama’s second term. ObamaCare is now here to stay; so, no matter who you are or how you pay your medical bills, federal bureaucrats will direct your physicians in their treatment of you, and they will see your medical records. As well, Obama is committed to raising the debt of the federal government to $20 trillion. So, if the Republican-controlled House of Representatives goes along with this, as it did during Obama’s first term, the cost will be close to $1 trillion in interest payments every year. As well, everyone’s taxes will go up on. New Year’s Day, as the Bush-era tax cuts will expire then. The progressive vision of a populace dependent on a central government and a European-style welfare state is now at hand.

Though I argued during the campaign that this election was a Hobson’s choice between big government and bigger government, and that regrettably it addressed how much private wealth the feds should seize and redistribute and how much private behavior they should regulate, rather than whether the Constitution permits them to do so, and though I have argued that we have really one political party whose two branches mirror each other’s wishes for war and power, it is unsettling to find Obama back in the White House for another four years. That sinking feeling comes from the knowledge that he is free from the need to keep an eye on the electorate, and from the terrible thought that he may be the authoritarian we have all known and feared would visit us one day and crush our personal freedoms.

The post Judge Napolitano: What Happened, and What Happens Now appeared first on Caffeinated Thoughts.

As we engage in political discourse in this election year, we Christians would do well in remembering that our divisions may serve to help no one, but they can easily hurt us all.

A bit of history to illustrate this point: Some three and one half centuries ago in what is now the United Kingdom, Evangelical Christians were quite literally slaughtering one another in a series of wars over what were largely political questions.

On September 3rd, 1650 at the battle of Dunbar, Oliver Cromwell destroyed the Covenanter army, effectively putting an end to Scottish resistance to the English Commonwealth. At the conclusion of the battle, with some 3000 Scots dead, Cromwell’s Roundhead army sang Psalm 117. To those who loved singing the Psalms, as did the Covenanters, this must have been the most horrific irony imaginable.

Like today, only more so, there were indeed issues of great import that were worth fighting for. But also like today, there were good Christians that differed in their opinions upon these issues. For our part, wherever and whenever we can, we need to be unified for the furtherance of the cause of Christ. When we can’t, we still need to be loving, kind, and respectful to our brethren, remembering the tragic history Christians have had on occasion where politics are concerned.

The post Political Divisions Among Christians appeared first on Caffeinated Thoughts.

This isn’t simply a fight between conservatives in the base and the so called “RINOs” (the “Establishment” Republicans), although that dynamic is at play as well. This is something that goes much deeper than that. It goes to the religious convictions of the Evangelical Christians themselves.

There are many Evangelicals that are sufficiently horrified by the prospect of another four years of the Obama Administration that they are fully prepared to vote for Mitt Romney, and they haven’t seen any particular need to justify their position on the matter. There are others who are actively trying to dissuade Christians from voting for Romney. And there are many reasons given for why: His record as Governor of Massachusetts, his views on allowable exceptions for abortion, and the general lack of confidence that Romney really shares their values in his heart of hearts. There is another one as well, and that is Romney’s Mormonism.

There are quite a number of Christians that are suggesting that the right thing to do in this election is either to vote for someone other than Romney or Obama, or sit this election out altogether. My friend and fellow Caffeinated Thoughts contributor David Shedlock has actually written a book essentially advocating this position. And while I certainly respect those who choose to embrace this position, it seems to me it is hardly the duty of the Christian to do so.

The accusation of voting for “the lesser of two evils” is frequently made against those who vote for candidates who, for one reason or another, fail the test of political purity. Voting for a “lesser evil” is still evil, we are reminded. I would have far more regard for this accusation if I thought for a moment that those who ordinarily assert it had really thought through the issue.

As I have written in the past, for me this whole matter is primarily dependent upon the answer to two questions: First, what are the civil obligations of Christians in a pluralistic nation and society as opposed to a distinctively Christian nation and society? Secondly, what is the nature of a vote? Surprisingly, these questions rarely get asked.

