Mesothelioma, a dreadful disease brought on by exposure to asbestos. That is what the ads say and there is even a new ad featuring Erin Brokivich, yammering on about greedy corporations who value profits above human lives. Trial lawyers have made untold millions suing corporations that had some connection, however tenous to some human exposure to asbestos.
It didn't matter that those corporations may have had no idea that asbestos was dangerous to humans. It didn't matter is the company being sued had purchased a now defunct company that had some asbestos in their history. The only thing that mattered was could a "victim" be found and did the corporation have sufficiently deep pockets to make the suit worth the while of an attorney.
This litigious feeding frenzy made any type of asbestos radioactive. Once the health problems associated with asbestos were fully identified safe formulas were created but treated with suspicion. Builders were so concerned of some future harm being caused by the new asbestos they avoided using it whenever possible.
Consequently, the steel girders holding up the World Trade Center were not coated with this flame retardant product above, well, I forget above exactly which floor but clearly not high up enough. Now, Rosie and other assorted nut cases may choose to believe that fire cannot melt steel and indulge in the conspiracy du jour. They must have missed the explanation of the process detailed in Popular Mechanics.
The Twin Towers fell because the fire weakened the steel girders enough that they could no longer support the floors above the fire. When the weight of those floors struck they took the rest of the towers down and vaporized most of the people and things inside. Perhaps, if those girders had been coated in asbestos as had been the policy of the past they may have survived.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Obama Campaign Takes Yet Another Phrase Off the Table
Throughout this campaign and during the primary campaign Barack Obama has issued edicts regarding what can and cannot be said. He has chided opponents for saying that he is a liberal or for daring to use his middle name. I don't know where Obama ever got the idea that he is the boss of what anyone is allowed to say.
In his time as a candidate Obama has instructed the media that he should not be called "liberal" There should be no mention of his middle name, Hussain. No one should comment on his ears. It is unacceptable fir anyone to criticize his wife. He should not be held responsible for the statements of his former pastor, Reverend Wright.
Now the term "community organizer" has been added to the list of things that must not be said. Former Mayor of San Francisco, Willie Brown recently introduced the idea that when Republicans say "community organizer" it is a code word for "black man".
Well, Obama's biggest liability isn't the color of his skin. In my opinion it is the thinness of that skin that is his weakness. That and the arrogance that he should be able to set the rules for everyone else to follow.
In his time as a candidate Obama has instructed the media that he should not be called "liberal" There should be no mention of his middle name, Hussain. No one should comment on his ears. It is unacceptable fir anyone to criticize his wife. He should not be held responsible for the statements of his former pastor, Reverend Wright.
Now the term "community organizer" has been added to the list of things that must not be said. Former Mayor of San Francisco, Willie Brown recently introduced the idea that when Republicans say "community organizer" it is a code word for "black man".
Well, Obama's biggest liability isn't the color of his skin. In my opinion it is the thinness of that skin that is his weakness. That and the arrogance that he should be able to set the rules for everyone else to follow.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Was Obama a Teenage Muslim?
No, Barack Obama is not a Muslim nor was he one during his teenage years. The Obama campaign is claiming that Republicans are using Obama's ties to Islam as a smear. Here are the facts.
Barack Obama was born a Muslim because his father was a Muslim. His mother was an anthropologist and although his grandparents were Christians his mother was more of a secular humanists. Barack's father took off pretty quick and since he had never divorced his first wife in Kenya it is hard to say if their marriage was valid anyway.
Obama's mother then married an Indonesian man who was also a Muslim. When Barack was six years-old he moved to Indonesia and lived there for four years. In Indonesia Barack attended a Catholic school but was enrolled by his mother as a a Muslim. Consequently he did pray with the other Muslim children and received weekly instruction on the Koran. In the third grade Obama was enrolled in a public school again identified as a Muslim, but he never attended a "madrassa" or any radical Muslim school as some have claimed.
Still, the Obama campaign is being untruthful when they claim that he was "never" a Muslim or that he has never prayed in a mosque. He was the son of one Muslim man and the stepson of another. As a child he occasionally attended a mosque and had some training in Islam. When the Obama campaign wants to be scrupulously accurate they say he has never been "a practicing Muslim". They know that admitting to having any Muslim background could cost the Senator votes.
It is true that some Americans would not vote for a Muslim just as some might have not voted for Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon. It is also true that Barack Obama became a practicing Christian in the 1990's when he joined the Trinity United Church in Chicago.
Considering the type of sermons delivered by the Reverend Wright in that church I think the country might be better off with a Muslim.
Barack Obama was born a Muslim because his father was a Muslim. His mother was an anthropologist and although his grandparents were Christians his mother was more of a secular humanists. Barack's father took off pretty quick and since he had never divorced his first wife in Kenya it is hard to say if their marriage was valid anyway.
Obama's mother then married an Indonesian man who was also a Muslim. When Barack was six years-old he moved to Indonesia and lived there for four years. In Indonesia Barack attended a Catholic school but was enrolled by his mother as a a Muslim. Consequently he did pray with the other Muslim children and received weekly instruction on the Koran. In the third grade Obama was enrolled in a public school again identified as a Muslim, but he never attended a "madrassa" or any radical Muslim school as some have claimed.
Still, the Obama campaign is being untruthful when they claim that he was "never" a Muslim or that he has never prayed in a mosque. He was the son of one Muslim man and the stepson of another. As a child he occasionally attended a mosque and had some training in Islam. When the Obama campaign wants to be scrupulously accurate they say he has never been "a practicing Muslim". They know that admitting to having any Muslim background could cost the Senator votes.
It is true that some Americans would not vote for a Muslim just as some might have not voted for Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon. It is also true that Barack Obama became a practicing Christian in the 1990's when he joined the Trinity United Church in Chicago.
Considering the type of sermons delivered by the Reverend Wright in that church I think the country might be better off with a Muslim.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
More Man Than You'll Ever Be, More Woman Than You'll Ever Get
I have always liked that silly saying despite having first heard it in a movie, spoken by a man in drag. I've long forgotten what movie it was.
Wow! Governor Sarah Palin is really something. You can judge her greatness by the degree of hysteria occurring on the left. Here are some of the outrageous statements that have been made so far regarding Mrs. Palin
"The only qualification vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin has is that she didn't have an abortion". - Carol Fowler, Chairwoman of the South Carolina Democrat Party. WOW! Don't that just put the "rat" in Democrat! Oh, this is the wife of the guy who was chuckling about hurricane Gustav hitting New Orleans during the GOP Convention. Just a couple of liberals who "care".
"Jesus Christ was a communnity organizer Pontius Pilate was a governor" - Donna Brazil - Democrat operative and former advisor to AlGore and then this statement was repeated on the floor of the House of Representatives by Democrat Congressman Steve Cohen Tennessee. WOW, usually only the Jewish Republicans are called "Christ Killers".
Wow! Governor Sarah Palin is really something. You can judge her greatness by the degree of hysteria occurring on the left. Here are some of the outrageous statements that have been made so far regarding Mrs. Palin
"The only qualification vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin has is that she didn't have an abortion". - Carol Fowler, Chairwoman of the South Carolina Democrat Party. WOW! Don't that just put the "rat" in Democrat! Oh, this is the wife of the guy who was chuckling about hurricane Gustav hitting New Orleans during the GOP Convention. Just a couple of liberals who "care".
"Jesus Christ was a communnity organizer Pontius Pilate was a governor" - Donna Brazil - Democrat operative and former advisor to AlGore and then this statement was repeated on the floor of the House of Representatives by Democrat Congressman Steve Cohen Tennessee. WOW, usually only the Jewish Republicans are called "Christ Killers".
Monday, September 01, 2008
Do You Know How Obama Won his Seate Seat?
The political corruption of the city of Chicago in a time honored tradition that has been well documented through the years. As the state of Illinois turned "blue" through and through in the late 90's and early 2000's the corruption spread statewide creating something called the "Illinois Combine". The "Illinois Combine" is described by author David Freddoso as "a bipartisan group of public officials who ran a statewide operation resembling Chicago in it's disregard for good government.
Illinois Democrats and Republicans who wanted to stay in office knew they had to "go along to get along". Exceptions to this rule were generally rare and dealt with promptly. One exception was Republican Senator Peter Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald was elected in 1998 by narrowly defeating Carol Mosley Braun after using over 13 million of his own money to fund his campaign.
Senator Fitzgerald had no intention of "going along to get along". Senator Fitzgerald requested the appointment of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the "Illinois Combine". Thanks to the efforts of these two Fitzgerald's some "bad actors" were prosecuted and several, from both parties, were sent to jail. Sadly Senator Fitzgerald efforts were not appreciated and without the support of his own party he chose not to run for reelection.
This provided an opportunity for the Democrats and specifically for Barack Obama. However he had to win the primary first. There were several candidates and the early favorite was state comptroller Dan Hynes. Hynes would probably have won except for another candidate, Blair Hull. Hull, an eccentric multi-millionaire spent nearly 29 million dollars attacking Hynes. Hynes lead was beaten down and with a 10 point lead over Hynes and Obama Hull was poised to win the Senate seat.
Thirty days prior to the primary election sordid details of Hulls divorce appeared in the Chicago Tribune and Senator Barack Obama was born. Obama, of course, had nothing to do with the release of this information, or did he. One of Obama's advisors had known about this skeleton in Hulls closet for over two years. That advisor, David Axelrod is still working with and for Barack Obama as his chief strategist and speech writer. This could all be coincidence but Axelrod had known for two years about Hulls marital disgrace. Information which didn't become public knowledge until after Hull had destroyed Obama's other competition, Dan Hynes. Oh, and the story was run by Axelrod's former employer, the Chicago Tribune.
Obama had won the Democrat primary and now faced Republican, Jack Ryan. Ryan was an attractive candidate who had a chance of beating Obama. Unfortunately he also was divorced. The Chicago Tribune sued to have Jack Ryan's divorce documents released and the details of the couples sex life completely derailed his campaign. Ryan withdrew from the campaign and Republicans tried to replace him with a good candidate in the short time they had left but could not do so. So, if Obama becomes President and destroys this country you can blame Mike Ditka. Ditka was approached but chose not to run and he was the only Illinois Republican who had a chance at that time.
Illinois Democrats and Republicans who wanted to stay in office knew they had to "go along to get along". Exceptions to this rule were generally rare and dealt with promptly. One exception was Republican Senator Peter Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald was elected in 1998 by narrowly defeating Carol Mosley Braun after using over 13 million of his own money to fund his campaign.
Senator Fitzgerald had no intention of "going along to get along". Senator Fitzgerald requested the appointment of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the "Illinois Combine". Thanks to the efforts of these two Fitzgerald's some "bad actors" were prosecuted and several, from both parties, were sent to jail. Sadly Senator Fitzgerald efforts were not appreciated and without the support of his own party he chose not to run for reelection.
This provided an opportunity for the Democrats and specifically for Barack Obama. However he had to win the primary first. There were several candidates and the early favorite was state comptroller Dan Hynes. Hynes would probably have won except for another candidate, Blair Hull. Hull, an eccentric multi-millionaire spent nearly 29 million dollars attacking Hynes. Hynes lead was beaten down and with a 10 point lead over Hynes and Obama Hull was poised to win the Senate seat.
Thirty days prior to the primary election sordid details of Hulls divorce appeared in the Chicago Tribune and Senator Barack Obama was born. Obama, of course, had nothing to do with the release of this information, or did he. One of Obama's advisors had known about this skeleton in Hulls closet for over two years. That advisor, David Axelrod is still working with and for Barack Obama as his chief strategist and speech writer. This could all be coincidence but Axelrod had known for two years about Hulls marital disgrace. Information which didn't become public knowledge until after Hull had destroyed Obama's other competition, Dan Hynes. Oh, and the story was run by Axelrod's former employer, the Chicago Tribune.
Obama had won the Democrat primary and now faced Republican, Jack Ryan. Ryan was an attractive candidate who had a chance of beating Obama. Unfortunately he also was divorced. The Chicago Tribune sued to have Jack Ryan's divorce documents released and the details of the couples sex life completely derailed his campaign. Ryan withdrew from the campaign and Republicans tried to replace him with a good candidate in the short time they had left but could not do so. So, if Obama becomes President and destroys this country you can blame Mike Ditka. Ditka was approached but chose not to run and he was the only Illinois Republican who had a chance at that time.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Do You Know Who Obama's Godfather Is?
Illinois State Senate President, Emil Jones, has been called Obama's "political Godfather". I think that "Fairy Godmother" would be more accurate. Obama was a brand spanking new state senator. Obama had managed to get elected but it would take years of hard work to build credibility. However, Obama had no intention of spending years building a record that might be an asset in the distant future but could just as easily be a detriment in a race for national office.
Emil Jones gave Obama high-profile legislation which had already cleared most hurdles and was near passage. Also, Jones placed Obama in the chairmanship of the senate's health committee. This allowed Obama to advance legislation that would make him the darling of the Service Employees International Union which has over 100,000 members in Illinois.
Normally, the state Senate President would be twisting arms to get the legislation he wants passed but Barack Obama had a special deal with Jones. If a piece of legislation was controversial and support for it could come back to haunt Obama he was allowed to vote "present". Obama voted that way approximately 130 times in the Illinois State Senate and if the legislation was really something that could come back and bite him he would just duck out until the votes had passed or failed.
Emil Jones gave Obama high-profile legislation which had already cleared most hurdles and was near passage. Also, Jones placed Obama in the chairmanship of the senate's health committee. This allowed Obama to advance legislation that would make him the darling of the Service Employees International Union which has over 100,000 members in Illinois.
Normally, the state Senate President would be twisting arms to get the legislation he wants passed but Barack Obama had a special deal with Jones. If a piece of legislation was controversial and support for it could come back to haunt Obama he was allowed to vote "present". Obama voted that way approximately 130 times in the Illinois State Senate and if the legislation was really something that could come back and bite him he would just duck out until the votes had passed or failed.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Do You Know How Obama Got Elected in the First Place?
