Paul Broun is best choice

  • Follow Letters

As U.S. Senate candidates make their way to Augusta and media pundits and political intellectuals tell us who “can” and “can’t” win, only one candidate represents the American ideals and freedoms that our Founders guaranteed: U.S. Rep. Paul Broun.

During his almost six years in the U.S. House, Broun has honored his campaign promises and stood for states’ rights and individual liberty – which at times translated to standing alone, but he took a stand for us, as is his sworn duty. He honored his word in 21st-century Congress.

One of Broun’s primary contests was perhaps the most deplorable in political history, yet he handled the lies and vile accusations hurled his way with class and dignity. Another primary challenger chided Broun for not passing enough legislation that he sponsored. Good! We have more than enough laws and government edicts that have taken the place of freedoms and rights. I do know that Broun vehemently opposed the Obama-Pelosi radical agenda at every turn, which is more than can be said of other alleged conservative Republicans.

We must send Broun to the Senate. We need him now more than ever to be honest. U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss voted to confirm Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; voted for the “bailout;” supports amnesty for criminals, i.e., illegal aliens; and paved the way for a radical former Planned Parenthood state director to ascend to a federal judgeship. In other words, he voted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s wishes.

I cannot envision Broun contemplating doing any of these things. I can envision him standing firm for conservative constitutional values as he has done for close to six years. Think of what a senator does: vote on Cabinet nominations, Supreme Court nominees, lower federal court nominees and treaties; and serve as a juror during impeachment trials. Folks, we need Broun in the Senate.

If you want to vote in the primary for one of those moderate, go-along-get-along types the media force-feeds to us, go ahead. But when thousands of true conservative and libertarian voters do not vote for your “safe” moderate nominee next November, please do not whine if Reid gains another ally. We have a tremendous opportunity to send exactly what Georgia and the entire nation needs to the upper chamber for a full six-year term. Let’s not blow it.

Comments (56) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
RMSHEFF
16001
Points
RMSHEFF 06/27/13 - 11:23 am
5
2
Global warming science is falling apart

More and more scientist are abandoning the global warming ship each day.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/27/sixteen-prominent-scientists-publi...

burninater
9583
Points
burninater 06/27/13 - 12:29 pm
3
2
RMSHEFF, you clearly did not

RMSHEFF, you clearly did not read the entire letter you link. Let me fill you in:

"A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet."

Let me emphasize that last part for you: "And it is likely that MORE CO2 AND THE MODEST WARMING THAT MAY COME WITH IT will be an overall benefit to the planet."

These scientists are not "abandoning the global warming ship." In this very letter they 1) identify CO2 as a greenhouse gas, and 2) state an expectation that increased CO2 may well produce global warming.

This letter is their statement that they believe models of rapid and extreme warming are incorrect. They believe curbs to economic growth based on models of rapid and extreme warming will do more harm than good. They confirm CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and they confirm its presence in the atmosphere may raise global temps.

This letter is not a refutation of global warming. It is a statement that these scientists do not feel there is sufficient understanding of the scope and rate of warming to merit drastic economic policy implementation.

burninater
9583
Points
burninater 06/27/13 - 12:37 pm
4
3
I cannot understand how

I cannot understand how people have the nerve to call others "low-information voters" who "drank the kool-aid" when they themselves fall victim to propagandist messaging because they didn't bother to find the truth out for themselves, or were too eager to believe something they liked to hear.

How can they not see they are doing exactly what they condemn in others?

RMSHEFF
16001
Points
RMSHEFF 06/27/13 - 12:35 pm
4
3
Burn

The point is that the warming, if it exist at all, is nothing to be concerned about. Our beloved leader is using Global warming in an attempt to impose a tax on us to redistribute our wealth to the rest of the world on an emergency basis. The most recent data suggest the warming stopped 10 years ago and we may indeed be in a cooling phase now. This is being used by the left for POLITICAL purposes to destroy capitalism. If the evidence suggest this is not a big problem why would Obama be using the EPA to further his agenda?