We spend a lot of time debating whether the Unites States is (or was) a Christian nation. But I think a fair assessment of the situation would lead us to conclude that the consensus Christianity once had in our country is gone, and, officially or constitutionally, pluralism is what we’ve had all along. We need to be asking ourselves what our duty is in the situation we find ourselves in rather than what once perhaps was or what we hope will be. We may long for the days in which Christianity was pervasive in our culture, and the results were happily evident. We may have even entertained hopes that our nation would embrace Christianity as its established religion in a formal way through an amendment to our constitution. But the present reality is, in my opinion, that we live in a post-Christian culture and in a nation which has codified pluralism as its established religion. We are not Jerusalem with its temple and Torah. We are, rather, Babylon with its demigods and decadence.

This is an important point, because it cannot be assumed that the Christian’s duties in each situation are identical. Writing about the relation between church and state found in The Westminster Confession, Dr. William Young, Professor emeritus of Philosophy, University of Rhode Island, writes: “The modified form of the Confession adopted by several Presbyterian denominations in this country still maintains the fundamental principle of the right and duty of the civil magistrate in religious matters, and contemplates in fact a predominantly Evangelical Christian na­tion…I, for one, would insist that it would be a disaster if our government—federal, state or local—were under the present circumstances to exercise fully the rights that are allowed even by (this) modifica­tion of the Confession adopted by a number of Presbyterian churches in this country.”

It seems clear that Young sees instances where a situation may alter rights and duties that are ordinarily required. While Young’s comments are with regard to the rights and duties of “civil magistrates”, it nonetheless also seems clear to me that the rights and duties of the Christian citizens who elect these civil magistrates may be altered in these situations as well. It is entirely possible that Christians would be obligated to vote for singularly Christian candidates if a case could legitimately be made that we presently live in a Christian nation. As Supreme Court Justice John Jay wrote, “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” But even if Jay, like others, was right in asserting that the United States was a Christian nation, it strikes me as a moot point as we consider the civil obligations of a Christian in today’s circumstances.

If it is true that a Christian’s civil duties always remain the same regardless of circumstance, what are we to think about Joseph? (Gen. 41:38-44) It’s hard for me to imagine that Joseph, the most powerful man in all of Egypt next to to Pharaoh himself,  never appointed a pagan Egyptian to a place or office of civil authority.

The second consideration I mentioned earlier is the question of the nature of a vote, and this question gets far less attention than the first. I was excited some time ago when I saw that R.C. Sproul had written an article entitled Principles for Voting and I was really excited when I saw he had written this: “As a Christian you have obligations opposed (sic?) upon your conscience that in some sense other people don’t have, although they should have. And the first thing is this: You have to understand what a vote is.” His assertion about the importance of understanding the nature of a vote got my attention, because it was something I had been saying for years. I was a bit disappointed, however, because other than telling the reader about the etymology of the word (“The word vote comes from the Latin votum, which means ‘will’ or choice”) he really didn’t develop an argument for a particular definition. There are a number of questions that Sproul doesn’t address. Here are just a few:

• Is a vote always and absolutely a highly principled endorsement?
• Is a vote a positive and objective act?
• Are the criteria for voting distinct from appointment?
• Is who one votes for a matter for the Christian’s conscience?
• Must a Christian vote for only Christian candidates?

I cannot see how a vote can be construed as a highly principled endorsement. If that’s what it is, I don’t know that I’ve ever voted for anyone in my lifetime that met that bar with the possible–possible– exception of Jack Kemp back in 1988 and 1996. In the ordinary course of things, the voter assesses how close the candidate is to his own views on issues. Some issues will be more important than others. On those issues where there is disagreement, the voter decides whether or not he can “tolerate” the candidate’s position and still support him. I like how Michael Farris of the Home School Legal Defense Association put it in an essay he wrote on Facebook: “I have come to look at candidates in one of four ways: 1. Those who are very supportive of my views. 2. Those who will listen to my views. 3. Those who are indifferent to my views. 4. Those who are openly hostile to my views.” He goes on to say more or less that candidates in groups one and two he can support. A candidate that is in group three is a possibility. A four is out of the question.

But if a vote is a highly principled endorsement, depending on how far one takes this, what candidate could possibly pass muster? I think the consistent Christian would be forced to practice political dissent (which many have over the years) and simply not vote. Period.