We all know that Barack Obama was a "community organizer" in Chicago before he was elected to the Illinois State legislature. How exactly did Obama manage to get elected to office in the first place. In his second book Obama credits the message he brought but how important is your message when you don't have an opponent?
In Illinois candidate collect voters signatures on petitions to qualify to appear on the ballot. Obama's main opponent in the 1996 election was Alice Palmer, the incumbent and a state senator since 1991. Ms Palmer had collected 1,580 signatures, more than twice the 757 needed to qualify to be on the ballot. However Ms Palmer in the end was not on the ballot. A paid consultant for Obama went over the list of signatures with a fine-tooth comb and managed to disqualify enough of those signatures to get Ms Palmer disqualified. Just a little bit of hard-ball politics Chicago style. Some of the signatures were truly not valid but many were eliminated on technicalities, some as small a thing as printing ones name instead of writing it.
Obama's consultant, Ronald Davis was so good at this that they went ahead and got the other three candidates disqualified as well. So, whatever Obama's message to the people of the 13th district was and however well he delivered that message or how well it was received there is something we will never know. When those voters entered the booths to cast their ballots would they have elected Barack Obama if they had had more than one candidate to choose from.
Obama was asked years later about the apparent unfairness of these tactics and this was his response. "If you can win you should win and get to work doing the people's business." By all means Senator, these are important decisions, why would you let the people whose business you plan to do have any say in the selection of their representative?
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Do You Know Who the FOO's (Friends of Obama) Are?
During the Clinton Administration there was a group of folks referred to as FOB's or "Friends of Bill". I do believe that the people you choose to associate with is a good measure of the type of person you are. All politicians say "I'm this, I'm that I'm brand new". The only way we can effectively judge who they really are is by looking at what they have done and with whom they have surrounded themselves.
Here is a short list of the FOO's (Friends of Obama).
William Ayers - Obama began his political career in this man's living room. Ayers is a professor at the University of Chicago and a neighbor of Obama. They have worked together on the board of the Woods Foundation and on a school reform group called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Ayres is an unrepentant terrorist. He was a member of the left-wing group "the Wetherman". This group bombed police departments, the Capital and the Pentagon. Those acts were forty years ago but as recently as 2001 Ayere said he didn't regret setting bombs and felt that they hadn't done enough. Here is a quote from Ayers book Fugitive Days - "Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon. The sky was blue. The birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them."
David Axelrod - Chief Strategist and speech writer for the Obama campaign. Formerly the main mouthpiece and "spin-doctor" for Mayor Daley of Chicago. Axelrod has kept Daley from being indicted despite multiple investigations of corruption, bribery, and pay-to-play schemes which have resulted in the indictments and imprisonment of dozens of Daley staff members, contributors and supporters.
Saul Alinsky - The author of "Rules for Radicals" and a hero of Hillary Clinton. Obama studied and implemented Alinsky's "techniques" during his stint as a "community organizer" when he was working for and with some of Alinsky's disciples. Here is a quote from Saul Alinsky. "Life is a corrupting process from the time a child learns to play his mother off against his father in the politics of when to go to bed; he who fears corruption fears life." Note to Saul Alinsky, some of us outgrow this and develop character and integrity.
Antoin "Tony" Rezko - Tony Rezko is the most obviously guilty of a group of developers with ties to Obama, he is currently in prison. Obama wrote letters to state and city officials promoting Rezko's bid to get $14 million in tax dollars to build senior citizen housing. Obama supported and co-sponsored legislation that benefited developers of "low cost" housing projects. Remarkably most developers involved were FOO's and most of the projects turned out to be poorly built, ill maintained and are now vacant eyesores. Rezko raised and contributed a total of $250,000 to Obama throughout his political career.
Robert Blackwell Jr - Ping-pong patronage. Blackwell owned EKI a company that put Obama on an $8,000 a month retainer and paid him a total of $112,000 in 2001 and 2002. Obama wrote a request to Illinois state officials for a $50,000 tourism grant paid to a company called Killerspin, also owned by Blackwell. Killerspin organized ping pong tournaments and sold ping-pong gear. Killerspin received $20,000 in 2002, $200,000 in 2003 and $100,000 in 2004. Blackwell was a regular contributor to Obamas campaigns and has 'bundled" contributions from employees of his companies.
Rev Jeremiah Wright - Obama attended Rev. Wright's church for twenty years. Wright married the Obama's and baptized both their daughters. Obama had previously called Wright a "mentor" and claims it was Wright who "brought him to Christ". The Rev. Wright is a man who thinks it appropriate to say that God should "damn" America in his Sunday service. Wright told his congregation that their government invented A.I.D.S. to eradicate them and supplied their youths with drugs so that they would end up in jail. Here is a quote of Wright explaining the September 11 attacks. - "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and the black South Africans, and now we are indignant-because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards! America's chickens are coming home to roost." How many Sunday's would you sit with your elementary school age children listening to sermons like that?
Here is a short list of the FOO's (Friends of Obama).
William Ayers - Obama began his political career in this man's living room. Ayers is a professor at the University of Chicago and a neighbor of Obama. They have worked together on the board of the Woods Foundation and on a school reform group called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Ayres is an unrepentant terrorist. He was a member of the left-wing group "the Wetherman". This group bombed police departments, the Capital and the Pentagon. Those acts were forty years ago but as recently as 2001 Ayere said he didn't regret setting bombs and felt that they hadn't done enough. Here is a quote from Ayers book Fugitive Days - "Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon. The sky was blue. The birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them."
David Axelrod - Chief Strategist and speech writer for the Obama campaign. Formerly the main mouthpiece and "spin-doctor" for Mayor Daley of Chicago. Axelrod has kept Daley from being indicted despite multiple investigations of corruption, bribery, and pay-to-play schemes which have resulted in the indictments and imprisonment of dozens of Daley staff members, contributors and supporters.
Saul Alinsky - The author of "Rules for Radicals" and a hero of Hillary Clinton. Obama studied and implemented Alinsky's "techniques" during his stint as a "community organizer" when he was working for and with some of Alinsky's disciples. Here is a quote from Saul Alinsky. "Life is a corrupting process from the time a child learns to play his mother off against his father in the politics of when to go to bed; he who fears corruption fears life." Note to Saul Alinsky, some of us outgrow this and develop character and integrity.
Antoin "Tony" Rezko - Tony Rezko is the most obviously guilty of a group of developers with ties to Obama, he is currently in prison. Obama wrote letters to state and city officials promoting Rezko's bid to get $14 million in tax dollars to build senior citizen housing. Obama supported and co-sponsored legislation that benefited developers of "low cost" housing projects. Remarkably most developers involved were FOO's and most of the projects turned out to be poorly built, ill maintained and are now vacant eyesores. Rezko raised and contributed a total of $250,000 to Obama throughout his political career.
Robert Blackwell Jr - Ping-pong patronage. Blackwell owned EKI a company that put Obama on an $8,000 a month retainer and paid him a total of $112,000 in 2001 and 2002. Obama wrote a request to Illinois state officials for a $50,000 tourism grant paid to a company called Killerspin, also owned by Blackwell. Killerspin organized ping pong tournaments and sold ping-pong gear. Killerspin received $20,000 in 2002, $200,000 in 2003 and $100,000 in 2004. Blackwell was a regular contributor to Obamas campaigns and has 'bundled" contributions from employees of his companies.
Rev Jeremiah Wright - Obama attended Rev. Wright's church for twenty years. Wright married the Obama's and baptized both their daughters. Obama had previously called Wright a "mentor" and claims it was Wright who "brought him to Christ". The Rev. Wright is a man who thinks it appropriate to say that God should "damn" America in his Sunday service. Wright told his congregation that their government invented A.I.D.S. to eradicate them and supplied their youths with drugs so that they would end up in jail. Here is a quote of Wright explaining the September 11 attacks. - "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and the black South Africans, and now we are indignant-because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards! America's chickens are coming home to roost." How many Sunday's would you sit with your elementary school age children listening to sermons like that?
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Yet Another Wandering Husband Cheats Hillary
Alas, Poor Hillary. The humiliation Mrs Clinton suffered during her husband's presidency gained her national sympathy and helped her win a New York Senate seat. Unfortunately, another more recent extramarital affair may have cheated Senator Clinton out of her shot at the U.S. Presidency.
If John Edwards hadn't managed to hide his "bit of stuff on the side" long enough to cause Hillary to come in third in Iowa she might be making an acceptance speech tomorrow instead of the speech she made yesterday.
Oh, the irony!
If John Edwards hadn't managed to hide his "bit of stuff on the side" long enough to cause Hillary to come in third in Iowa she might be making an acceptance speech tomorrow instead of the speech she made yesterday.
Oh, the irony!
Monday, August 25, 2008
Much Ado About Nada!
The Obama campaign tried to build all kinds of excitement over the selection of a Vice-Presidential candidate. And now we know why. They knew that the choice itself was anything but exciting so they focused endlessly on the process of announcing that choice.
First they came up with the gimmick of making the announcement via text messages. This served two purposes. It was "new" and cool and invited the comparison of John McCain as an old fuddy-duddy who has admitted he isn't computer savvy. Secondly, it gave the Obama campaign access to information on supporters who could possibly be converted to donors.
Then they delayed that announcement, and delayed it and delayed it. Obama announced that the choice had been made but played coy on telling us who it was. This might have been a successful tactic if they had managed to make the announcement before it leaked out. Instead of having wall-to-wall coverage and making the announcement with fanfare and a drum roll the Obama campaign was forced to send their "text messages" at 3am on a Saturday morning. It was as if they were ashamed of their choice and wanted to slide it by with a little notice as possible.
Considering who Barack Obama chose as his runningmate the 3am announcement kind of makes sense.
First they came up with the gimmick of making the announcement via text messages. This served two purposes. It was "new" and cool and invited the comparison of John McCain as an old fuddy-duddy who has admitted he isn't computer savvy. Secondly, it gave the Obama campaign access to information on supporters who could possibly be converted to donors.
Then they delayed that announcement, and delayed it and delayed it. Obama announced that the choice had been made but played coy on telling us who it was. This might have been a successful tactic if they had managed to make the announcement before it leaked out. Instead of having wall-to-wall coverage and making the announcement with fanfare and a drum roll the Obama campaign was forced to send their "text messages" at 3am on a Saturday morning. It was as if they were ashamed of their choice and wanted to slide it by with a little notice as possible.
Considering who Barack Obama chose as his runningmate the 3am announcement kind of makes sense.
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Save Our Seas - Drill Drill DRILL!
Every day, somewhere on planet earth oil is released into the pristine waters of our oceans and seas. Mother Earth deals with this and dissipates the sludge until is is completely eradicated but why should she have to do so? I am speaking of the oil that oozes from cracks and crevices in the ocean floor. This is the largest source of oil pollution of our waters and it can be stopped.
We must begin immediately to remove these oil deposits from beneath our beautiful seas. Oil derricks can be placed far enough from shore to be invisible to from ocean front homes and beaches. This despicable substance which is of no benefit to our oceans or their marine life must be brought ashore where it can be processed and safely destroyed. Although this oil can only hurt our seas, brought ashore it can warm our homes, fuel our cars and planes and be converted into useful products to enhance our lives.
There is not a moment to spare we must begin immediately to drill here and drill now!
We must begin immediately to remove these oil deposits from beneath our beautiful seas. Oil derricks can be placed far enough from shore to be invisible to from ocean front homes and beaches. This despicable substance which is of no benefit to our oceans or their marine life must be brought ashore where it can be processed and safely destroyed. Although this oil can only hurt our seas, brought ashore it can warm our homes, fuel our cars and planes and be converted into useful products to enhance our lives.
There is not a moment to spare we must begin immediately to drill here and drill now!
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Bush & Batman
Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na BUSH-MAN! Well, that doesn't exactly fly but there are some comparisons. Andrew Klavan wrote a opinion piece about what Bush and Batman have in common. Klavan states that both Bush and Batman "confront terrorists in the only terms they understand". It is a great piece you should read for yourself http//onlinewsj.com/article/SB121694247343482821.html
I was so intrigued by this I went to see the movie. To me the biggest similarity between our fight against Islamo-fascist and Gotham's fight against the Joker was the way many people attacked their defenders as being the problem. Many of the Gotham citizens and policemen called for Batman to acquiesce to the Jokers demands in hopes that that would end the violence. Just as many Americans call for us to get out of Iraq, forgetting who is perpetrating the violence. Essentially the Gotham's were excusing the Joker's direct actions, killing people, and blaming Batman for his actions which were antagonizing the criminals of their city including the mentally deranged Joker.
Since we have held fast in Iraq we have not had demonstrated for us what would happen if we acquiesce to the Islamo-fascists demands. In The Dark Night we did see what happened. Stop reading here if you haven't seen the film yet. The Joker didn't stop killing people, he just changed the target and told the citizens of Gotham to kill a person or he would unleash more terrorism on the city. Several citizens did try to carry out that execution request. Hey, just because the Joker didn't keep his first promise doesn't mean he wouldn't keep a second one.
You should see the eyes roll when I say that Star Wars helped Ronald Reagan get elected but this film, The Dark Knight" could help us win the war on terror. Like Star Wars, it could remind us that there is good and evil. There are enemies with whom we cannot negotiate. Enemies who must be defeated and very probably destroyed if we want to survive.
I was so intrigued by this I went to see the movie. To me the biggest similarity between our fight against Islamo-fascist and Gotham's fight against the Joker was the way many people attacked their defenders as being the problem. Many of the Gotham citizens and policemen called for Batman to acquiesce to the Jokers demands in hopes that that would end the violence. Just as many Americans call for us to get out of Iraq, forgetting who is perpetrating the violence. Essentially the Gotham's were excusing the Joker's direct actions, killing people, and blaming Batman for his actions which were antagonizing the criminals of their city including the mentally deranged Joker.