RMSHEFF
16001
Points
RMSHEFF 06/27/13 - 12:40 pm
4
3
Burn.... each day more and

Burn.... each day more and more of the facts are not in your favor. This is NOT AN EMERGENCY...wait for more data. Thats not cool aid on your lips is it ?

burninater
9583
Points
burninater 06/27/13 - 12:43 pm
3
3
RMSHEFF, then why not

RMSHEFF, then why not accurately communicate the point? Why claim "scientists are abandoning the global warming ship", when even the letter you claim supports that statement doesn't do so? The letter itself states CO2 is a greenhouse gas that may produce modest warming. The letter writers disagree with creating economic policy on potentially erroneous climate models. Why not state that accurate description of the letter, rather than a propagandist misrepresentation of the letter?

burninater
9583
Points
burninater 06/27/13 - 12:46 pm
3
2
Ahh, there it is. "This is

Ahh, there it is. "This is NOT AN EMERGENCY...wait for more data." Was it really so hard to post that more accurate statement, rather than the false claim that scientists were "abandoning the global warming ship"?

burninater
9583
Points
burninater 06/27/13 - 12:48 pm
3
3
I guess if it were easy to be

I guess if it were easy to be vigilant about our own tendency to misrepresent facts to our own benefit, we wouldn't have needed the reminder about "bearing false witness".

RMSHEFF
16001
Points
RMSHEFF 06/27/13 - 12:53 pm
4
3
Sorry...the earth is cooling

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming...

Many scientist are coming to the conclusion that they have been co opted by a political agenda and the science does not support the conclusions being drawn.

This whole global warming movement has been a political movement for at least 15 years. The claims have been disproven over and over as their "science" has evolved. They have been caught messaging facts several times. We went from Global warming to climate change as predictions have been revised almost daily. My BIG problem is the Marxist have taken over this movement and are using it to destroy capitalism and out president and his EPA is leading the charge.

owensjef3
5639
Points
owensjef3 06/27/13 - 12:54 pm
4
4
Burn comment @ 1237 is right
Unpublished

Burn comment @ 1237 is right on.

Young Fred
17453
Points
Young Fred 06/27/13 - 01:10 pm
3
3
burn

Scientist are abandoning the man caused global warming ship, if you define that ship as the reports put forth by the UN and the pap fed to us by our current administration. As you point out, most say that CO2 "may" produce "modest" warming. In the past many scientist have stated unequivocally that man caused/is causing global warming. The ones that weren't sure, but suspected, kept quite while low life politicians used the issue to advance an agenda.

More and more are jumping ship, shying away from their previous assuredness, hedging, and trying to make sure their views are reported accurately.

Which is a far cry from the screeching chicken littles we've grown accustomed to over the last decade and a half. Though there's still plenty of screechers around!

RMSHEFF
16001
Points
RMSHEFF 06/27/13 - 01:25 pm
4
3
Exactly YoungFred

Politically speaking Obama sees global warming as a 2 for one. He can redistribute some of the ill gotten wealth of America to the third world while at the same time bringing down America....the best remaining example of how well capitalism works in the world. He spoke the other day about the "settled" science of global warming and compared those that do not agree as "flat earthers". I believe we are indeed in a cooling period and this will be "scientifically" evident in 10 years.

Truth Matters
6834
Points
Truth Matters 06/27/13 - 02:13 pm
2
2
The states

"Are people, too."

burninater
9583
Points
burninater 06/27/13 - 02:35 pm
4
2
RMSHEFF, I will see your

RMSHEFF, I will see your "global cooling" Forbes article written by an economic analyst, and raise you a "fraudulent cherry-picking documentation" Forbes article written by an MacArthur Fellow who actually understands the science:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-st...

This article quite clearly shows how the "global cooling" Kool-Aid is mixed and served, and how it is used to prey on low-information voters.

RMSHEFF
16001
Points
RMSHEFF 06/27/13 - 02:53 pm
2
4
Burn

I guess if anyone would know about "cherry picking" Data or maybe I should say manipulating, hiding or changing data, it would be you folks on the "were all doomed unless you give me your money" global warming side.

burninater
9583
Points
burninater 06/27/13 - 03:04 pm
4
2
"you folks on the "were all

"you folks on the "were all doomed unless you give me your money" global warming side."
------
Huh? What are you even talking about?

The science and the data have nothing to do with policy. What does this "give me your money" nonsense have to do with the climate data? I'll answer that one for you: nothing, unless of course the goal is to sweeten the Kool Aid being served. In that case, selling the propaganda that global warming data are inextricably linked to a pan-national Marxist conspiracy pushes those emotional buttons that get people to stop thinking critically.