A good friend of mine (who I profoundly respect) once told me in no uncertain terms that a vote was a positive, objective act. He went on to say that when one voted for a man he is saying “I will have this man rule over me”. I suggested that voting might be a subjective thing in which the “I will” is replaced by “I would rather”, where one is choosing who will do him the least amount of harm. He replied that the intent or motivation was irrelevant to the nature of the vote. It is a positive act that is immediate to the end. So, in other words, he was saying you can’t really vote against someone even if that is what may be motivating you the most. Nor can you cast a vote for a candidate you “would rather” see elected, given the choices on the ballot, as opposed to one you “will” to elect. I have two thoughts about my friend’s position: First, I simply don’t see how anyone can put something like a vote in such a rigid construction as this. It seems to me that the tally of a vote may well be an objective thing, but the act of voting itself cannot be. It is quite subjective as far as the intent of the voter is concerned. It may well be true that no one cares what the voter’s intent was when they count the votes, but the voter’s conscience obviously may care very much. Secondly, in my estimation a consistent application of this rigid construction necessitates the highly principled endorsement I mentioned earlier, and would necessarily end in disengaging from political activity.

I think that very few people would contend that the criteria for voting is identical to that required in making an appointment to an office. Unlike a vote, an appointment is an act immediate to its end, and is generally understood to carry much greater weight. However, David Shedlock, in his new book With Christ in the Voting Booth, does urge Christians to vote “as if you were appointing the person to office”. Shedlock is rightly concerned with the Christian honoring Christ through his vote, and correctly observes that the Christian’s conscience will be clear when Christ is honored. But I think the notion of making no distinction between a vote and an appointment isn’t necessary to the honoring of Christ. To be fair, so far as I know, Shedlock doesn’t think so either, even though he advocates that approach. Shedlock’s work deserves a fair hearing. While I disagree with a number of his conclusions, he has done his best to reach them from principles derived from scripture. For that he is to be commended.

Who one votes for is indeed a matter of conscience. Despite all the incendiary remarks aimed at those Evangelical Christians who are Romney supporters, I know of no one who is going so far as to say that the vote is not a matter of conscience. And most of the criticism I hear about Romney is not about his Mormonism (Sproul makes no mention of it at all). It’s mostly about how he (Romney) looks at same sex marriage and abortion. But in any case, a vote for him, or anyone else for the matter of that, should be a private matter that is between one’s conscience and God.

There are certainly plenty of reasons not to vote for Romney. It’s completely appropriate for Evangelicals to “sit this one out” if that’s what their consciences dictate. But it’s not appropriate to accuse Evangelicals who support Romney of being faithless, unprincipled hacks for voting for him. Allow me to be clear: I remain unconvinced that a Christian must vote for a Christian (and only a Christian) in our present circumstances. I say this even though it is still my hope and desire that some day our nation would establish Christianity as the religion of the land (Psalm 2:10-12, 68:32). I think that a Christian may look at his vote as merely a civil instrument that he can use to attempt to slow down the progress of evil. His intention is to elect a candidate who he hopes will do the least amount of harm to him and the things he holds dear.

Once again, let’s consider the Israelites in Egypt (Ex 1:8, Acts 7:18-19): Would it have been appropriate for the Israelites to ask God in prayer for a Pharaoh who remembered Joseph and would treat them kindly?  Would it have been wrong for them to use any civil power (such as a vote) to bring about that end?

The post Evangelicals, Romney, and the vote: A matter of conscience appeared first on Caffeinated Thoughts.

“Incredibly, Jay Carney, White House spokesman, is spinning a complete fairy tale that the Islamists really like America and Mr. Obama. The murderers are just upset about a movie trailer that came out months ago. How stupid do they think we Americans are? If Mr. Obama really believes (this), he belongs in a straitjacket. If not, his spokesman is the biggest fantasist of all time. ” – Ben Stein

 It’s Later Than Any Dare Think

The post Quote of the Day: Ben Stein on Jay Carney’s Spin of Mid-East violence appeared first on Caffeinated Thoughts.