Since we have held fast in Iraq we have not had demonstrated for us what would happen if we acquiesce to the Islamo-fascists demands. In The Dark Night we did see what happened. Stop reading here if you haven't seen the film yet. The Joker didn't stop killing people, he just changed the target and told the citizens of Gotham to kill a person or he would unleash more terrorism on the city. Several citizens did try to carry out that execution request. Hey, just because the Joker didn't keep his first promise doesn't mean he wouldn't keep a second one.
You should see the eyes roll when I say that Star Wars helped Ronald Reagan get elected but this film, The Dark Knight" could help us win the war on terror. Like Star Wars, it could remind us that there is good and evil. There are enemies with whom we cannot negotiate. Enemies who must be defeated and very probably destroyed if we want to survive.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Senator Obama, Who Are You Calling Bitter?
Barack Obama has described the people of Pennsylvania as "bitter". This alleged bitterness he attributes to jobs that left their communities 25 years ago.
I think a better example of a bitter person would be Michelle Obama. Still nursing a grudge because she didn't feel that she fit in at college. Despite having achieved the American Dream Mrs. Obama is not proud of her country, except when it is cheering her husband. Mrs Obama has described the United States of America as a country that is "downright mean". Yep, we are so mean that we gave her a 100k job at a hospital and when her husband was elected to the Senate she got a 200k raise. No wonder she hsates America.
How about the Reverend Wright. Couldn't he be described as bitter? He so hates America that he called the attacks of 9/11 "America's chickens coming home to roost". Screaming in front of his congregation that their government had created A.I.D.S. in an attempt to kill them. What kind of a parent would allow their children to hear such a thing, in church! The reverend then drives home to the more than a million dollar home he was given by his church. A home in a gated, white, upper-class, golf community. Makes you wonder how he keeps the bitterness alive.
Barack Obama. His wife is angry, his minister is angry. He is not who he claims to be. He is not who his supporters think he is and he cannot unify anyone.
I think a better example of a bitter person would be Michelle Obama. Still nursing a grudge because she didn't feel that she fit in at college. Despite having achieved the American Dream Mrs. Obama is not proud of her country, except when it is cheering her husband. Mrs Obama has described the United States of America as a country that is "downright mean". Yep, we are so mean that we gave her a 100k job at a hospital and when her husband was elected to the Senate she got a 200k raise. No wonder she hsates America.
How about the Reverend Wright. Couldn't he be described as bitter? He so hates America that he called the attacks of 9/11 "America's chickens coming home to roost". Screaming in front of his congregation that their government had created A.I.D.S. in an attempt to kill them. What kind of a parent would allow their children to hear such a thing, in church! The reverend then drives home to the more than a million dollar home he was given by his church. A home in a gated, white, upper-class, golf community. Makes you wonder how he keeps the bitterness alive.
Barack Obama. His wife is angry, his minister is angry. He is not who he claims to be. He is not who his supporters think he is and he cannot unify anyone.
Friday, April 04, 2008
Will Politicians Ever Learn
Recently Hillary was caught in a whopper of a lie about her visit to Bosnia during the Clinton administration. When will politicians learn that they can't get away with stuff like this any more. Since the advent of LexusNexis every statement ever made that appeared in print can be easily retrieved and compared to current statements. That alone should have corrected the tendency of many public figures to tailor their statements to the audience of that moment.
Even more recently, Barack Obama's arrogance was exposed when he spoke about "small town Pennsylvania" to a crowd in San Francisco. Obama said You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them, and it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Wow, so Obama sees hardworking folks in Pennsylvania as bitter losers who turn to religion or cling to their guns. If they dare to oppose illegal immigration it isn't that they want our laws enforced or our borders secured to keep us safe. No they're just angry that they haven't had a job for 25 years and are looking for someone to blame. Finally, since Sen. Obama is speaking out against NAFTA and opposes a trade agreement with Columbia who is he to claim that some Americans are anti-trade because they are bitter? Is this the way Obama plans to "unite" America?
Now with YouTube readily available to most Americans public figures will need to think twice before fabricating events or telling elites in San Francisco how little they respect rubes in another part of the country. Even average Americans are finding that more of their behavior is being filmed and saved for posterity whether they want it to be or not. With video cameras in every public place and in perhaps as much as twenty-five percent of cell phones there is no longer any safe place to act the fool.
In the case of our elected officials I like the idea of being able to see for myself what they said and being able to hold them responsible for their statements. It's a good deal more difficult to claim you were "misquoted" or taken out of context when we can see you as you made that statement.
In the case of private individuals I hope public behavior will improve with the knowledge that you too could have embarrassing behavior available for anyone in the world to view at their leisure. So, as my Grandmother used to say, "watch your P's & Q's".
Even more recently, Barack Obama's arrogance was exposed when he spoke about "small town Pennsylvania" to a crowd in San Francisco. Obama said You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them, and it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Wow, so Obama sees hardworking folks in Pennsylvania as bitter losers who turn to religion or cling to their guns. If they dare to oppose illegal immigration it isn't that they want our laws enforced or our borders secured to keep us safe. No they're just angry that they haven't had a job for 25 years and are looking for someone to blame. Finally, since Sen. Obama is speaking out against NAFTA and opposes a trade agreement with Columbia who is he to claim that some Americans are anti-trade because they are bitter? Is this the way Obama plans to "unite" America?
Now with YouTube readily available to most Americans public figures will need to think twice before fabricating events or telling elites in San Francisco how little they respect rubes in another part of the country. Even average Americans are finding that more of their behavior is being filmed and saved for posterity whether they want it to be or not. With video cameras in every public place and in perhaps as much as twenty-five percent of cell phones there is no longer any safe place to act the fool.
In the case of our elected officials I like the idea of being able to see for myself what they said and being able to hold them responsible for their statements. It's a good deal more difficult to claim you were "misquoted" or taken out of context when we can see you as you made that statement.
In the case of private individuals I hope public behavior will improve with the knowledge that you too could have embarrassing behavior available for anyone in the world to view at their leisure. So, as my Grandmother used to say, "watch your P's & Q's".
Friday, March 07, 2008
Barack Obama Could Be the First Black Jimmy Carter
If the "Clinton Machine" fails to put an end to the presidential aspirations of Barack Obama, for 2008 at least, he could become our next President. I have always felt that any of the Republican candidates would be able to beat Hillary but possibly not Obama. The media has convinced most of America that John McCain was the only candidate who could have a shot at winning and consequently we in the GOP got stuck with him. The Democrat front runner is currently Barack Obama and if he wins the White House it will be Jimmy Carter all over again.
I was first eligible to vote way back when Jimmy Carter was facing Jerry Ford. I knew almost nothing about politics and was a registered Democrat, but then I repeat myself. Despite my naivete I looked at the two men asking for my vote and I voted for Ford. Judging from how the following four years went I stand by my choice. Then came the Reagan years and to this day I have always voted for the person I considered the best choice. I have never voted for a Democrat for President. I was a Republican in my heart only for years. I was on jury duty once and hanging around the courthouse with nothing to do. I noticed the Supervisor of Elections office and went in and officially changed parties.
As I am composing this I hear on the radio that twenty percent of white Democrats say they will vote for John McCain if Obama is their nominee. I can assure you that if twenty percent of white Democrats say that, there is another twenty percent who say they will vote for Obama but will not. People have a limited comfort zone. Some dedicated Democrats will find themselves in that voting booth and either feel unsure about voting for a black man or be uncomfortable with the idea of President Obama. Now, President McCain sounds more like what most of us are accustom to.
However, if some twist of fate puts Senator Obama in the Oval Office I predict that he will be as unsuccessful in that office as Jimmy Carter. President Carter had no true love for this country. Look at the things he said and did in office and since. Carter was and is always critical of the US. You would be hard pressed to find evidence Carter was ever really proud of this country. Carter always proceeded as though the US deserved to be humbled. In his time in office he gave away the Panama Canal, he denied us an Olympics, a national Christmas tree, and warm homes. All this from a Southern white man who had been successful in America and should have had no ax to grind against us.
Then comes Obama. The son of an anthropologist described in the Chicago Tribune last year as a "fellow traveler" the warm and fuzzy term used to describe a communist sympathizer. Obama's mother, Ann Dunham married first a Kenyan economics student who abandoned her and her infant and then an Indonesian. When her second husband had his student visa revoked she followed him to Indonesia in 1967. Ann Dunham's doctoral dissertation reflected her admiration for more primitive cultures. She praised the peasant blacksmiths of Indonesia in terms she would never offer to any Americans. Anthropology was and is one of the far left fringes of our already left leaning universities. Raised by a mother like this Senator Obama could not possibly develop great admiration for America.
The second, and perhaps more important women in Obama's life, his wife is also no fan or the good old U S of A. The subject of Michelle Obama's college thesis was "Blackness at Princeton".
Mrs. Obama stated that she felt like a visitor at Princeton, like someone who didn't really belong. This was presented as the fault of Princeton not due to some sensitivity or shortcoming on the part of Mrs Obama. An average American would look at Mrs. Obama's life and think she had it pretty good. Attending Princeton and then Harvard law School is considered the pinnacle of academic achievement. Again Mrs. Obama speaks not of the opportunities she has enjoyed but of the hardships she has endured.
While urging a group of lower middle class women at a day care center in Ohio to eschew careers in lucrative jobs like corporate law and hedge fund management Mrs. Obama complained about the burden of student loans. Although she had a job at a Chicago Hospital making $120K she claimed they were unable to retire their student loans and save for their children in their 40's. I'm sure things began to look up when her husband was elected to the Senate and her salary was raised to $312K. That impressive raise made the news in the Chicago area.
Much has been said about Mrs. Obama's statement that she is now "for the first time in her adult life, really proud of my country", well, at least she called America "my country". I was more troubled by the rest of her statement. Mrs Obama went on to say that she has been "desperate to see our country moving in that direction" and "feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment". This is a woman angling to be our First Lady and when she describes this great country that has afforded her so much the words she uses are desperate, frustration and disappointment. As negative as these statements sound in print they are much worse when delivered by Mrs Obama. The only word I can find to describe the look on Mrs. Obama's face during these statements is "hate".
Since then Mrs Obama has gone on to repeatedly give a stump speech that she wrote for herself that includes the following. America is a country of "cynics, sloths, and complacents" we’re a divided country, we’re a country that is “just downright mean,”. I didn't go to Princeton or Harvard and I never got more then half way to earning a six-figure income but I know that America is anything but a "downright mean" country. I am six years older than Mrs. Obama but I have been "really proud" of my country time and time again.
Has Mrs. Obama never seen the space shuttle launch? She has traveled a lot I would guess. Has she never looked out of the window of the plane with awe and wonder at the magnificence of our great country. Would a "mean" country have given three billion to help the victims of the Sumatra Tsunami in 2004. Americans gave $283.05 billion in 2005 and an estimated $295.02 billion in 2006 to charitable causes, and those figures exclude disaster relief.
Anyway, enough about the wife except to say that no one would be married to this women unless he shared her beliefs. Obama speaks out against the American presence in Iraq in terms that can only undermine our attempts there and demean the country as a whole in world opinion. His own statement that he wants to make it possible for young Americans traveling abroad to "hold their heads high when they say they are Americans" makes clear that he feels they do not have reason to do so now. Like many on the left Barack Obama sees his country as the problem not the solution.
Would General Motors hire a CEO who believed that it was inferior to every other car maker on the planet? Would Starbucks choose a CEO who thought that no one should drink coffee? Should the American people elect a President who thinks that you should hang your heads in shame when you travel the globe? We did so at least once before, and the results were not positive.
I was first eligible to vote way back when Jimmy Carter was facing Jerry Ford. I knew almost nothing about politics and was a registered Democrat, but then I repeat myself. Despite my naivete I looked at the two men asking for my vote and I voted for Ford. Judging from how the following four years went I stand by my choice. Then came the Reagan years and to this day I have always voted for the person I considered the best choice. I have never voted for a Democrat for President. I was a Republican in my heart only for years. I was on jury duty once and hanging around the courthouse with nothing to do. I noticed the Supervisor of Elections office and went in and officially changed parties.
As I am composing this I hear on the radio that twenty percent of white Democrats say they will vote for John McCain if Obama is their nominee. I can assure you that if twenty percent of white Democrats say that, there is another twenty percent who say they will vote for Obama but will not. People have a limited comfort zone. Some dedicated Democrats will find themselves in that voting booth and either feel unsure about voting for a black man or be uncomfortable with the idea of President Obama. Now, President McCain sounds more like what most of us are accustom to.
However, if some twist of fate puts Senator Obama in the Oval Office I predict that he will be as unsuccessful in that office as Jimmy Carter. President Carter had no true love for this country. Look at the things he said and did in office and since. Carter was and is always critical of the US. You would be hard pressed to find evidence Carter was ever really proud of this country. Carter always proceeded as though the US deserved to be humbled. In his time in office he gave away the Panama Canal, he denied us an Olympics, a national Christmas tree, and warm homes. All this from a Southern white man who had been successful in America and should have had no ax to grind against us.
Then comes Obama. The son of an anthropologist described in the Chicago Tribune last year as a "fellow traveler" the warm and fuzzy term used to describe a communist sympathizer. Obama's mother, Ann Dunham married first a Kenyan economics student who abandoned her and her infant and then an Indonesian. When her second husband had his student visa revoked she followed him to Indonesia in 1967. Ann Dunham's doctoral dissertation reflected her admiration for more primitive cultures. She praised the peasant blacksmiths of Indonesia in terms she would never offer to any Americans. Anthropology was and is one of the far left fringes of our already left leaning universities. Raised by a mother like this Senator Obama could not possibly develop great admiration for America.
The second, and perhaps more important women in Obama's life, his wife is also no fan or the good old U S of A. The subject of Michelle Obama's college thesis was "Blackness at Princeton".
Mrs. Obama stated that she felt like a visitor at Princeton, like someone who didn't really belong. This was presented as the fault of Princeton not due to some sensitivity or shortcoming on the part of Mrs Obama. An average American would look at Mrs. Obama's life and think she had it pretty good. Attending Princeton and then Harvard law School is considered the pinnacle of academic achievement. Again Mrs. Obama speaks not of the opportunities she has enjoyed but of the hardships she has endured.