Conspiracy theories do not invalidate the climate data, no matter how much a person would like to "believe" otherwise.

RMSHEFF
16001
Points
RMSHEFF 06/27/13 - 03:05 pm
2
4
Burn

Is this the man you rely on for your info ?
He is an expert on water resources, not climate

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/02/global-warming-alarmists-r...

burninater
9583
Points
burninater 06/27/13 - 03:42 pm
4
1
RMSHEFF, he is a water resource scientist

RMSHEFF, he is a water resource scientist, not an economic policy analyst. His refutation of the economic policy analyst's "global cooling" article is clear and substantive, and based on a clearer understanding of the pertinent science than the economic policy analyst demonstrates.

Your link to try to discredit his scientific analysis with an unrelated ad hominem attack does nothing to refute the clear documentation of the cherry-picked analysis leading to "global cooling". The fact that Gleick engaged in a little private sector espionage (shocker, THAT'S never happened before) changes nothing about the science.

And "the man I rely on for my info" is ME. I linked Gleick's article because it clearly and simply shows how data is cherrypicked to create a false conclusion. My understanding of AGW is a product of looking at primary data from multiple sources, paying attenion to the analysis of multiple climate scientists and groups, and understanding the relevant physics, chemistry, and geology -- while trying to keep up with the related oceanographic and meteorologic factors.

RMSHEFF
16001
Points
RMSHEFF 06/27/13 - 03:49 pm
1
4
The scientific "consensus" is

The scientific "consensus" is in and you are in the minority...after all Obama governs by consensus.

Your man had to resign from every professional organization he was in disgrace because of his unethical, lying habits. SAD

majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis//sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

burninater
9583
Points
burninater 06/27/13 - 04:22 pm
4
1
For pete's sake RMSHEFF, READ

For pete's sake RMSHEFF, READ this stuff, and THINK ABOUT WHAT IT SAYS.

From your article:

"The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”"

According to this article, 24% of respondents to this survey view climate change as natural. That means that even in this "skeptical" consensus, SEVENTY-FOUR PERCENT assert a non-natural, i.e. MANMADE, component to climate change.

The consensus in this article is NOT that manmade global warming is false, but that it isn't clear that the CATASTROPHIC models are correct. They are not skeptical of global warming, they are skeptical of a global warming CRISIS. These are two different issues. By your very sources the scientific consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is REAL. The uncertainty is how it will affect the earth system in the near future, and what, if any, policy mandates are credibly recommended.

Edit: More troubling is that of the overwhelming majority that view AGW as supported by the evidence, almost HALF of that majority consensus views the current situation as a CRISIS. For the record, these are engineers and geoscientists, not welfare-addicted Marxist conspirators ...

RMSHEFF
16001
Points
RMSHEFF 06/27/13 - 04:38 pm
1
4
Yes , My point is that

Yes , My point is that Obama's statement that this warming is "man made" and and he will act" immediately" without congress, using the EPA to stop this warming. The basis for his action is grounded in is a "consensus" among scientist that man is cause global warming and it is a crisis is FALSE and he knows it is FALSE but when low information voters hear him speak with certitude, they believe him.....I guess you do also ! This is NOT a crisis and man has little or nothing to do with with any change in the climate. My big problem is not if the earth has warmed a degree but politicians jumping to FALSE conclusion thats solution is we pay more for everything. You can sell your car and turn off your AC if you want but I refused to be lied to once again.

RMSHEFF
16001
Points
RMSHEFF 06/27/13 - 04:41 pm
1
3
Burn

What happened to all the CATASTROPHIC models from 10 years ago showing the sea level rising and putting towns under water.....remember those ?

burninater
9583
Points
burninater 06/27/13 - 04:58 pm
4
0
RMSHEFF, where did I ever, at

RMSHEFF, where did I ever, at any time, make any comment whatsoever about my recommendations on the Kyoto protocol or U.S./EPA policy steps in response to AGW data?

My comments today have been in regard to those who spin AGW as purely false by cherrypicking data, and who further try to falsely claim that the scientific consensus denies AGW.

I'm not even BEGINNING to make suggestions or recommendations about AGW policy, and said nothing about endorsing Obama's plan.