While urging a group of lower middle class women at a day care center in Ohio to eschew careers in lucrative jobs like corporate law and hedge fund management Mrs. Obama complained about the burden of student loans. Although she had a job at a Chicago Hospital making $120K she claimed they were unable to retire their student loans and save for their children in their 40's. I'm sure things began to look up when her husband was elected to the Senate and her salary was raised to $312K. That impressive raise made the news in the Chicago area.
Much has been said about Mrs. Obama's statement that she is now "for the first time in her adult life, really proud of my country", well, at least she called America "my country". I was more troubled by the rest of her statement. Mrs Obama went on to say that she has been "desperate to see our country moving in that direction" and "feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment". This is a woman angling to be our First Lady and when she describes this great country that has afforded her so much the words she uses are desperate, frustration and disappointment. As negative as these statements sound in print they are much worse when delivered by Mrs Obama. The only word I can find to describe the look on Mrs. Obama's face during these statements is "hate".
Since then Mrs Obama has gone on to repeatedly give a stump speech that she wrote for herself that includes the following. America is a country of "cynics, sloths, and complacents" we’re a divided country, we’re a country that is “just downright mean,”. I didn't go to Princeton or Harvard and I never got more then half way to earning a six-figure income but I know that America is anything but a "downright mean" country. I am six years older than Mrs. Obama but I have been "really proud" of my country time and time again.
Has Mrs. Obama never seen the space shuttle launch? She has traveled a lot I would guess. Has she never looked out of the window of the plane with awe and wonder at the magnificence of our great country. Would a "mean" country have given three billion to help the victims of the Sumatra Tsunami in 2004. Americans gave $283.05 billion in 2005 and an estimated $295.02 billion in 2006 to charitable causes, and those figures exclude disaster relief.
Anyway, enough about the wife except to say that no one would be married to this women unless he shared her beliefs. Obama speaks out against the American presence in Iraq in terms that can only undermine our attempts there and demean the country as a whole in world opinion. His own statement that he wants to make it possible for young Americans traveling abroad to "hold their heads high when they say they are Americans" makes clear that he feels they do not have reason to do so now. Like many on the left Barack Obama sees his country as the problem not the solution.
Would General Motors hire a CEO who believed that it was inferior to every other car maker on the planet? Would Starbucks choose a CEO who thought that no one should drink coffee? Should the American people elect a President who thinks that you should hang your heads in shame when you travel the globe? We did so at least once before, and the results were not positive.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
GOP Bane, John McCain
John McCain is a war hero. Let's go ahead and get that out of the way first. McCain is not a phony war hero like John Kerry who spent a few months in Viet Nam and received three Purple Hearts without ever needing to spend a single night in the hospital. John McCain truly suffered in his service to his country and could not be more of a war hero unless he was that guy who blinked in morse code while reading the statement demanded by his captors. Now that that has been said let's review how Senator John McCain has served his country recently.
McCain teamed with uber-liberal Russ Feingold to limit your right to free speech. This bill wasn't aimed at pornography or what the politically correct call "hate speech". No, the McCain Feingold legislation was specifically directed at political speech. By some this was dubbed the "incumbent protection act" and this law has limited the ability of groups of citizens to get their message out regarding candidates running for elections during the time period when most voters are paying the most attention.
Senator McCain promised this legislation would "get the money out of politics" and just the opposite has happened. This faulty legislation has created 527's which allowed one man, George Soros to spend 24 million dollars to defeat the reelection of George W. Bush in 2004. Soros failed in this but he sure has gotten a lot of Americans stirred up and these organizations have kept people that way for the past 4 years.
McCain teamed with uber-liberal Russ Feingold to limit your right to free speech. This bill wasn't aimed at pornography or what the politically correct call "hate speech". No, the McCain Feingold legislation was specifically directed at political speech. By some this was dubbed the "incumbent protection act" and this law has limited the ability of groups of citizens to get their message out regarding candidates running for elections during the time period when most voters are paying the most attention.
Senator McCain promised this legislation would "get the money out of politics" and just the opposite has happened. This faulty legislation has created 527's which allowed one man, George Soros to spend 24 million dollars to defeat the reelection of George W. Bush in 2004. Soros failed in this but he sure has gotten a lot of Americans stirred up and these organizations have kept people that way for the past 4 years.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Could Al Gore be a Bigger Nimrod?
Moronic megalomaniac Al Gore was in Oslo yesterday to accept his Nobel Peace Prize. Gore made a big show of arriving via public transportation. I haven't heard yet how exactly he got to Sweden. Gore's usual mode of transportation is a private plane. I did learn that while he was riding a bus from the airport his luggage was transported in a limousine.
Finally, finally some questions are being asked about the incredible amount of money Al gore has made pushing his junk science theory on global warming. At a Fortune Forum summit last month Gore collected 100,000 British pounds for a thirty minute speech. In addition to giving a speech that was a real snoozer Gore put off guests and journalists by acting like a diva. Gore is really raking it in giving essentially the same speech over and over again for fat fees.
While Gore was accepting his ridiculous award and making yet another rambling wooden speech, ice storms were taking aim at the Midwest region of the United States. Also, the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society has published a report that CO2 is not a pollutant and that the warming the earth has experienced in recent years is natural and cannot be affected by an actions we may or may not take.
The report cites the cause of global warming as most likely variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere. Even more damaging to Gores insistence that CO2 levels are causing warming is the finding that earth's atmosphere is warming at the same rate as the surface. If Gore's "Greenhouse Effect" was truly occurring the atmosphere would be warming two to three times faster than the surface.
Consequently, reducing CO2 emissions would have no impact on global warming and would only be an incredible expense. An expense that Al Gore and others who are hawking "carbon offsets" will be collecting and taking to the bank.
Finally, finally some questions are being asked about the incredible amount of money Al gore has made pushing his junk science theory on global warming. At a Fortune Forum summit last month Gore collected 100,000 British pounds for a thirty minute speech. In addition to giving a speech that was a real snoozer Gore put off guests and journalists by acting like a diva. Gore is really raking it in giving essentially the same speech over and over again for fat fees.
While Gore was accepting his ridiculous award and making yet another rambling wooden speech, ice storms were taking aim at the Midwest region of the United States. Also, the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society has published a report that CO2 is not a pollutant and that the warming the earth has experienced in recent years is natural and cannot be affected by an actions we may or may not take.
The report cites the cause of global warming as most likely variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere. Even more damaging to Gores insistence that CO2 levels are causing warming is the finding that earth's atmosphere is warming at the same rate as the surface. If Gore's "Greenhouse Effect" was truly occurring the atmosphere would be warming two to three times faster than the surface.
Consequently, reducing CO2 emissions would have no impact on global warming and would only be an incredible expense. An expense that Al Gore and others who are hawking "carbon offsets" will be collecting and taking to the bank.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Clinton News Network Rolls Over, Again!
During the Bill Clinton Presidency many of us on the Right referred to CNN as the Clinton News Network. This was due to CNN's habit of reporting glowingly of anything done by William Jefferson Clinton, his wife or any member of his administration. A kindness they never provided to the two men who proceeded him or the one who followed him.
What is CNN's motto? I think it has something to do with trust. Well you can certainly trust CNN to report only bad news as long as George W Bush is in the White House. I remember way back when, Bill Clinton was just taking office and Rush Limbaugh promised that the "Homeless Problem" that the media had been harping on since Ronald Reagan took office would disappear. Darned if it didn't only to resurface, though with less intensity once we had another Republican elected President.
During Al Gore's and John Kerry's run for office I got to see how hard the media would work to assist a Democrat into the Presidency. To this day Kerry still hasn't answered the many questions asked by the over 200 Viet Nam Veterans who became the Swiftboaters for Truth, or made good on his promise to have ALL of his military records released. He did accept a million dollar bet recently to disprove at least one of the charges the Swiftboaters alleged. I can't wait to see how that wager comes out. Kerry didn't have to worry about answering the questions during the 2004 election. The media, for the most part, investigated only the men bringing the charges not the validity of those claims. The facts supported the swiftboaters, Kerry did receive three Purple Hearts without ever spending one night in a hospital.
The recent CNN Democrat debate was carefully orchestrated to make sure Hillary didn't have a second disastrous performance. Although Wolf Blitzer claims he was not warned by the Clinton camp to "go easy" he did do just that. Blitzer gave Mrs Clinton all the time she needed to answer as she choose. Even when her answer contradicted prior statements Blitzer never asked a follow up question or challenged Mrs. Clinton in any way.
Now it turns out that everyone of the "Independent, undecided citizens" selected at random to ask a question of the candidates were democrat operatives. One is a seventeen-year-old who works for Harry Reid. This is not "Freedom of the Press" at it's best.
What is CNN's motto? I think it has something to do with trust. Well you can certainly trust CNN to report only bad news as long as George W Bush is in the White House. I remember way back when, Bill Clinton was just taking office and Rush Limbaugh promised that the "Homeless Problem" that the media had been harping on since Ronald Reagan took office would disappear. Darned if it didn't only to resurface, though with less intensity once we had another Republican elected President.
During Al Gore's and John Kerry's run for office I got to see how hard the media would work to assist a Democrat into the Presidency. To this day Kerry still hasn't answered the many questions asked by the over 200 Viet Nam Veterans who became the Swiftboaters for Truth, or made good on his promise to have ALL of his military records released. He did accept a million dollar bet recently to disprove at least one of the charges the Swiftboaters alleged. I can't wait to see how that wager comes out. Kerry didn't have to worry about answering the questions during the 2004 election. The media, for the most part, investigated only the men bringing the charges not the validity of those claims. The facts supported the swiftboaters, Kerry did receive three Purple Hearts without ever spending one night in a hospital.
The recent CNN Democrat debate was carefully orchestrated to make sure Hillary didn't have a second disastrous performance. Although Wolf Blitzer claims he was not warned by the Clinton camp to "go easy" he did do just that. Blitzer gave Mrs Clinton all the time she needed to answer as she choose. Even when her answer contradicted prior statements Blitzer never asked a follow up question or challenged Mrs. Clinton in any way.
Now it turns out that everyone of the "Independent, undecided citizens" selected at random to ask a question of the candidates were democrat operatives. One is a seventeen-year-old who works for Harry Reid. This is not "Freedom of the Press" at it's best.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Shrillary's Not Great Debate
Surprisingly, Tim Russert asked some tough questions in the Democrat debate on Monday night. Hillary was not pleased and under pressure for the first time in her political career Mrs. Clinton made some serious mistakes. The following may not be in chronological order.
Until now Mrs. Clinton has not been asked about the New York Governor's unpopular plan to provide drivers licenses to illegal alien's even though she is one of the Senator's from that state. Russert asked her "Why does it make a lot of sense to give an illegal immigrant a driver's license?" Mrs. Clinton's initial response was to explain that what the Governor is trying to accomplish with this policy is "to fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform". Brilliant, except that the President supported immigration reform and it was the Senate who did not produce a solution that could pass and be sent to the President for signature.
What was truly remarkable is that two minutes after defending the policy when Chris Dodd said he found the policy "troublesome" Mrs Clinton butt in with "Well, I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize what Governor Spitzer is trying to do, and we have failed, we have failed." Dodd replied "No, no, no. You said yes, you thought it made sense to do it." Mrs. Clinton replied "No, I didn't, Chris", but she did, we all heard her. Russert pressed the point causing Mrs. Clinton to accuse him of playing "Gotcha" and to fall back on the party line of getting people to "come out of the shadows".
John Edwards pointed out that Hillary has accepted more in political donations from lobbyists, the drug companies, the insurance companies and the defense industry than any other Presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican. The point he was making is that Mrs. Clinton is not the person to change the way things currently work in Washington DC. Mrs. Clinton's reply was chilling her exact words were "I'm going to take $10 billion away from a lot of these industries". Then she threw two bogeymen under the bus, Halliburton and the HMO's. Luckily, for these lying Democrats, most Americans don't remember that Halliburton got "no bid contracts" during the Clinton Administration too, and our all knowing congress created the HMO's. Oh, and just for good measure, she threw in a reference to the Supreme Court handing the Presidency to George W. Bush, the left lunatic fringe loves to hear that fantasy repeated.
Mrs. Clinton was asked about the "mother of all tax increases" proposed by Charlie Rangle and waffled masterfully. Initially Mrs. Clinton claimed ignorance of the "details" of the plan but a few seconds later stated "I don't agree with all the details" So, does she know that details or not and if she doesn't know them how does she know that she disagrees with them.
Finally in a truly Clintonian example of duplicity, when Tim Russert asked if Mrs. Clinton would
allow the National Archives to release the documents regarding her communications with the president and the advice she gave to verify that she held an important role in that administration Mrs clinton did the following. First she tried to claim that documents were being released "as rapidly as the archives moves". Russert, that brute, pointed out that President Clinton has written a letter specifically asking that any communication between Mrs. Clinton and he not be made available to the public until 2012. When Russert asked again "Would you lift that ban?" the reply delivered with a huff and a sigh was "Well, that's not my decision to make, and I don't believe that any president or first lady ever has, but certainly we'll move as quickly as our circumstances and the processes of the National Archives permits." Don't hold your breath.
Same old, same old Clinton triangulation, misdirection, and faked umbrage that these question dare be asked of them. The Clinton's have built a political house of cards and eventually it will fall. Perhaps Al Gore will join the fray and the media which has protected the Clinton's for so long will turn on them. If the media ever began to really report on all the Clinton shady dealings their political careers would be dead and buried in 30 days. I think I'll visit that "Draft Gore" web site. See you there.
Until now Mrs. Clinton has not been asked about the New York Governor's unpopular plan to provide drivers licenses to illegal alien's even though she is one of the Senator's from that state. Russert asked her "Why does it make a lot of sense to give an illegal immigrant a driver's license?" Mrs. Clinton's initial response was to explain that what the Governor is trying to accomplish with this policy is "to fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform". Brilliant, except that the President supported immigration reform and it was the Senate who did not produce a solution that could pass and be sent to the President for signature.
What was truly remarkable is that two minutes after defending the policy when Chris Dodd said he found the policy "troublesome" Mrs Clinton butt in with "Well, I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize what Governor Spitzer is trying to do, and we have failed, we have failed." Dodd replied "No, no, no. You said yes, you thought it made sense to do it." Mrs. Clinton replied "No, I didn't, Chris", but she did, we all heard her. Russert pressed the point causing Mrs. Clinton to accuse him of playing "Gotcha" and to fall back on the party line of getting people to "come out of the shadows".
John Edwards pointed out that Hillary has accepted more in political donations from lobbyists, the drug companies, the insurance companies and the defense industry than any other Presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican. The point he was making is that Mrs. Clinton is not the person to change the way things currently work in Washington DC. Mrs. Clinton's reply was chilling her exact words were "I'm going to take $10 billion away from a lot of these industries". Then she threw two bogeymen under the bus, Halliburton and the HMO's. Luckily, for these lying Democrats, most Americans don't remember that Halliburton got "no bid contracts" during the Clinton Administration too, and our all knowing congress created the HMO's. Oh, and just for good measure, she threw in a reference to the Supreme Court handing the Presidency to George W. Bush, the left lunatic fringe loves to hear that fantasy repeated.
Mrs. Clinton was asked about the "mother of all tax increases" proposed by Charlie Rangle and waffled masterfully. Initially Mrs. Clinton claimed ignorance of the "details" of the plan but a few seconds later stated "I don't agree with all the details" So, does she know that details or not and if she doesn't know them how does she know that she disagrees with them.
Finally in a truly Clintonian example of duplicity, when Tim Russert asked if Mrs. Clinton would
allow the National Archives to release the documents regarding her communications with the president and the advice she gave to verify that she held an important role in that administration Mrs clinton did the following. First she tried to claim that documents were being released "as rapidly as the archives moves". Russert, that brute, pointed out that President Clinton has written a letter specifically asking that any communication between Mrs. Clinton and he not be made available to the public until 2012. When Russert asked again "Would you lift that ban?" the reply delivered with a huff and a sigh was "Well, that's not my decision to make, and I don't believe that any president or first lady ever has, but certainly we'll move as quickly as our circumstances and the processes of the National Archives permits." Don't hold your breath.
Same old, same old Clinton triangulation, misdirection, and faked umbrage that these question dare be asked of them. The Clinton's have built a political house of cards and eventually it will fall. Perhaps Al Gore will join the fray and the media which has protected the Clinton's for so long will turn on them. If the media ever began to really report on all the Clinton shady dealings their political careers would be dead and buried in 30 days. I think I'll visit that "Draft Gore" web site. See you there.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Why Shun Shunning?
At a recent dinner party my husband recounted a long ago incident which he remembers as me behaving rudely. When he spotted a former boyfriend of mine was at a restaurant where we were waiting for a table we kept our distance. It was our hope to avoid having to speak to this individual. Our plan almost succeeded. When this person barged up to our table asking if I knew he had married and thrusting his wedding ring under my nose I was taken aback. My reply was a bit unkind. I said, "No I didn't know you had gotten married and I never noticed what short stubby fingers you have". Now my former boyfriend was the one taken aback and he withdrew his ring clad hand as if it had been bitten.
I could have been nicer and I usually recommend erring on the side of kindness but do not regret my remark. This man had been a fairly rotten boyfriend. He and I were on a ski trip long ago the trip where I first learned to ski. We had been dating for a while at this time and we agreed that he would ski with his friends while I took skiing lessons. The deal was that if I learned to ski well enough to brave the blue ski runs after three days of lessons he would ski with me the last afternoon of our trip. I worked really hard to learn to ski and I made great progress. Then when the time came for us to ski together it just was not enough fun for him and he abandoned me.
There were other instances none really worth mentioning but eventually I decided the relationship had run it's course. I wrote a letter explaining exactly why I did not want to continue the relationship. Since people in our ski club were sure to notice we had split he brought an attractive young lady to the very next meeting. I don't recall her name and we never saw her again after that short appearance, she was after all only a prop. He did accomplish his goal. I was mildly humiliated and he was able to give the appearance that he had been the one who chose to move on from our relationship.
There was a time when it was considered part of one's societal responsibility to shun persons who had behaved badly. Before people became completely non-judgemental and learned that there would be no consequences to their actions people behaved better. Fifty years ago would Woody Allen have dared to marry his adopted daughter? He would have been turned away from "polite society" and told to never darken their doors again. Instead he explains "The heart wants what it wants" and gets to do exactly as he pleases with minimal criticism. When a man marries a woman young enough to be his daughter, and in this case one who was raised as his daughter, he is following one of his organs but it isn't his heart.
So, if Woody Allen rushes up to your table in a restaurant to show you his wedding ring feel free to be as rude to him as you like. You have my permission.
I could have been nicer and I usually recommend erring on the side of kindness but do not regret my remark. This man had been a fairly rotten boyfriend. He and I were on a ski trip long ago the trip where I first learned to ski. We had been dating for a while at this time and we agreed that he would ski with his friends while I took skiing lessons. The deal was that if I learned to ski well enough to brave the blue ski runs after three days of lessons he would ski with me the last afternoon of our trip. I worked really hard to learn to ski and I made great progress. Then when the time came for us to ski together it just was not enough fun for him and he abandoned me.
There were other instances none really worth mentioning but eventually I decided the relationship had run it's course. I wrote a letter explaining exactly why I did not want to continue the relationship. Since people in our ski club were sure to notice we had split he brought an attractive young lady to the very next meeting. I don't recall her name and we never saw her again after that short appearance, she was after all only a prop. He did accomplish his goal. I was mildly humiliated and he was able to give the appearance that he had been the one who chose to move on from our relationship.
There was a time when it was considered part of one's societal responsibility to shun persons who had behaved badly. Before people became completely non-judgemental and learned that there would be no consequences to their actions people behaved better. Fifty years ago would Woody Allen have dared to marry his adopted daughter? He would have been turned away from "polite society" and told to never darken their doors again. Instead he explains "The heart wants what it wants" and gets to do exactly as he pleases with minimal criticism. When a man marries a woman young enough to be his daughter, and in this case one who was raised as his daughter, he is following one of his organs but it isn't his heart.
So, if Woody Allen rushes up to your table in a restaurant to show you his wedding ring feel free to be as rude to him as you like. You have my permission.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
How the Clinton's Led the Left to Sell Their Souls
The Devil made me do it has never really flown as a legitimate excuse for any one's actions but let's take a look at what the Clinton's have led their supporters to do.
Because of Bill Clinton feminists had to defend not just an adulterer, but a a serial womanizer, a sleazy groper and most likely an actual rapist. This couldn't have been easy for the "no means NO" crowd.
Veterans had to defend not just a draft dodger but one who escaped the draft by promising to join the ROTC and then weaseled out of that commitment in a letter where he admitted that he "loathes the military". Veterans had to defend this draft dodger while he was running against two true WWII war hero's, George Bush and Bob Dole. That had to feel wrong, wrong, wrong especially after Clinton's first action in office. The courageous "Don't ask don't tell" policy. That's was really impressive leadership.
Unions leaders had to let thousands of sweet, high paying jobs go by the wayside to save Anwar, a desolate frozen area that most closely resembles the surface of the moon. They had to let all those jobs and all the new union members the jobs could have generated go to save a place where no one lives and which no one would want to visit. Then the most bitter pill of all they saw the passage of NAFTA. That can't have been easy to swallow.
The trial lawyers probably had the least trouble. No one can put their principles aside like a trial lawyer. It's almost as if they have none. However even lawyers take umbrage at perjury and obstruction of justice. This was the only time the Supreme Court boycotted a state of the union address right? It was all of the Justices too, not just the non-liberal ones.
I may be wrong about this as the Left may have been soulless prior to the Clinton's arrival. They are, after all, Godless and generally joyless. Still, you can understand that some of them are apprehensive at the idea of another Clinton administration. As well they should be.
Because of Bill Clinton feminists had to defend not just an adulterer, but a a serial womanizer, a sleazy groper and most likely an actual rapist. This couldn't have been easy for the "no means NO" crowd.
Veterans had to defend not just a draft dodger but one who escaped the draft by promising to join the ROTC and then weaseled out of that commitment in a letter where he admitted that he "loathes the military". Veterans had to defend this draft dodger while he was running against two true WWII war hero's, George Bush and Bob Dole. That had to feel wrong, wrong, wrong especially after Clinton's first action in office. The courageous "Don't ask don't tell" policy. That's was really impressive leadership.
Unions leaders had to let thousands of sweet, high paying jobs go by the wayside to save Anwar, a desolate frozen area that most closely resembles the surface of the moon. They had to let all those jobs and all the new union members the jobs could have generated go to save a place where no one lives and which no one would want to visit. Then the most bitter pill of all they saw the passage of NAFTA. That can't have been easy to swallow.
The trial lawyers probably had the least trouble. No one can put their principles aside like a trial lawyer. It's almost as if they have none. However even lawyers take umbrage at perjury and obstruction of justice. This was the only time the Supreme Court boycotted a state of the union address right? It was all of the Justices too, not just the non-liberal ones.
I may be wrong about this as the Left may have been soulless prior to the Clinton's arrival. They are, after all, Godless and generally joyless. Still, you can understand that some of them are apprehensive at the idea of another Clinton administration. As well they should be.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
You May Not Know Jack, But You BETTER Know About George
George Soros that is. This guy has a finger in every left leaning pie in the world Many people know Soros is one of the biggest financiers of MoveOn.org but there is much more George supports and not everyone knows he is out there working behind the scenes to influence public policy.
There is an organization called the "Open Society Institute. In addition to supporting lots of liberal causes this organization has been very helpful to NASA's James Hansen. Any scientists who is skeptical of the "global warming consensus" is accused of being backed by big oil. James Hansen has been described as a "lone whistle blower" who was allegedly censored by the Bush administration. An accusation that is made laughable by the fact that NASA changed it's media policies to allow Hansen to continue his crusade. It was recently reported that Hansen received $720,000 to help him spread the alarm about "global warming". Who is politicizing science now? How would Hansen's credibility been affected if everyone knew who was backing him?
There is an organization called the "Open Society Institute. In addition to supporting lots of liberal causes this organization has been very helpful to NASA's James Hansen. Any scientists who is skeptical of the "global warming consensus" is accused of being backed by big oil. James Hansen has been described as a "lone whistle blower" who was allegedly censored by the Bush administration. An accusation that is made laughable by the fact that NASA changed it's media policies to allow Hansen to continue his crusade. It was recently reported that Hansen received $720,000 to help him spread the alarm about "global warming". Who is politicizing science now? How would Hansen's credibility been affected if everyone knew who was backing him?
The Open Society Institute had a hand in another big news story in 2006. When all the "immigration rallies" began it was reported that this was a spontaneous grass roots movement. There was no mention of an organizer or instigator except for a Los Angeles Spanish-language radio station. That was not true. The truth is that the 17 million dollar Justice Fund, a underling of the OSI listed 19 projects for 2006 and one was "immigration rallies" another was funding illegal immigrants activists groups court cases. These immigrants and their supporters didn't "rise up" on their own. They were manipulated by one of Soro's well funded groups.
You have heard, I'm sure, about some of the court cases that seem to favor terrorists. Have you ever wondered who brings these suits? The Open Society Institute spent $74 million in 2006 to "shape U.S. policy". Some court cases they backed and won include the Supreme Court's decision to abolish military commissions judging terrorists at Guantanamo. They financially supported the radicals who pressured the TSA to eliminate their "Secure Flight" program, which matched passenger lists against lists of terrorists names. The lawyers who persuaded the Texas judge to block tracking terrorists cell phones were funded by OSI too. Soros' OSI partners with a group called the Tides Foundation which is a cause Terri Kerry supports and which is know for very quietly transferring funds from wealthy donors to left wing "fringe groups" like eco-terrorism.
Another "below the radar" political organization called "Democracy Alliance" enjoys great largess from Soros. The policy of Democracy Alliance seems to be that the party whose name is closest to the word Democracy gets full control of the government. This group was formed in 2005 and until this week I had never heard of them, had you? This is another group throwing vast sums of money and misinformation around to further their far left agenda.
That brings us to America Coming Together or ACT which is not dedicated to the sexual fulfillment of all Americans, but would be less worrisome if it were. Remember all the news about "disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff"? Well ACT was fined $775,000 by the Federal Election Commission, the third largest fine in FEC history and there was hardly a ripple in the main stream news about it. In 2004 ACT raised $137 million in 17 states, most of which the FEC says were illegal contributions. Why isn't this BIG NEWS?
Wake up America! You need to know who these people are and what they are doing behind the scenes to manipulate you.
Friday, September 21, 2007
ENVIRO-COMMUNISM or Is Green the New Red?
With the fall of the Soviet Union Communism lost most of it's luster. American Liberals finally had to give up the dream. Without the USSR Communism was never going to catch on and overcome Capitalism. Too bad for the Left but those folks, if anything, are resourceful. They saw early that taking up the cause to "Save the Planet" could open another front in the fight against Capitalism.
From the Nixon administration's creation of the EPA on there has been a never ending battle between capitalism and so called environmentalists (which I shall here in refer to as Enviro-Mentals). Whenever and where ever someone wanted to build homes, factories or any commercial enterprise they would have to run a gauntlet of inspections, regulations and frequently litigation. Hundred year-old family farms were left to dry up and blow away while the water was reserved to save a tiny fish, the snail darter. Logging interests had to be shut down to save the spotted owl who we were told could only live in certain trees. This was disproved when a family of these owls took up residence in a K-Mart sign.
The Enviro-Mentals have successfully prevented the construction of an oil refinery in this country for over thirty years. They opposed the Alaskan Pipeline but were unable to prevent it. Their dire warnings of the destruction the pipeline would cause never came true. Just the opposite occurred. Caribou populations expanded as they found some previously unavailable warmth generated by the pipeline. The Enviro-Mentals have successfully prevented us from tapping the huge oil reserves in Anwar while other Liberals and some reasonable folks denounce our dependence on foreign oil.
The new Crisis du jour from the Enviro-Mentals is "Global Warming" Ah, if not for Global Warming we might have heard the last of Al Gore, but no such luck. Again, those who so loudly decry the horror of an increase in the temperature of the northern hemisphere of less than two degrees in one hundred years vehemently oppose the one source of energy which causes no carbon emissions, nuclear power.
Most Americans may be unaware that Canada uses nuclear power for a lot of their energy needs. France produces 76% of it's electricity from 56 nuclear power plants. There hasn't been a nuclear incident for decades and we can certainly make safe use of a power source that has been mastered by the French. Does Global Warming guru Al Gore call for a switch to nuclear power? Absolutely not. Instead he calls for all of us to live our lives greener. Gore himself can't do so, his mission is too important, but he expects you to lessen the way you live your life.
From the Nixon administration's creation of the EPA on there has been a never ending battle between capitalism and so called environmentalists (which I shall here in refer to as Enviro-Mentals). Whenever and where ever someone wanted to build homes, factories or any commercial enterprise they would have to run a gauntlet of inspections, regulations and frequently litigation. Hundred year-old family farms were left to dry up and blow away while the water was reserved to save a tiny fish, the snail darter. Logging interests had to be shut down to save the spotted owl who we were told could only live in certain trees. This was disproved when a family of these owls took up residence in a K-Mart sign.
The Enviro-Mentals have successfully prevented the construction of an oil refinery in this country for over thirty years. They opposed the Alaskan Pipeline but were unable to prevent it. Their dire warnings of the destruction the pipeline would cause never came true. Just the opposite occurred. Caribou populations expanded as they found some previously unavailable warmth generated by the pipeline. The Enviro-Mentals have successfully prevented us from tapping the huge oil reserves in Anwar while other Liberals and some reasonable folks denounce our dependence on foreign oil.
The new Crisis du jour from the Enviro-Mentals is "Global Warming" Ah, if not for Global Warming we might have heard the last of Al Gore, but no such luck. Again, those who so loudly decry the horror of an increase in the temperature of the northern hemisphere of less than two degrees in one hundred years vehemently oppose the one source of energy which causes no carbon emissions, nuclear power.
Most Americans may be unaware that Canada uses nuclear power for a lot of their energy needs. France produces 76% of it's electricity from 56 nuclear power plants. There hasn't been a nuclear incident for decades and we can certainly make safe use of a power source that has been mastered by the French. Does Global Warming guru Al Gore call for a switch to nuclear power? Absolutely not. Instead he calls for all of us to live our lives greener. Gore himself can't do so, his mission is too important, but he expects you to lessen the way you live your life.
Some scientists disagree with the "global warming consensus". Al Gore calls them "Deniers" comparing them to people who claim one of history's darkest events never happened. Anyone who fails to buy the "global warming lie" hook line and sinker is attacked. During the Clinton Administration any government scientist who doubted global warming was fired any others were advised they would be blacklisted from receiving any government grants.
The only solution the Enviro-Mentals will accept is to throw even more draconian hurdles in front of American business interests. The estimated cost to our economy for reducing carbon emissions per Al Gore's baby, the Kyoto Treaty was 77 to 338 Billion in 1992 dollars. I assure you the price hasn't decreased in the past 15 years. A hefty price tag has never been a deterrent to those on the left who seek bigger and bigger government. No problem, they'll just "tax the rich".
All to keep the planet at it's current temperature. The benefits of some additional warming are never discussed. There is significant scientific evidence to support theories that the earth has been warmer than current temperatures in the past. Directly prior to the Renaissance for example. A warming trend resulted in longer growing seasons and world wide benefits to mankind. Now record heat is big news and record cold is ignored. Here's an idea, if we have to ignore something let's make it Al Gore.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
I Love Liberals
I love liberals, don't you? Only a liberal can pick a fight and then if you respond in any manner other than total capitulation they accuse you of attacking them and suddenly take the high road. Recently I had two email encounters that seemed to go that way. The first was quite a shock as seemingly out of the blue a business acquaintance sent me a brief tirade about President Bush and Vice-Pres Chaney. When I replied with some defense I got a haughty reply about how neither of us will likely convince the other so we should drop it. HE started it but WE should drop it. No problem there I deleted him form my address book. He was a flaky attorney from Dade County. He won't be missed.
This does explain how so many liberals can support Hillary Clinton. I find it totally unreasonable for anyone to attack then cry foul, hardly good sportsmanship or even adult behavior. Apparently many disagree and that makes it reasonable, for them and for Hillary to have it both ways. When Hillary accuses some imaginary "Vast Right wing Conspiracy" for making up lies about her husband canoodling with an intern that is a perfectly legitimate claim. When it turns out that her husband was doing exactly what he was accused of he is the only liar in the scenario no apology is offered. When asked by Tim Russert if she owes an apology for that accusation Mrs. Clinton reverts to innocent victim replying only "I wish that none of us had to go through that very difficult time. Never taking any responsibility for causing the "very difficult time".
When Hillary and others accuse the President of every evil imaginable including knowingly allowing September 11th to happen that is their Constitutional Right. If anyone dares to reasonably point out that these statements might damage our country and hurt our chances of winning the war in Iraq they scream foul! "How dare you" they cry! "How dare you impugn my patriotism". It's amazing to me. You can watch it time and time again, first outrageous behavior and then when that behavior is commented upon immediate highhanded victim hood. This passive aggressive ploy has silenced Americans nationwide. Millions of conservative and moderate Americans just pipe down to avoid the theatrics the left employs if you dare speak up.
One good example occurred at a women's bible class of all places. A very outspoken woman thought it appropriate to say in a bible class how she "hates" being in any group that thinks President Bush is so great. This was not in response to anything said in class, politics had not been mentioned. This woman just wanted us all to know that if we had anything positive to say about the President, that would be offensive to her. I think I would have been happier living in the 1950's when folks were more likely to be offended by negative statements about the President.
Here we are, in a country where you would hesitate to say in public "I think President Bush is doing the best job possible under very difficult circumstances". Hows that for muzzeling the opposition. Millions of people are afraid to voice and support for our President. Supporting the President openly has been deemed "rude" but defaming him venomously is perfectly allowed.
It's a crazy time! And, not in a good way.
This does explain how so many liberals can support Hillary Clinton. I find it totally unreasonable for anyone to attack then cry foul, hardly good sportsmanship or even adult behavior. Apparently many disagree and that makes it reasonable, for them and for Hillary to have it both ways. When Hillary accuses some imaginary "Vast Right wing Conspiracy" for making up lies about her husband canoodling with an intern that is a perfectly legitimate claim. When it turns out that her husband was doing exactly what he was accused of he is the only liar in the scenario no apology is offered. When asked by Tim Russert if she owes an apology for that accusation Mrs. Clinton reverts to innocent victim replying only "I wish that none of us had to go through that very difficult time. Never taking any responsibility for causing the "very difficult time".
When Hillary and others accuse the President of every evil imaginable including knowingly allowing September 11th to happen that is their Constitutional Right. If anyone dares to reasonably point out that these statements might damage our country and hurt our chances of winning the war in Iraq they scream foul! "How dare you" they cry! "How dare you impugn my patriotism". It's amazing to me. You can watch it time and time again, first outrageous behavior and then when that behavior is commented upon immediate highhanded victim hood. This passive aggressive ploy has silenced Americans nationwide. Millions of conservative and moderate Americans just pipe down to avoid the theatrics the left employs if you dare speak up.
One good example occurred at a women's bible class of all places. A very outspoken woman thought it appropriate to say in a bible class how she "hates" being in any group that thinks President Bush is so great. This was not in response to anything said in class, politics had not been mentioned. This woman just wanted us all to know that if we had anything positive to say about the President, that would be offensive to her. I think I would have been happier living in the 1950's when folks were more likely to be offended by negative statements about the President.
Here we are, in a country where you would hesitate to say in public "I think President Bush is doing the best job possible under very difficult circumstances". Hows that for muzzeling the opposition. Millions of people are afraid to voice and support for our President. Supporting the President openly has been deemed "rude" but defaming him venomously is perfectly allowed.
It's a crazy time! And, not in a good way.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Second Clinton Fundrasing Scandal - THIS WEEK
The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this week that a small home in Daly City, CA was one of the biggest Democrat donors. There was a connection between the occupants of that house, the Paw family and a New York businessman named Norman Hsu. Hsu, is a "Hillraiser", the title given to someone who has committed to raising $100,000 for Hilliary Clinton.
Today we learn that Mr. Hsu is a wanted man. There has been a warrant for his arrest in California since 1992. Many Democrats who have enjoyed Mr Hsu's financial support are returning the funds or giving them to charity. So far, only Minnesota Rep. Michael Honda is returning the donations from the Paws and another contributor Hsu lined up.
In an unrelated additional scandal another "fundraiser", Abdul Rehman Jinnah, is thought to have fled the country after an indictment on charges of conspiracy and making illegal campaign contributions. This gentleman, a Pakistani immigrant, disappeared in May after being indicted and is thought to have returned to Pakistan.
Prior to the indictment Jinnah directed $30,000 to Mrs Clinton's campaign and $50, 000 to Barbara Boxer. It is alleged that he organized fake fundraisers where he would collect contributions from friends and family members and reimburse them. His flight makes one think the allegations are probably true.
Today we learn that Mr. Hsu is a wanted man. There has been a warrant for his arrest in California since 1992. Many Democrats who have enjoyed Mr Hsu's financial support are returning the funds or giving them to charity. So far, only Minnesota Rep. Michael Honda is returning the donations from the Paws and another contributor Hsu lined up.
In an unrelated additional scandal another "fundraiser", Abdul Rehman Jinnah, is thought to have fled the country after an indictment on charges of conspiracy and making illegal campaign contributions. This gentleman, a Pakistani immigrant, disappeared in May after being indicted and is thought to have returned to Pakistan.
Prior to the indictment Jinnah directed $30,000 to Mrs Clinton's campaign and $50, 000 to Barbara Boxer. It is alleged that he organized fake fundraisers where he would collect contributions from friends and family members and reimburse them. His flight makes one think the allegations are probably true.
Please No Forwards on Politics
Today, as a second foreign Clinton contributor has reportedly fled the country to avoid indictment on charges of conspiracy and making illegal campaign contributions, I received a reply to my email about yesterday's Clinton campaign scandal. That reply from a family member was "Please no forwards on politics". That one line sums up the way we went through eight years of Bill Clinton and how some plan to get through Hillary's campaign and heaven forbid another Clinton administration. Normally rational people will close their eyes to any and nearly all Clinton misdeeds with their fingers in their ears chanting "la, la, la, la, la".
The same people who have openly expressed their desire to personally harm our President chide me for daring to bring some shady dealings to their attention. People who never hesitate to tell you how much they absolutely hate President Bush act as though you are behaving boorishly if you mention that Ms. Clinton has not one but two new fund raising scandals to explain. People who will believe our President capable of any evil up to and including knowing about the September 11th attacks in advance but allowing thy to occur in some mad grab for power go all huffy on you for questioning the character of a proved liar, swindler and generally despicable person.
My reply, which will go unspoken to that family member is "I'll respect your wishes but cannot respect your attitude".
The same people who have openly expressed their desire to personally harm our President chide me for daring to bring some shady dealings to their attention. People who never hesitate to tell you how much they absolutely hate President Bush act as though you are behaving boorishly if you mention that Ms. Clinton has not one but two new fund raising scandals to explain. People who will believe our President capable of any evil up to and including knowing about the September 11th attacks in advance but allowing thy to occur in some mad grab for power go all huffy on you for questioning the character of a proved liar, swindler and generally despicable person.
My reply, which will go unspoken to that family member is "I'll respect your wishes but cannot respect your attitude".
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Here Comes Another One Just Like the Other One
What is it with the Chinese and the Clinton's? Bill Clinton took tons of illegal donations from Chinese and Hillary appears to be doing the same.
There is a six member family, the Paws, who live in a 1280 square foot residence that sits in Daly City, CA under one of the flight paths for San Francisco International airport. Although Mr and Mrs Paw and their four grown children are of modest means they are some of the Democrat Party's biggest contributors. Since 2005 the Paws have donated a total of $200,000 to Democrats $45,000 of that going to Ms Clinton.
The Paws are Chinese and all got their Social Security numbers in 1982. They did not seem to be politically active until this recent generous support of all things Democrat. Five of the six Paws are registered to vote as Non-partisans and according to county election officials vote only "sporadically". There was no record of any political donations made by the Paws until they gave $3,600 to John Kerry during the 2004 presidential election . The Paws first donation to Ms Clinton was the maximum allowed (at the time) $4,000 to her Senate campaign in December of 2004. Odd that a member of a middle class family in Daly City, California would contribute to a New York Senate race. Another donation of $17,500 went to Ms Clinton in March 2005.
There is something else fishy about the Paw family donations. Another benefactor for the Democrats and specifically Ms Clinton is New York businessman Norman Hsu and his donations have been made on the same dates and in the amounts as the Paws donations. Oh, one other odd detail, Mr Hsu previously listed the Paw residence as his home address.
I'm sure there is a simple explanation for his but doubt it will ever be given or even asked for by our "main stream media" who always gives Democrats and especially the Clinton's a pass.
There is a six member family, the Paws, who live in a 1280 square foot residence that sits in Daly City, CA under one of the flight paths for San Francisco International airport. Although Mr and Mrs Paw and their four grown children are of modest means they are some of the Democrat Party's biggest contributors. Since 2005 the Paws have donated a total of $200,000 to Democrats $45,000 of that going to Ms Clinton.
The Paws are Chinese and all got their Social Security numbers in 1982. They did not seem to be politically active until this recent generous support of all things Democrat. Five of the six Paws are registered to vote as Non-partisans and according to county election officials vote only "sporadically". There was no record of any political donations made by the Paws until they gave $3,600 to John Kerry during the 2004 presidential election . The Paws first donation to Ms Clinton was the maximum allowed (at the time) $4,000 to her Senate campaign in December of 2004. Odd that a member of a middle class family in Daly City, California would contribute to a New York Senate race. Another donation of $17,500 went to Ms Clinton in March 2005.
There is something else fishy about the Paw family donations. Another benefactor for the Democrats and specifically Ms Clinton is New York businessman Norman Hsu and his donations have been made on the same dates and in the amounts as the Paws donations. Oh, one other odd detail, Mr Hsu previously listed the Paw residence as his home address.
I'm sure there is a simple explanation for his but doubt it will ever be given or even asked for by our "main stream media" who always gives Democrats and especially the Clinton's a pass.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
LEARNING TO READ
I really wish I could remember learning to read. For an unknown, to me at least, period of time I had "read" Green Eggs and Ham to my Dad every night. I had memorized the book from his prior reading to me and could recite every line on each page so I must of had some idea of the relationship between the words on the pages and the words coming out of my mouth. Although I think I associated the words I remembered with the pictures on the pages.
I have lots of memories from the first grade but do not recall the exact moment when I learned how to read. Kindergarten was optional at the time and no one had ever heard of pre-school. The first grade was my first experience with formal education. I clearly remember standing with the class and reciting the alphabet. There was also a version we did that went "A, apple, B, Ball etc. In that version X was a bit sticky as none of us had ever seen or heard of a xylophone. I later remember sitting in a circle on the floor of the classroom reading aloud when my turn came. I don't recall the reading matter but think I was in the "best readers" circle. Imagine the hue and cry if in today's first grade classroom the teacher tried to designate a small group as "the best" anything and allowed them to read from more advanced texts.
Still, I am sorry I cannot recall that moment of enlightenment when I realized that the letters made words and the words contained meanings. It must have been like discovering an amazing decoder ring that could unlock the mysteries of the universe. Or maybe it was just a quick "Ahhh" moment.
I have lots of memories from the first grade but do not recall the exact moment when I learned how to read. Kindergarten was optional at the time and no one had ever heard of pre-school. The first grade was my first experience with formal education. I clearly remember standing with the class and reciting the alphabet. There was also a version we did that went "A, apple, B, Ball etc. In that version X was a bit sticky as none of us had ever seen or heard of a xylophone. I later remember sitting in a circle on the floor of the classroom reading aloud when my turn came. I don't recall the reading matter but think I was in the "best readers" circle. Imagine the hue and cry if in today's first grade classroom the teacher tried to designate a small group as "the best" anything and allowed them to read from more advanced texts.
Still, I am sorry I cannot recall that moment of enlightenment when I realized that the letters made words and the words contained meanings. It must have been like discovering an amazing decoder ring that could unlock the mysteries of the universe. Or maybe it was just a quick "Ahhh" moment.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
DO WOMEN HAVE FEET?
It is amazing how much time and money women spend on their feet. Shoes are a passion with most women and the prices for designer footwear are off the charts. A pedicure, once a luxury, is now a monthly necessity for almost all women. Why do we put so much effort into the most overlooked feature of our bodies? Sure your girlfriends notice your shoes but men don't. Most men are barely aware that women have feet. By the way, if you meet a man who takes notice of your shoes, kick those shoes off and run for your life!
CARTER SUPPORTS HAMAS
Former President Carters latest outrage clarifies his inclination to support thugs and terrorists.
Carter says the U.S. should stop favoring Fatah over Hamas. In a speech to a group of Irish "human rights activists" Carter said that "the Bush administration's refusal to accept Hamas' election was criminal". Funny, Carter thought his own refusal to accept the 1979 election results in Zimbabwe during his presidency was just peachy keen. Thanks to Carter and others on the Left who ignored the elected leader Abel Muzorewa and continued to support Robert Mugabe he was able to steal the 1980 election and seize power. How has Mugabe worked out for Zimbabwe? Well in the past 27 years thousands have been tortured and murdered, there has been genocide and mass starvation the world's highest level of inflation and lowest life expect ency. Carter leter claimed he had done the right thing but that Mugabe had become corrupted by power.
Since the last Palestinian election there has been a Fatah-Hamas power-sharing government. Last week Hamas fighters seized control of the Gaza Strip by force, driving Fatah out of the area. President Abbas then dissolved the government and set up a Fatah-led administration to govern the west bank. The Bush administration and the European Union (how often do these two entities agree?) decided to provide aid that has been withheld since the election to the interim Fatah government.
Despite the fact that there was a full out civil war going on in the region Cater claimed the decision to give aid to the new Fatah government only was an "effort to divide Palestinians into two peoples". Carter cares not a whit that the Hamas leadership refuses to renounce violence and continues to call for the destruction of Israel.
On Monday of this week as hundreds of terrified civilians tried to flee the Gaza Strip for sanctuary in Israel, disguised Hamas gunmen blended in with the crowd and then threw hand grenades at Israeli soldiers. They killed one Palestinian and injured 15 others at Erez. That is the tactics of the group Carter wants us to treat like an ally.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Are We Ready NOW To Admit Israel Is NOT The Problem?
For the past week the so called "Palestinians" have been busy killing each other in the Gaza Strip. This is the stretch of land formerly occupied by Israeli forces that was handed over as a step in the "road map to peace". Well, thanks to Ha mas and Fatah we have veered sharply off the "road map to peace". Sympathy for the innocent aside I have no problem with these two groups of people killing each other especially if it precludes them from blowing up children and their grandmothers having pizza in Israel.
Hamas got a foot in the door in the recent election and are moving to take full control by force. If you have doubts about the need for us to finish the job in Iraq just look at Hamas in the Gaza Strip to see what Iraq will turn into if we leave prematurely.
Hamas got a foot in the door in the recent election and are moving to take full control by force. If you have doubts about the need for us to finish the job in Iraq just look at Hamas in the Gaza Strip to see what Iraq will turn into if we leave prematurely.
Democrats Work Toward American Defeat
Please compare the following statements made by Democrat Harry Reid.............
WP reports that Senator Harry Reid provoked by an article in USA Today took some cheap shots at General David Petraeus. Petraeus, was unanimously approved by the Senate to take command in Iraq four months ago. Still after approving Gen. Petraeus Reid now claims that the General "isn't in touch with what's going on in Baghdad." Reid also indicated that he thinks Petraeus has not been sufficiently open in his testimony to Congress. Noting that Petraeus, who is now on his third tour of duty in Iraq, oversaw the training of Iraqi troops during his second stint there, Reid said: "He told us it was going great; as we've looked back, it didn't go so well.
The quote in USA Today was that the general sees "astonishing signs of normalcy" in the Iraqi capital. "I'm talking about professional soccer leagues with real grass field stadiums, several amusement parks -- big ones, markets that are very vibrant," Petraeus told the newspaper.
Reid went on to say "I was a little disappointed, to say the least, today reading the USA Today newspaper, where he's saying things are going fine." Seeing signs of normalcy is hardly saying "things are going fine." I sincerely doubt that you could find any instance of General Petraeus saying "things are going fine," in a war zone.
Reid had a conversation Tuesday with liberal bloggers, according to The Politico, in which he disparaged both Petraeus and Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff whom the administration recently did not nominate for a second two-year term. Reid called Pace "incompetent," and then questioned the integrity of Petraeus by saying he is "waiting to see if General Petraeus can be a little more candid with this."
Compare to statements made by Harry Reid at the time of his last visit to Iraq, March of 2005. "I came away with the feeling that we cannot leave Iraq." He was one of seven Senate Democrats and Republicans that took a week-long trip to the Middle East and several countries near the region. He said, "I came away with the feeling we cannot leave Iraq. If we do, the terrorists will have won." Reid must have forgotten all about that as he actually said "Now I believe myself............that this war is lost" on April 19, 2007.
Harry Reid is a corrupt Democrat. It is well known that you cannot do business in the state of Nevada unless you grease the palms of one or more of the members of the Harry Reid family. However, for the majority leader in the Senate to undermine our war efforts in this way is much more egregious than his ethically questionable and highly profitable land dealings.
Who is more likely to be "out of touch" with the way things are going in Baghdad, the general running our operations there or a fat cat senator sitting in Washington D.C. trying to think up more ways to thwart the President and enrich himself? There is only one accurate description of Harry Reid's behavior and the word is treasonous.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
"Bush Lied" Not!
Multiple Democrats have repeatedly tried to assert that President Bush "Lied us into the war in Iraq". Nothing could be further from the truth, but the truth is a small obstical to the left and their obedient minions in the media. Long ago it was alleged that Vice President Cheney pressured analysts in our intelligence organizations to find that Saddam hissain had WMD's. That fallicy was disproved by the 9.11 Report. So the left just waited a week or two and began again to make their "Bush Lied, Kids Died" claims.
Now that allegation is disproved by none other than Al Gore. A video taped speech from 1992 has surfaced. In it Al Gore, then running for Vice President, criticises the first President Bush for not confronting Saddam Hussein. Gore makes all the same arguments for attacking Iraq that were made by President Clinton when he made removal of Saddam Hussein the policy of the United states of America. Clinton never followed through on that policy with the exception of a few high altitude bombings.
If one had the time and the inclination you could put together an impressive collection of leading Democrats calling for action against Iraq and explaining how very dangerous Hussein is to us and the world. It is convenient for those Democrats to pretend that they never made those statements and that no one ever considered action against Iraq until Bush 43 came along. The Media willingly complies by reporting the Democrats current criticism and never mentioning the conflicting statements these same people made just a few years ago.
Unfortunately for the Media and the Left, some of us do have more than short time memories and there is always YouTube to fill in the blanks for those who have forgotten.
Now that allegation is disproved by none other than Al Gore. A video taped speech from 1992 has surfaced. In it Al Gore, then running for Vice President, criticises the first President Bush for not confronting Saddam Hussein. Gore makes all the same arguments for attacking Iraq that were made by President Clinton when he made removal of Saddam Hussein the policy of the United states of America. Clinton never followed through on that policy with the exception of a few high altitude bombings.
If one had the time and the inclination you could put together an impressive collection of leading Democrats calling for action against Iraq and explaining how very dangerous Hussein is to us and the world. It is convenient for those Democrats to pretend that they never made those statements and that no one ever considered action against Iraq until Bush 43 came along. The Media willingly complies by reporting the Democrats current criticism and never mentioning the conflicting statements these same people made just a few years ago.
Unfortunately for the Media and the Left, some of us do have more than short time memories and there is always YouTube to fill in the blanks for those who have forgotten.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Who Really Hates the U.S.?
Our wonderful "main stream media" has been telling us since President Bush took office that our country is hated, truly hated throughout the world. Can we be sure this is true? This is the same MSM who told us that AID's was becoming an epidemic among heterosexuals, which was untrue. The same MSM warned us that the Avian Flu would be killing ten percent of America by now which hasn't happened. The same MSM who are telling us we have changed the climate of the earth, but can't prove it.
I admit that there will always be some anti-American factions out there and the MSM will dutifully report every protest they put on, but how widespread is this feeling? When they report on these protests take notice of the camera angle. If you are seeing an aerial shot of thousands in the streets then there are thousands in the streets. If the cameras are on the ground and the shots are rather narrow you might be looking at a small number of people filmed to look like a lot of people. This ploy was used at a Cindy Sheehan event a year ago. The picture was cropped to prevent readers from seeing that there were more reporters present than protesters.
Lets look at the way the rest of the world has been voting lately. According to the MSM America is hated because the world absolutely despises George W Bush whom we have had the bad taste to elect, twice. In Germany the candidate who presented herself as an ally of the United States was elected and the anti Bush candidate lost. In Australia, our second best ally in Iraq, Prime Minister Howard was re-elected. If you were asked which European country hates us the most you would probably say France. They just had an election in France. One candidate, an attractive woman was clearly anti-American and decidedly anti-Bush. She called her opponent, Nicolas Sarkozy "the Bush candidate" in hopes of using hatred of Bush to win the election. Sarkozy won with 53 percent of the votes!
Apparently it is the MSM that hated America and president Bush, not a majority of Europeans.
I admit that there will always be some anti-American factions out there and the MSM will dutifully report every protest they put on, but how widespread is this feeling? When they report on these protests take notice of the camera angle. If you are seeing an aerial shot of thousands in the streets then there are thousands in the streets. If the cameras are on the ground and the shots are rather narrow you might be looking at a small number of people filmed to look like a lot of people. This ploy was used at a Cindy Sheehan event a year ago. The picture was cropped to prevent readers from seeing that there were more reporters present than protesters.
Lets look at the way the rest of the world has been voting lately. According to the MSM America is hated because the world absolutely despises George W Bush whom we have had the bad taste to elect, twice. In Germany the candidate who presented herself as an ally of the United States was elected and the anti Bush candidate lost. In Australia, our second best ally in Iraq, Prime Minister Howard was re-elected. If you were asked which European country hates us the most you would probably say France. They just had an election in France. One candidate, an attractive woman was clearly anti-American and decidedly anti-Bush. She called her opponent, Nicolas Sarkozy "the Bush candidate" in hopes of using hatred of Bush to win the election. Sarkozy won with 53 percent of the votes!
Apparently it is the MSM that hated America and president Bush, not a majority of Europeans.
Happy Birthday to Me?
Happy Birthday to me,
I am not yet fifty,
fifty is the new thirty
you can take it from me.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Food To Burn
Which is a more pressing threat, world hunger or global warming? I recently lived in Illinois where the move toward Ethanol was heralded as a wonderful thing. Illinois is a state with lots of agriculture and they would profit from anything that would drive up the price of corn. There was no mention of the downside.
Since then the cost of food has been rising steadily. I heard yesterday that food costs are up 17%. Since the fanfare about the wonder of Ethanol I have learned that burning it causes more pollution than burning gasoline. We have been trying to drill for oil in Anwar for 20 years and haven't allowed another oil refinery to be built in this country in 30 years. Perhaps we should do something about those two causes for high oil prices before we take a chance of starving a small percentage of the world population to make ourselves feel good because we are using less oil.
Since then the cost of food has been rising steadily. I heard yesterday that food costs are up 17%. Since the fanfare about the wonder of Ethanol I have learned that burning it causes more pollution than burning gasoline. We have been trying to drill for oil in Anwar for 20 years and haven't allowed another oil refinery to be built in this country in 30 years. Perhaps we should do something about those two causes for high oil prices before we take a chance of starving a small percentage of the world population to make ourselves feel good because we are using less oil.
Jimmy Who?
Jimmy Carter might be the most dangerous man in the world. In his life time he has given birth to radical Islam, helped the Marxist, Robert Mugabe, oust Abel Muzorewa, the elected leader of Zimbabwe, embraced Fidel Castro and made it possible for North Korea to have nuclear weapons. That is quite a list of accomplishments for one man. Recently Carter, who has run his mouth more freely than any former President in history called the Bush foreign policy the history of America but history will eventually lay that honor at his feet, one of which will undoubtedly be in his mouth.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Bush Haters, What's Your Beef?
Recently a very nice man I know mentioned with venom in his voice that there is no way this country would elect another Republican President after George Bush. I didn't ask him what President Bush has done that makes this so clear to him but I do wonder. There seems to be a lot of people who truly hate President Bush but I doubt even they know why. As a Bush defender I am simply exhausted and a little sad and resentful. I don't agree with everything President Bush has done but I know he has done nothing to merit the treatment he has received from the media, the Democrats and a portion of the American people.
The left in this country is nonsensical. They hated, absolutely hated Richard Nixon. What for, no one knows. They will say "Watergate" but they were after him long before that whole mess materialized. Richard Nixon tried to placate the left. Nixon created the EPA and OSHA, shouldn't the left appreciate that? Richard Nixon ended the Vietnam War, a war the left railed against for it's entirety. A war, by the way that was started by a Democrat, Kennedy, escalated by a Democrat, Johnson and ended by a Republican. The media was out to get Richard Nixon and Watergate gave them the opportunity to do so. Nixon was not involved in the break-in and had no knowledge of it at the time it occurred. He did come to know about it and was involved in the cover-up. When the time came he did the honorable thing, he resigned. At the time lying to the American People was a big deal, during the Clinton administration it was suddenly insignificant for the President to lie, even under oath which is an actual crime.
The most unfortunate product of the Nixon Administration is this, the leftists in the media learned that they could take down a President. Journalism schools thrived as young lefties lined up to learn how to be the next Woodward or Bernstein. Conservative voices were silenced as liberals took over the management of every news room in America. The New York Times depreciated under the management of a lesser Sulzberger. Arthur senior was nicknamed "Punch" Junior is called (behind his back I'm sure) "Pinch" and he took over in 1997. Since then the motto of the New York Times should have been changed from "All the news that's fit to print" to "All the news that fits our Agenda".
No matter how hard people like Pinch Sulzberger and Dan Rather were pulling for the leftist Democrats to win they continued to pretend they were "objective journalists". Dan Rather is a good example because his bias was so poorly hidden. Recall the vicious interview he did with the First President Bush when he was still the Vice President, in which the usually genteel Bush turned the tables on him with the way his eyes welled up when then President Clinton called him on the phone during a broadcast with co-anchor Connie Chung. The "hardened news man" gushed "If we can just be one one-hundredth as great as you and Mrs Clinton have been...blah, blah, blah".
Once the 2000 election came around even the pretense of objectivity was dropped. Thank heavens by then Rush Limbaugh had been on the air for two decades and we had the Fox News Channel growing by leaps and bounds. The gloves were off on the left but normal Americans had alternatives. If we didn't want to see Chris Matthews tear up as he reported that Gore had finally given up his quest to overturn the election results in Florida we could tune to Fox News Channel. If we were horrified to learn that Dan Rather used forged documents to discredit President Bush and his service in the Texas Air National Guard we could read a book written by John Kerry's "band of brothers". Not the few he carried with him, but the over 200 who said he was unfit to be president.
You see, something else had happened in the recent decade. Books with conservative points of view which were once refused by publishers had been found to be huge sellers. Now those books were published and read by millions. If CBS refused to tell you about the many inconsistencies in Kerry's rendition of his military service (which they did) you could buy the book. Now the big network news folks wouldn't investigate the questions raised, they would only investigate those raising them, but word got out. Think about it, three purple hearts and he never spent the night in a hospital?
Anyway, I digress. The truth of the matter is Bush, however imperfect has never knowingly lied to the American people. Bush has consistently done what he thought was best for this country. Not was was most popular, not what was the most expedient but what he actually felt was in the best interests of the United States of America. So Bush Haters take heed. Your hatred of President Bush has nothing to do with him. it is a choice you have made and one day in the not to distant future Bush will no longer be the president but you will still be filled with hatred and rage. Which is what you deserve and compassionate conservatism aside, I hope you choke on it!
The left in this country is nonsensical. They hated, absolutely hated Richard Nixon. What for, no one knows. They will say "Watergate" but they were after him long before that whole mess materialized. Richard Nixon tried to placate the left. Nixon created the EPA and OSHA, shouldn't the left appreciate that? Richard Nixon ended the Vietnam War, a war the left railed against for it's entirety. A war, by the way that was started by a Democrat, Kennedy, escalated by a Democrat, Johnson and ended by a Republican. The media was out to get Richard Nixon and Watergate gave them the opportunity to do so. Nixon was not involved in the break-in and had no knowledge of it at the time it occurred. He did come to know about it and was involved in the cover-up. When the time came he did the honorable thing, he resigned. At the time lying to the American People was a big deal, during the Clinton administration it was suddenly insignificant for the President to lie, even under oath which is an actual crime.
The most unfortunate product of the Nixon Administration is this, the leftists in the media learned that they could take down a President. Journalism schools thrived as young lefties lined up to learn how to be the next Woodward or Bernstein. Conservative voices were silenced as liberals took over the management of every news room in America. The New York Times depreciated under the management of a lesser Sulzberger. Arthur senior was nicknamed "Punch" Junior is called (behind his back I'm sure) "Pinch" and he took over in 1997. Since then the motto of the New York Times should have been changed from "All the news that's fit to print" to "All the news that fits our Agenda".
No matter how hard people like Pinch Sulzberger and Dan Rather were pulling for the leftist Democrats to win they continued to pretend they were "objective journalists". Dan Rather is a good example because his bias was so poorly hidden. Recall the vicious interview he did with the First President Bush when he was still the Vice President, in which the usually genteel Bush turned the tables on him with the way his eyes welled up when then President Clinton called him on the phone during a broadcast with co-anchor Connie Chung. The "hardened news man" gushed "If we can just be one one-hundredth as great as you and Mrs Clinton have been...blah, blah, blah".
Once the 2000 election came around even the pretense of objectivity was dropped. Thank heavens by then Rush Limbaugh had been on the air for two decades and we had the Fox News Channel growing by leaps and bounds. The gloves were off on the left but normal Americans had alternatives. If we didn't want to see Chris Matthews tear up as he reported that Gore had finally given up his quest to overturn the election results in Florida we could tune to Fox News Channel. If we were horrified to learn that Dan Rather used forged documents to discredit President Bush and his service in the Texas Air National Guard we could read a book written by John Kerry's "band of brothers". Not the few he carried with him, but the over 200 who said he was unfit to be president.
You see, something else had happened in the recent decade. Books with conservative points of view which were once refused by publishers had been found to be huge sellers. Now those books were published and read by millions. If CBS refused to tell you about the many inconsistencies in Kerry's rendition of his military service (which they did) you could buy the book. Now the big network news folks wouldn't investigate the questions raised, they would only investigate those raising them, but word got out. Think about it, three purple hearts and he never spent the night in a hospital?
Anyway, I digress. The truth of the matter is Bush, however imperfect has never knowingly lied to the American people. Bush has consistently done what he thought was best for this country. Not was was most popular, not what was the most expedient but what he actually felt was in the best interests of the United States of America. So Bush Haters take heed. Your hatred of President Bush has nothing to do with him. it is a choice you have made and one day in the not to distant future Bush will no longer be the president but you will still be filled with hatred and rage. Which is what you deserve and compassionate conservatism aside, I hope you choke on it!
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Feel Safe or Be Safe
Feel Safe or Be Safe, the Choice is Yours.
One small madman with two handguns was able to kill 32 innocent people. Some of the students who fled were licensed gun owners, some with concealed-carry permits. None had their guns with them because Virginia Tech is a “Gun-Free School Zone” except of course for the two handguns in the hands of the murderer.
A student had been disciplined the year before for bringing his gun onto school property. If only that student had been armed and present in Norris Hall Monday morning this terrible attack could have been cut short. Since the second amendment gives American citizens the “right to bear arms” gun free school zones have been challenged as unconstitutional.
Last January a bill that would have disallowed schools like Virginia Tech from disarming law abiding citizens was up for a vote. The Virginia General Assembly chose not to pass that bill. Larry Hincker is a spokesman for Virginia Tech and he made the following statement regarding that choice. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly’s actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus." How safe do you think the parents, students and visitors feel now.
Gun control laws give us the illusion of safety and embolden criminals and mass murderers. This is most clearly displayed by the sharp increases in gun crime in England as private gun ownership was outlawed. Washington D.C. is another good example of how criminals react when they are confident their victims are unarmed and unable to properly defend themselves.
As Economics Professors John Lott and William Landes explained in their book, “The Bias Against Guns”, there is just one policy proven to reduce mass murders like this one. That policy is to enact concealed-carry laws. In their study of all public, multiple-victim shootings in this country from 1977 through 1999 states that allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns reduced these attacks by 60% and the death and injury from the attacks by almost 80%.
It is time to stop disarming law abiding citizens and to actually encourage Americans to take responsibility for their own safety. Look how terrible the Katrina crisis turned out because the people of New Orleans waited on government rather than taking action and evacuating as they knew they should.
We are about to have another gun debate in this country and the media is tuning up to sway the public toward more gun control. Stand up and demand your right to protect yourself, your home and your family. As the one person who cares most about your family and home you are the person best qualified to make decisions about protecting them.
One small madman with two handguns was able to kill 32 innocent people. Some of the students who fled were licensed gun owners, some with concealed-carry permits. None had their guns with them because Virginia Tech is a “Gun-Free School Zone” except of course for the two handguns in the hands of the murderer.
A student had been disciplined the year before for bringing his gun onto school property. If only that student had been armed and present in Norris Hall Monday morning this terrible attack could have been cut short. Since the second amendment gives American citizens the “right to bear arms” gun free school zones have been challenged as unconstitutional.
Last January a bill that would have disallowed schools like Virginia Tech from disarming law abiding citizens was up for a vote. The Virginia General Assembly chose not to pass that bill. Larry Hincker is a spokesman for Virginia Tech and he made the following statement regarding that choice. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly’s actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus." How safe do you think the parents, students and visitors feel now.
Gun control laws give us the illusion of safety and embolden criminals and mass murderers. This is most clearly displayed by the sharp increases in gun crime in England as private gun ownership was outlawed. Washington D.C. is another good example of how criminals react when they are confident their victims are unarmed and unable to properly defend themselves.
As Economics Professors John Lott and William Landes explained in their book, “The Bias Against Guns”, there is just one policy proven to reduce mass murders like this one. That policy is to enact concealed-carry laws. In their study of all public, multiple-victim shootings in this country from 1977 through 1999 states that allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns reduced these attacks by 60% and the death and injury from the attacks by almost 80%.
It is time to stop disarming law abiding citizens and to actually encourage Americans to take responsibility for their own safety. Look how terrible the Katrina crisis turned out because the people of New Orleans waited on government rather than taking action and evacuating as they knew they should.
We are about to have another gun debate in this country and the media is tuning up to sway the public toward more gun control. Stand up and demand your right to protect yourself, your home and your family. As the one person who cares most about your family and home you are the person best qualified to make decisions about protecting them.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
It's Time to Improve the View!
The View has gotten quite unsightly in recent months. Rosie O'Donnell seems to be, well, deranged. Like many liberals in America today, Rosie hates the President so violently she cannot think straight. In the past few weeks she has accused the Bush administration of bombing the World Trade Center on September 11th.
Rosie asserts that buildings can't collapse the way they did on September 11th. This is a statement that has been made by several people with no idea what they are talking about, like Charlie Sheen. Shortly after that terrible day a magazine, I think it was Popular Mechanics published a very complete explanation of how the WTC buildings "pancaked" when the floors hit by the airplanes gave way, dropping all the floors above on the floors below. There was some speculation that the structure might have held if the girders were coated with the fire retardant substance that was developed to replaced asbestos. The lower levels were coated but above a certain floor they were not. Although the new product is supposed to be enviormentally safe after all the asbestos lawsuits the builders didn't want to take any chances.
Rosie has attacked Donald Trunp, Miss USA, she has insulted Christians and the intelligence of everyone who has ever watched that show. Some examples of her comments include.......
In America we are fed propaganda
Do you want to know why we would go into Iran, for the money!
Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam.
This is a very angry and poorly informed woman and no one should be subjected to her rantings. Lets improve The View by removing this eyesore. Get Rosie off the air!
Rosie asserts that buildings can't collapse the way they did on September 11th. This is a statement that has been made by several people with no idea what they are talking about, like Charlie Sheen. Shortly after that terrible day a magazine, I think it was Popular Mechanics published a very complete explanation of how the WTC buildings "pancaked" when the floors hit by the airplanes gave way, dropping all the floors above on the floors below. There was some speculation that the structure might have held if the girders were coated with the fire retardant substance that was developed to replaced asbestos. The lower levels were coated but above a certain floor they were not. Although the new product is supposed to be enviormentally safe after all the asbestos lawsuits the builders didn't want to take any chances.
Rosie has attacked Donald Trunp, Miss USA, she has insulted Christians and the intelligence of everyone who has ever watched that show. Some examples of her comments include.......
In America we are fed propaganda
Do you want to know why we would go into Iran, for the money!
Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam.
This is a very angry and poorly informed woman and no one should be subjected to her rantings. Lets improve The View by removing this eyesore. Get Rosie off the air!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