If we want to return sanity to this country, we need to stop deciding what is true based on how we feel it will play out politically. We're going to ignore data that possibly demonstrates that AGW may actually present a crisis, because we don't like what a politician might do? That's not sane.

burninater
9583
Points
burninater 06/27/13 - 04:52 pm
3
1
RMSHEFF, models are attempts to

RMSHEFF, models are attempts to mathematically describe the world. They are NOT input data. The scientific consensus is overwhelmingly that the input data indicate AGW. The disagreements concern how to mathematically describe the total climate system. We know the earth is warming, and the scientific consensus is that at least part of that warming is attributable to anthropogenic greenhouse gases. How that increased heat in the system will manifest is the great unknown. Models are only as good as their ability to predict the relevant parameters of the system, but a bad model does not refute the data clearly showing increased heat in the climate system.

RMSHEFF
16001
Points
RMSHEFF 06/27/13 - 05:31 pm
1
3
Burn....get the big picture

I will make you a bet that as data continues to come in you will see these proponents of man made global warming fall to the wayside as temps normalize. The only question is how much damage will the politicians do before this happens. The EPA under Obama,acting on his agenda based on lies about man made global warming may be enough to plunge America and the west back into a recession. Mean while China and the rest of the third world will be burning coal at record levels.

If Obama was concerned with carbon emission why would he not be supporting nuclear power...the only feasible replacement for carbon based energy? Natural gas is the best solution for automobiles? He has restricted drilling on all lands under his control while taking credit for increased production on private property which he cannot control. He is trying to make fracking less profitable through excessive regulation.

Energy is the life blood of capitalism therefore energy is under attack.

You need to GET THE BIG PICTURE !

burninater
9583
Points
burninater 06/27/13 - 05:51 pm
3
1
RMSHEFF. The big picture is

RMSHEFF. The big picture is that thing around you -- physical reality. It's really that simple.

Obama could be planning to turn the world into a giant three-ring circus with co-conspirators from the Planet Zingbar, and it wouldn't change the AGW data one. single. bit.

Obama could be planning to make us all drive sea otter-powered cars with Fidel Castro beards for grills and it wouldn't change the AGW data one. single. bit.

Obama could decide that Michelle really is a Klingon, talk the DOD into building a fleet of Klingon Warbirds, commandeer your toilet to really give it to the Romulans once and for all, and it wouldn't change AGW data one. single. bit.

This desire to view the physical nature of reality as being a function of one man's world domination plan is stupefying. It boggles the mind to think that people have become so obsessed with this one man that they think the evidence of physical reality itself is not to be trusted.

burninater
9583
Points
burninater 06/27/13 - 06:10 pm
3
2
According to sources you

According to sources you yourself have provided today RMSHEFF, there is a scientific consensus of the reality of anthropogenic global warming.

We don't know yet how much it will change the climate system, but we know it is real. AGW has the potential to dramatically change the global economy in a fashion completely out of our control -- we should just ignore it? Pretend it isn't real?

Do you understand that President Obama is not the only functioning human on earth, that the actions and intents of others will also factor into energy and climate policy for the decades to come?

The decision to ignore a scientific consensus about the existence of a physical phenomenon that can potentially change life as we know it on earth, simply because we don't like the current guy in office, is mind-boggling.

faithson
5158
Points
faithson 06/27/13 - 07:51 pm
1
1
just got here.. wow ole burn and Rm are at it

back to Dr. Broun... personally the man has NO character... He says what his audience wants to hear, period. I have proof of this from talking to many a business man in his district who just want to hear that he is 'toting' there line, period. The man is a discrace... he holds to no principles except those imbined by his constituants, you want a man like that.... go for it.

RMSHEFF
16001
Points
RMSHEFF 06/27/13 - 08:19 pm
1
1
Burn

We don't know , if what small amount of warming there was is now over and we are now entering a cooling period. We don't know if we are in a natural cycle of warming and cooling. We don't know what may have cause the small amount of warming we had. We don't know if we can actually have any effect on the warming by reducing carbon. We do know all the dooms day predictions of rising sea levels was false as well as other predictions. The consensus is that it is not a big deal anyway...no crisis.

I am sure China and India will be glad to go along with whatever Obama decides.

So you and Obama want to send the economy into another recession based on the above facts.

I say, get a grip, calm down , keep monitoring the situation and we will find out in 10 years.

KSL
129553
Points
KSL 06/27/13 - 09:02 pm
0
2
discrace??? What is that?

discrace??? What is that?

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs