Lubbock Marine Parents: 10 Things to never say to someone with a deployed soldier
Friday, June 29, 2007
Lubbock Marine Parents: 10 Things to never say to someone with a deployed soldier
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Throughout the past month of debate, we have heard many “intellectual” Senators in favor of this reform deal deride talk radio; claiming that the talking heads like Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, and Ingraham were leading the public astray with their lies and distortions. These claims are not new, in fact we have heard these same claims from many of the same people that are crying foul now. The difference this time is that Republican Senators are joining the chorus.
Senator Trent Lott claimed that talk radio was running the country, and that something needed to be done about it. Senator Lindsey Graham said that the “loud people” were the ones opposing the bill. I find it amusing that these same Senators have no problem appearing on talk radio shows when the commentators are agreeing with their point of view, but as soon as there is disagreement, then talk radio needs to be silenced.
Senators Diane Feinstein and Dick Durbin have openly called for the discussion to start on the return of the “Fairness Doctrine” to rein in talk radio. Senator Jim Inhofe claims to have overheard fellow Senators Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer discussing the need to find a “legislative fix” for talk radio. Why do politicians, of both parties apparently, automatically resort to finding a “legislative fix” for silencing their opposition? After all, wasn’t that what the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act was all about?
Before my left leaning friends start the cacophony of agreement with these misguided Senators, let’s take a closer look at the possibilities of such an action. First of all, it is disheartening to see Senators looking into silencing opposition. Their claim is to want balance in the media, but who decides what is balanced? If it is left up to the Senators, then we would be reading about how this immigration bill flew through Congress with bipartisan support.
Secondly, would the policy change every 2 to 4 years depending on who was in control of Congress or the White House? Obviously not everyone believes that the 3 major news networks are unbiased, so how would we get everyone to agree on a set of standards of “fairness”? What I believe is fair is not necessarily what you believe. If the Democrats are in control then we have Al Franken on the all talk radio, but if the Republicans win then we have wall to wall Rush?
No one is stopping Air America from becoming a success. The only thing standing in their way is their management, and maybe their talent. Rush Limbaugh is a success because he is a very talented talk radio host. Does he espouse conservative principles? Yes he does, but he is also very entertaining at the same time. Air America had the idea of just hiring liberal hosts and expecting it to work because they were the alternative to Limbaugh. Like it or not, talk radio is a business. Without listeners, who drive the ratings, no advertisers are going to buy air time on your shows. To keep the listeners, you need to provide some value to them. If the “Fairness Doctrine” is implemented, then stations will be required to offer a balanced format from both sides. Limbaugh would not go away, he is the most listened to radio program in the country, he would just be followed by someone like Al Franken. Based on Franken’s ratings while on the air, the radio station would start to lose money on advertising. The station management would be left with 2 choices, stay with the current format and lose money, or change formats.
Where would the “Fairness Doctrine” stop? Would it be limited to just political commentary? Or would religious programming be affected as well? Would the local Christian music station be required to play secular music just to be “fair”. Would a station that airs “Focus on the Family” be required to air a secular equivalent to James Dobson? What about the internet? Would we still be able to post on blogs without providing a “balanced” approach? I realize that the internet does not fall under the same rules as radio, but once you start playing the “fairness” game, it is awfully hard to stop, especially for politicians.
Congressman Mike Pence introduced legislation in the House to prevent the “Fairness Doctrine” from ever become law again. In Pence’s words he says, "The Broadcaster Freedom Act will prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from prescribing rules, regulations, or policies that will reinstate the requirement that broadcasters present opposing viewpoints in controversial issues of public importance. The Broadcaster Freedom Act will prevent the FCC or any future President from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. This legislation ensures true freedom and fairness will remain on our radio airwaves, and I would encourage my colleagues to cosponsor and support this bill.”
Will this legislation ever see the light of day? Only time will tell, but I believe that any attempt to reinstate the “Fairness Doctrine” is the wrong action to take. We should question any politician that wants to stifle the opposition legislatively. Remember that even though you may not like Rush and what he stands for, the limits placed on him could eventually be placed on your interests in the future.
Why would a prosecutor indict someone for something that isn't illegal? Why would he then appeal a judge's decision to toss out the charge? Why is there no public outcry at this obvious breach of civil rights? Oh, it is happening to a Republican. Never mind then
For those who have forgotten the name of Ronnie Earle, he is the prosecutor who took cash from the Democratic Party to drum up false charges against Tom DeLay. You probably forgot all about this since there hasn't been any news about it since the Democrats took his seat from him. Since taking his seat was the only reason for these false charges, there has been no coverage in a while.
Well, long ago, a state district judge threw out one of the charges against DeLay for a really crazy reason. It turns out that this particular 'crime' was not on the law books at the time it may or may not have occurred. Let me make sure that I am clear. DeLay was indicted for a committing an act that was not against the law at the time the act occurred. He committed an act, a year later a law was created against that act. Get it?
Ronnie Earle, Democratic patsy and white collar criminal, managed to talk a Grand Jury into indicting DeLay for something that in fact was not against the law. The judge in the case tossed the charge. So what does Earle do? He appeals the tossing of a non-crime to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
I know exactly what you are thinking. Has Ronnie Earle ever studied law? And that is a good question. It turns out this guy is a prosecutor, so to be honest, I'm guessing he hasn't actually studied law at all. He starts by indicting someone for an act that is not illegal, and then he appeals when a judge realizes that the act isn't illegal and tosses out the charges. Incredible.
Hopefully Tom DeLay's attorneys, who apparently have actually been to law school somewhere in the United States, will take advantage of this. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, please remember when you make your decision one very important fact. Ronnie Earle is completely retarded. He proved this once by indicting my client for something that was made illegal after the fact. He proved it a second time when he wasted the time of the appellate court system by trying to have the tossed charges reinstated. The defense rests."
Ronnie Earle and the Democratic controlled Senate have something in common. They both like to pretend that things are illegal.
"We couldn't put our finger on one thing -- whether it was mostly online sites or video," Chris Heffelfinger, an analyst for the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, told Cybercast News Service. "The threat is that the idea is so popular. Their goal is nationalism, but it's a virtual nation, and 80 to 90 percent of their propaganda is all virtual. Much of it didn't exist before the late 1990s, when they came online."
Someone must be reading the Huffington Post.
CNSnews: Internet a Front Line in Terror War
It is not for individual soldiers to refuse such orders. A soldier has a duty to refuse unlawful orders, but individual soldiers simply cannot reasonably argue that a war itself is unlawful; that is a question that must be decided at the highest levels. If individual soldiers may decline to participate in a war, that is an invitation for mob rule: we agree to serve our country, not to serve when we agree with the decisions our leaders make. The system would not work otherwise.Army Major Andrew Olmsted explains why he is going to Iraq.
When proponents of comprehensive immigration reform decided they needed to sweeten the pot to get their bill passed, they added $4.4 billion that was supposedly to be spent up-front on border security. This was intended to partially satisfy the desire of millions of Americans that border security and employer enforcement be addressed first, and other measures considered only after we are satisfied that we have control over our borders.
Senator Jim DeMint was suspicious, however, and went to the Congressional Research Service for an opinion on how the $4.4 billion could be spent. The result was as you might suspect; what follows is DeMint's press release:
Counterterroism Blog: Middle East Quarterly: Jihad's New Leaders
I would chalk this up to bi-partisan anger.
Kill the Bill. Then secure the border.
PS, Harry Reid is a jackass.
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate subpoenaed the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney's office Wednesday, demanding documents and elevating the confrontation with President Bush over the administration's warrant-free eavesdropping on Americans.
If one were reasonable, one would assume that a group of lawyers would be aware that the interception of communications from foreign locations for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence is perfectly constitutional. One would assume that these lawyers were aware that these matters have been brought to Federal Courts and the Supreme Court and have been ruled upon.
One would then assume that since these lawyers were aware of this fact that they would stop trying to fight this program, knowing that it is perfectly constitutional and that it is necessary in the War on Terror.
Given that these lawyers are aware that it is Constitutional and that it is necessary to save lives, yet these lawyers continue to fight the program and question it in this fashion, one would have no other choice but to assume that these lawyers are trying to do everything possible to help terrorists succeed in another attack on America.
The Senate subpoenaed the White House because the Senate is full of people who support terrorism. The Senate will not rest until Al-Qaeda has succeeded in another attack upon America.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
The Flying Imams: MUST READ...
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Monday, June 25, 2007
Gateway Pundit: Al Qaeda #2 Al-Zawahri Joins With Jimmy Carter on Hamas
John lists a group of polls on his site this morning once again demonstrating a vile hatred of the Senate's Immigration Bill. But it is not only by Hawkins, nor just by conservatives, but also by liberals.
A Democracy Corps poll shows that democrats are evenly split over the issue. Voters said that they were more likely to support the bill if it tightened border security and stopped illegal aliens from getting government benefits. SFGate.com has info on that poll. Rasmussen polls show that only 20% of American voters support the bill, while almost 70% want an approach that focuses "exclusively on securing the border and reducing illegal immigration."
This has got to be the strangest paradox in political history. If you look at most polls, you will find that the splits are partisan. Example, look at a poll regarding George Bush and the economy. About 40% of voters give him high marks on the economy. If you break in down by party, 77% of Republicans give him high marks while only 10% of Democrats agree. On this issue those who would normally support a Republican president praise him, while those who would not support a Republican president do not.
Immigration is a different animal. This bill, and the president who is pushing it, is opposed by the left and the right. On this issue, the President gets high marks from 24% of Republicans and 10% of Democrats.
But despite this uniform opposition from the left and the right, the Senate and the President are on television daily explaining to us that they are pushing this reform because that's what American voters want them to do. And there was much confusion in the land.
Look, I'm not one to trust polls because I know that they can be skewed by biased pollsters. I also know that 90% of the people responding to these polls have done not one bit of research into the subject matter. But this is more overwhelming than most. There is no support for Immigration Reform, but we have morons in DC who swear to us that it has vast support and that it is absolutely necessary. How is this even possible? Have Bush and Cheney stopped watching Fox News?
Completely left out of the debate in DC is the fact that there is no support for this bill. Completely left out of why there is no support for this bill is the fact that Congress was not given permission to create new laws in an effort to cover up the fact that it refused to enforce laws that have been on the books for decades.
Take a look at what Hawkins has to say. If I keep typing, I'm going to get angry and punch my monitor.
"All in the name of Allah, The merciful"
The American Israeli Patriot: The Taliban's 6 Year Old Suicide Bomber
Gateway Pundit: Iranian Regime Forces Young Men To Suck on A$$ Washers
"You could argue that even the world's worst fascist dictators at least meant well. They honestly thought were doing good things for their countries by suppressing blacks/eliminating Jews/eradicating free enterprise/repressing individual thought/killing off rivals/invading neighbors, etc." (From Peter Mehlman's Nazi propaganda piece.)
That is a quote from his recent article in which he pulls a Kanye West and tells us that George Bush has not done one thing in 6 years to help the country. "What no one is saying is the one overarching reason he's the worst: the Bush administration is the first that doesn't even mean well," proclaims the Nazi.
According to this Nazi, George Bush did not mean well when he pushed for changes to the tax code which prevent millions of the nation’s poorest families from paying federal taxes. He did not mean well when he asked for standards that held schools accountable for teaching children. He did not mean well when he pushed for changes that helped millions of small business owners find new tax exemptions so that they could hire more employees. He did not mean well when he removed two terrorist regimes from power.
No, he did not mean well, not according to Peter Mehlman. But Mehlman believes thatHitler meant well when he shoved 6 million Jews into gas chambers. Saddam Hussein meant well when he stuffed fathers, mothers and children into meat grinders. Uday Hussein meant well when he would rape young girls and then have his body guards kill them. This is what Peter Mehlman believes
Peter Mehlman is aNazi.
This article is set up for "google bombs" which basically means that keywords are hyperlinked to specific web pages. In this case, the word Nazi is linked to Peter's bio at the Huffington Post. If this were repeated at enough sites and blogs, then a google search for the wordNazi could lead to his bio.
HuffPo Writer: At Least Hitler Meant Well
The New Left: "Bring Back Hitler"
Huffington Post Continues its Support for Terrorists
More on the Stupidity of the Left on the JFK Airport Plot
They Never Rest; More Crazy Propaganda from the Huffington Post
More on the Huffington Post's Al-Qaeda Connection
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Welcome to the June 24, 2007 edition of carnival of political punditry.
Tracee Sioux presents Shut Up John Mayer, Stop Waiting On the World to Change posted at So Sioux Me, saying, "Voting for Hillary because she is a woman is a valid and legitimate reason. An argument advocating voting down the genderlines in 2008 to open the potential for all girls in America."
Avant News presents Sam Brownback Pregnancy May Put Squeeze On Presidential Bid posted at Avant News.
Lucynda Riley presents And our governemnt wonders why we don't trust them posted at Quietly Into the Night.
Jon Swift presents Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Ann Althouse* posted at Jon Swift, saying, "Let's subject Ann Althouse's blog to Freudian analysis, since it seems only fair after she put Hillary's new campaign video on the couch."
vjack presents Ideology Over Competence Revisited: Bush's Nominee for Surgeon General posted at Atheist Revolution.
nishant presents North Korea gets 25 million bucks, and a meeting with US envoy posted at OMG Teh World!, saying, "A post with speculation on the whole North Korea dispute."
That concludes this edition. Submit your blog article to the next edition of
carnival of political punditry
carnival submission form.
Past posts and future hosts can be found on our
blog carnival index page.
Friday, June 22, 2007
The Gathering Storm: Storm Track Disinformation: How the UN Will Fight Terrorism
Gateway Pundit: Here's What You Miss From the MSM- Real Progress In Iraq
Thursday, June 21, 2007
The latest poll done by Zogby International has shown that virtually no one in the country believes that Congress or the administration is properly handling the illegal immigration issue. A paltry 9% of respondents support the President’s efforts on this topic. As bad as Bush’s numbers are, Congress rates even lower at a shocking 3%. These numbers are even more surprising when it is revealed that the illegal immigration issue is the second most important issue facing our country today. How can a President and a majority of Congress ignore over 90% of the American public?
Over the past several weeks we have witnessed many of the advocates of this bill go on a media blitz to try to win support. All of them use the same lines about how we are all just wrong about the bill and how now is the only time we can accomplish this reform. There are several questions that have risen up in my feeble little mind while listening to the rants.
First of all, we are told that this bill does not provide amnesty because those that are here illegally must pay a fine and wait about 8 years before they can become citizens. In the meantime they can apply for Z visas and live and work as normal U.S. citizens. This aspect of Z visas is a slap in the face of all of the legal immigrants that are currently here working on H1B visas. These legal immigrants cannot change jobs or get a promotion without losing their place in line for a green card. Z visa recipients are not held to these same standards.
Secondly, we are told that the act of crossing the border illegally is nothing more than a misdemeanor and the punishment, a $5000 fine, fits the crime. That logic assumes that once here the illegal immigrant breaks no other laws. The proponents have told us that they are here to do work that Americans won’t do. Let’s look at that statement. In order to do work “legally” they must have a valid social security number, which because they broke the law to get here, do not. In this case they either buy a valid SSN, which has been stolen from someone else, or they simply make one up. Both situations are crimes. If they decide to work “under the table” without reporting any income to the IRS, then we are looking at tax fraud. Add these to the already acknowledged misdemeanor of being here illegally and the punishment certainly does not fit the crime.
Following the logic that they are here to do work that Americans won’t do, if the jobs paid more than Americans would line up to work in the fields. The illegal immigrants accept less money than American citizens do to do the same work. They accept less because of their illegal status. Does anyone believe that they will continue to work for less money than the employee next to them once they attain legal status? There are also many cases where INS has gone in and conducted raids at manufacturing facilities and rounded up hundreds of illegal immigrants. The factory then has to fill those positions with legal workers. In every case those jobs, that Americans just won’t do, were filled immediately.
The proponents of this reform legislation have said that the current laws don’t provide stiff enough penalties to employers or illegal immigrants to deter anyone from breaking the law. That is why we need to act now to beef up the law. That is a frightening statement. So if a punishment is not harsh enough, we just don’t enforce the law? That does not make any sense, but yet that is essentially what we are being told. Here is a novel idea. Why don’t we try enforcing the current laws as written and see how effective they are?
This is precisely why the American public does not have any faith in the government, be it the President or Congress, to make this reform package work. The bureaucrats in Washington tried this same approach in the 60’s and the 80’s to combat illegal immigration. Even the feeble minded, like myself, can see that their reforms didn’t work in either case previously, but yet we should trust them to get it right this time? The country is at a unique point in our history, the voters of both parties are very unhappy with their elected representatives. The elections of next year could very well determine what path our country goes down. Will we continue with the status quo approach of sending the same tired candidates back to Washington? Or will there be a political uprising, where the voters of this great country send men and women to Washington who are more interested in doing what is best for our country than furthering their political careers?
George W. -- the definition of warmonger -- is solely responsible for Global Warming. To prove this, all you must do is look at the Delaware River.
And when I say George W., I of course mean George Washington.
I am sure that everyone will recognize the very famous picture of Washington crossing the Delaware River on Christmas day in 1776. Then again, with today's public education and the lack of focus on things that are actually important, maybe a lot of people reading this have no idea what I am referring to. History doesn't help kids' self-esteem much, so I am guessing that it is no longer in today's curriculum.
To refresh your memory, then General Washington took 2,400 men across the near frozen Delaware River to attack a garrison of British soldiers in New Jersey. This was a turning point in the war because the American troops had just lost New York City and their morale was extremely low. Had Washington not crossed the Delaware to attack the British in the Battle of Trenton, we may all be speaking British right now. Again, with today's education system, most people won't even understand that last joke.
What isn't discussed very often is that the Delaware River doesn't actually freeze to the point that we see in the now famous picture. Did the artist exaggerate to make Washington and the troops look more courageous? Let us examine this little thing that I like to call "history."
While watching the History Channel this past weekend, I caught a great piece about what is commonly called the "mini ice age" or "little ice age." This was a time from about the 16th to 19th century in which the earth suffered through 3 little periods of extreme cooling with each little period separated by slight warming. The exact time period is a matter of debate of course, but this is why the picture of the Delaware crossing looks exaggerated. The river was almost frozen over, which doesn't happen today because the earth has been warming. Again, the time period is a matter of debate. In fact, the Atlantic ice pack began to expand in the 13th century while the global glacial expansion did not begin until the 16th century.
There isn't as much debate about when the mini ice age ended. Most believe it was in the 19th century, around 1850. This would be less than a century after the Delaware crossing. The earth started warming, and somehow did so without the help of SUVs and coal burning power plants.
So, what caused the sudden warming at the end of the mini ice age? To try and answer that, we must first find out what caused the cooling that started the mini ice age. Common theories claim that the heightened volcanic activity combined with lower sunspot activity caused the ice age. The volcanic activity caused solar radiation to be reflected back into space. The low sunspot activity may have meant lower solar radiation also. When both of these reversed (lessened volcanic activity, increased sunspots) in the 19th century, the temperature began to increase.
I said all of that to say this. Much of the debate over Global Warming is being controlled by absolute morons. Anyone who claims that there is a scientific consensus and that the debate is over and the science is settled needs to be examined by a doctor and possibly locked up for the good of everyone else. And why not lock them up? Why can’t I say that they should be put away? They like to have anyone who disagrees with them ridiculed and fired. So, claiming that they should be examined is really just reflecting their arguments back at them. I know it seems childish, and that is exactly the point. They are being childish.
R. Timothy Patterson is professor and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University. He published an interesting piece just yesterday. Here are some highlights.
We are assured by everyone from David Suzuki to Al Gore to Prime Minister Stephen Harper that "the science is settled."
The fact that science is many years away from properly understanding global climate doesn't seem to bother our leaders at all. Inviting testimony only from those who don't question political orthodoxy on the issue, parliamentarians are charging ahead with the impossible and expensive goal of "stopping global climate change."
Climate stability has never been a feature of planet Earth. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly. Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was about 3C warmer than now. Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thousand-year-long "Younger Dryas" cold episode, temperatures rose as much as 6C in a decade -- 100 times faster than the past century's 0.6C warming that has so upset environmentalists. From Read the sunspots, Financial Post, published June 20, 2007.
Professor Patterson then goes on to explain his theory regarding the effects of solar activity on the temperature of the earth. Of course, this scientist and professor will soon be ridiculed for his efforts. So I'm going to go ahead and get it all out of the way now. Let me clear my throat.
"R. Timothy Patterson is not a real scientist. Just because he is the director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University does not mean he knows anything about earth science. Patterson is on the payroll of George W. Bush and Exxon. One lone nutcase like Patterson is trying to argue with millions and billions of real scientists who actually care about the earth. Patterson is a holocaust denier."
I'm certain that Al Gore and people from The Huffington Post have many more childish insults that they can toss at Professor Patterson. And yes, someone in the media has actually said that Global Warming skeptics are like holocaust deniers. If you like, please feel free to leave anything I missed in the comments. Thank you.
The UN and various Global Warming advocates are pushing a recent study and claiming that it settles the argument once and for all. This study claims that the earth's temperature is rising at an alarming rate and it is all our fault. Please note that in all the history of the earth, science has never been wrong when politicians agree with it and decree it to be the truth. Please also note that the sun revolves around a perfectly flat earth. Science has always known everything that there is to know, which explains why we continue to find new cures for diseases and new plant and animal life.
It also explains more of what Professor Patterson said in his article.
In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that "the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases." About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all.
This shows that only four years ago, climate scientist acknowledged that there is more to be done before any consensus can be claimed. If you believe that in four short years they have suddenly made all the discoveries they need to make and that nothing more needs to be done, you are a dumbass. I hate to be harsh, but this is absolutely the nicest thing I can think to say about anyone who believes the science regarding the effects of greenhouse gases on the earth's temperature is settled. There is no consensus in the scientific community on the causes of historical changes in earth's temperature, but I am supposed to believe that there is a consensus on the future?
I'm going to be blunt here, Al Gore is either pushing an agenda that he does not believe in, or the man is record-setting stupid. Due to the fact that he is a politician, I cannot even begin to speculate on which of the two choices is correct. There are scientists all over the globe who will tell you that his movie is full of holes. Despite this, people will read what I am writing and accuse me of not thinking for myself.
I am going to repeat that last part to make sure it is clear. I will be accused of not thinking for myself by people who have not yet questioned anything that Al Gore says about Global Warming. Did everyone get that? I will be told that the science of Global Warming is settled by people who tell me that I am blindly following Big Oil propaganda. I am certain that some of you are reading this paragraph and laughing a little inside because you realize the truth behind what I am saying. I am also certain that others of you are reading this, and you are lockstep in line and screaming your blind accusations.
CO2 is being blamed by some for the slight increase in temperature that we have seen over the past century. History has shown that the temperature has risen in the past over 100 times faster in a decade than it has in the past century. Despite this, blaming CO2 is supposedly a consensus. The reality is that CO2 is not a common factor in the history of climate changes. The reality is that CO2 is blamed mostly be people who only look at the current warming trend and have decided to rule out other possibilities regardless of the fact that they are more obvious answer. Not only is this not a consensus, it is not good science. To say that the answer is CO2 simply because you do not have any other answer is horrible science.
But let's be honest. Why don't we just apply the same principles to the mini ice age period that we apply today? I blame George Washington. He won the war, and then he became the President of the United States. He was a warmongering U.S. President; therefore the Global Warming that began and continues today is all his fault. Why should we be logical about this?
We need to get to a point where we can have an actual debate on this issue. Not only are the alarmist wrong in their supposed consensus, they are dangerously wrong. I'll quote the professor's article again.
Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada. As a country at the northern limit to agriculture in the world, it would take very little cooling to destroy much of our food crops, while a warming would only require that we adopt farming techniques practiced to the south of us.
Meantime, we need to continue research into this, the most complex field of science ever tackled, and immediately halt wasted expenditures on the King Canute-like task of "stopping climate change."
This is great news.
I know you are confused, so I will explain.
June 13, 2007. Nancy and Harry sent a letter to President Bush explaining to him that the surge in Iraq was a failure.
"As many had forseen, the escalation has failed to produce the intended results," the two leaders wrote.
"The increase in US forces has had little impact in curbing the violence or fostering political reconciliation.
"It has not enhanced Americas national security. The unsettling reality is that instances of violence against Iraqis remain high and attacks on US forces have increased.
"In fact, the last two months of the war were the deadliest to date for US troops."
Somehow, these two great leaders managed to predict the outcome of a surge that HAD NOT EVEN BEGUN.
I know, you are still confused. I will now waste a huge amount of time by directing your attention to some Lt. General Raymond Odierno, Multi-National Forces, Iraq. Again, this is a huge waste because as we all know, the generals in Iraq have no freaking clue about what is going on in that country. Pat Dollard posted a video of an interview Lt. Gen. Odierno gave to CNN. Be warned, this idiot general tries to give the impression that US troops are actually winning in Iraq, so his word doesn't mean much. As we all know, the war is lost. Harry Reid predicted this loss long ago and he knows lots more about the Iraq war than those dumb people who are actually fighting in it.
This idiot tells us in the CNN interview that the surge really began June 15th. This means that Harry and Nancy were able to declare the new strategy to be a complete failure a full two days before it began. This is amazing. It is good to know that we have these two people running our country who can tell us that a strategy that has not yet been used is already failing.
I plan on contacting my own elected officials tomorrow to get some stock market predictions.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Not Much Tonight, Very Busy
Actually, I'm working on a project that may take up a bit of the schedule. My apologies to the 5 regular readers. I'm rounding up to the nearest 5.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Gateway Pundit: Official: Knighting Rushdie Is Root Cause of Terrorism
Baby-killing is a pretty lucrative business, I guess.
Cassy Fiano: Planned Parenthood reports huge profits, zero adoptions
Labels: Planned Parenthood
But I guess that's not acceptable to say to the multi-culti p.c. crowd who demand that this non-Spanish speaking, third generation American woman embrace her Mexican-ness. She notes that no one talks about Cameron Diaz's Latino-ness because she's blond. Alba's right. It's the multi-culturists who divide people by race, color, language, culture and ethnicity.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Jessica Alba: "I'm American"
Labels: Jessica Alba
But remember kids, War on Terror is just a bumper sticker. John Edwards said so.
Here is the reaction to the knighthood of Salman Rushdie.
Pakistan demanded on Monday that Britain withdraw a knighthood awarded to author Salman Rushdie, as a government minister said the honour gave a justification for suicide attacks by Muslims.
Angry protesters in several cities torched British flags and beat them with their shoes in protest at the accolade for the Indian-born writer of "The Satanic Verses" and chanted "Death to Britain, death to Rushdie."
"If somebody has to attack by strapping bombs to his body to protect the honour of the Prophet, then it is justified," Pakistani Religious Affairs Minister Ijaz-ul-Haq told the national assembly.
Here is who he is and what he did.
Rushdie, 59, was forced to go into hiding for a decade after Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1989 issued a death sentence over his book "The Satanic Verses" claiming it insulted Islam.
And here is the response from Iran.
Iran has already accused British leaders of "Islamophobia" after Rushdie -- now Sir Salman -- was awarded the knighthood by Queen Elizabeth II on Saturday to mark her 81st birthday.
Did everyone catch that? They claim justification for suicide attacks, they issue a death sentence over a book, and then they accuse others of "Islamophobia."
Well, shit, I wonder what could possibly have caused all of this "Islamophobia?" Why can't we just brush aside the justifying of a death sentence and suicide bombings over a book and realize that these people are all peaceful, fun-loving sweethearts who are just misunderstood?
"We demand that Britain should refrain from such acts which hurt the sentiments of Muslims and take back the title of Sir given to Rushdie," parliamentary affairs minister Sher Afgan said.
And I demand that you go fuck yourself. Hey tardo boy, has it ever occurred to you that suicide bombings hurt a lot more and that maybe you should spend more time condemning terrorism than books?
Now if everyone will excuse me, I am on my way to the bathroom with a few pictures of the prophet.
This week's report again focuses on the homegrown threat, documenting Derrick Shareef's plans to launch a grenade attack on the CherryVale Shopping Center in Rockford, Illinois.
In preparation for his assault, Shareef carried out surveillance, attempted to procure weapons, and recorded a martyrdom tape, in which he ominously warned: "My name is Talib Abu Salam Ibn Shareef. I am 22 years of age. I am from America, and this tape is to let you guys know, who disbelieve in Allah, to let the enemies of Islam know, and to let the Muslims alike know that the time for jihad is now."
This week (June 12, 2007): The Illinois Shopping Mall Plot
Michael Moore's new documentary SiCKO unfavorably contrasts the U.S. health care system with government-run systems. According to Moore, the U.S. system leaves millions of Americans behind and allows insurance companies to profit by denying care to cancer patients.
Cato scholar Michael D. Tanner counters, "America needs to have a serious debate about how to fix our health-care system. But Moore's demagoguery and refusal to address the numbers will do little to contribute to that debate."
On June 21 — the day after the D.C. premiere of SiCKO – the Cato Institute will help viewers decide when it hosts a screening of clips from SiCKO and short films by independent filmmakers who are more critical of government-run systems.
Health Care on Film: Clips from SiCKO and Its Competitors, June 21, 2007 "Moore's Sick Rx," by Michael D. Tanner, June 3, 2007
Sicko or Wacko?, by Michael D. Tanner
This week, the Senate is considering S. 1041, the Orwellian-named "Employee Free Choice Act." As a point of fact, this bill would strip workers of their right to a federally-supervised, private ballot election when deciding on the question of union representation.
S. 1041 would replace this privacy right with a risky "card check" scheme. Under this method, union thugs could intimidate workers into signing a kind of petition known as a "card check." They could do so by any means necessary. Once 50%-plus-one of the workers at a facility were coerced into signing this "card check," a union would be established right then and there.
Not surprisingly, most Americans think this is a bad idea. In a recent McLaughlin poll, 87 percent of voters agreed that "every worker should continue to have the right to a federally supervised secret ballot election when deciding whether or not to join a union."
Moreover, S.1041 contains a provision that mandates compulsory, binding arbitration on the employer and the employees as part the collective bargaining process if an agreement cannot be reached within the first 120 days of negotiations. This misguided language would have a third party, government official impose the terms of a labor contract that are binding upon both parties, even if one or both parties find those terms unacceptable. In fact, employees would not be provided with the opportunity to vote on whether or not they approve their new contract.
Unions are the biggest single supporters of larger government, and rigging the rules in their favor would be a crushing blow to taxpayers.
ATR URGES A VOTEAGAINST CLOTURE ON S. 1041
Monday, June 18, 2007
Yeah, I filled it out.
You will have to excuse me, Spanish isn't really my thing, but the card went something like this.
"El Presidenta. Gracias for the social security. Signed, Hector from venezuala."
I was really tired and didn't have the brain power to think up a bit more, or to actually check my spelling.
Oh yeah, two different forms that were asking for money. Well, I took some advice from a Michelle Malkin archive.
Yeah, It was a great day today.
Note: The above scan is not mine. I am using it as the example of what I did. The above was sent to Malkin from one of her readers.
Mudville Gazette has the story of Marc Train, who was featured in a December article of "The Nation" in which he claims he knew nothing of politics before joining the Army. He says it was only afterwards that he realized that the war is all about oil and the evil Bush administration. But some investigation by Mudville finds that he did in fact have an anti-war voice before joining the army.
Contact: Leslie K. Paige 202-467-5334
Alexa Moutevelis 202-467-5318
Washington, D.C. - Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today claimed victory in a fight for earmark transparency in the House. After a wave of protest from across the political spectrum, Democrats finally backed down from plans to keep taxpayers in the dark about tens of billions of dollars in congressionally-earmarked spending items until the bills were in the House-Senate conference. Earmarks will now be included in appropriations bills and subject to debate and amendment.
"Democrats promised real earmark reform, but then took the first opportunity they could to find a loophole and get back to pork-barrel business as usual," said CAGW President Tom Schatz. "The American people are sick and tired of the bait and switch from Congress, especially when it comes to their tax dollars."
In May, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wisc.) announced plans to keep earmarks secret until closed-door conference committee meetings between the House and Senate to reconcile spending bills, which typically take place in September. Rep. Obey planned to report the bills out of committee "earmark free," but intended to include funding increases in order to have the extra money to pay for earmarks that would be inserted later. The Chairman announced that he and his staff would vet these earmarks themselves to determine their suitability for funding in the final bill, making them "judge and jury" for billions of dollars in such projects.
While Rep. Obey promised the earmark lists would finally be made available for viewing in August, before the conference committees, the resulting conference reports themselves are not subject to amendment, leaving no opportunity to challenge or strike any individual pork project.
Chairman Obey's scheme flouted the spirit of new House rules, which call for earmarks to be provided in appropriations bills and which would allow them to be challenged on the floor of the House. Republicans, and particularly Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a stalwart opponent of the recent earmark bonanzas, took a stand and protested Obey's plan by bringing House proceedings to a grinding halt. Democrats also felt the heat from the media, their constituents, bloggers, and taxpayer watchdog groups like CAGW. The outrage, which showed no sign of abatement, along with the Republicans' commitment to throwing up endless procedural roadblocks, finally forced the House Democratic leadership to agree to list earmarks with the bills.
"Chairman Obey wanted to stay behind closed doors and play 'God' with earmarks, but the taxpayers won this battle for transparency and accountability," concluded Schatz.
Citizens Against Government Waste is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, mismanagement and abuse in government.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Welcome to the June 17, 2007 edition of carnival of political punditry.
This is an interesting carnival. We begin with some jabs at the President and the GOP in general with few articles about the Iraq war in the mix. We then move on to some opinions about the current economy. Staying on course with current events, we move on to the Immigration debate. One blogger gives his feelings on JFK. In a bit of contrast, one blogger tells us why we need laws, while another tells that laws do nothing but destroy. In a strong finish, we try to figure out how our planet survives with so many physical poisons, and with so many social poisons, then we end up with some Mitt Romney humor.
Only Three Notes presents How to become an American President? posted at Only Three Notes, saying, "This is Arnab, the antichrist again. This would be my second post in this blog. I have found quite a few followers but looking for more. I am specifically looking for an american president to be my follower. This post of mine is going to outline how to become an American president."
Madeleine Begun Kane presents GOP Piety Song Parody (Sing to Billy Joel?s Honesty) posted at Mad Kane's Political Madness.
DWSUWF presents End Game: The face of "Victory in Iraq" posted at Divided We Stand United We Fall, saying, "The good news is that we have entered the "End Game" of our military involvement in Iraq. The bad news is that the man making the smart moves on the chessboard is Moqtada al-Sadr, likely future leader of Iraq, and the face of "Victory in Iraq" as defined by United States policy."
Hell's Handmaiden presents Churchill had "Never Surrender" hell's handmaiden posted at Hell's Handmaiden.
Wenchypoo presents Recession or Depression? Either Way, the Sky is Falling on Someone Unprepared posted at Wisdom From Wenchypoo's Mental Wastebasket.
Tim Abbott presents Don't Fence Me In posted at Walking the Berkshires.
David Mills presents John F. Kennedy speaks posted at Undercover Black Man, saying, "A neat little dose of aural history..."
Mike Netherland presents Rule of Law posted at Mike's Nether Land, saying, "A recent post regarding one aspect of the illegal immigration issue. Thanks for hosting!"
zenofeller presents The Real Deal. posted at zenofeller.com.
Wenchypoo presents If Only There Were Fewer People… posted at Wisdom From Wenchypoo's Mental Wastebasket.
Rick Sincere presents The Outing of Tyler Whitney posted at Rick Sincere News and Thoughts.
E.P. Wintergreen presents Romney Secures Key Endorsement from the Mentally Ill posted at Absolutely Serious, saying, "this is satirical in nature."
That concludes this edition. Submit your blog article to the next edition of
carnival of political punditry
carnival submission form.
Past posts and future hosts can be found on our
blog carnival index page.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo’s (R-CO) amendment to cut funding from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Bill (H.R. 2638) for cities that employ a sanctuary policy passed the House with strong bipartisan support today; 234 to 189.
“The times, they are a changing,” said an exuberant Tancredo, who had introduced the same amendment several times in the past with far less support. “This should also serve as a warning sign to the White House and supporters of re-introducing an amnesty bill from the Senate. If that legislation makes it to the House, it is in serious trouble.”
The Amendment would prevent cities like Denver and San Francisco who employ a sanctuary policy for illegal aliens from receiving first responder funds, including law enforcement and terrorism prevention grants, among other programs.
Tancredo concluded, “The days that local officials could pander to the open borders special interests are over.”Hot Air has additional coverage.
Friday, June 15, 2007
I have a written a couple of pieces about Senator Jim DeMint on my blog recently, I have also posted his latest statement about the shamnesty bill that he is trying to kill. I have made no secret that he has recently gained a great deal of support from myself. I thought about trying to draft him into the presidential race and also suggested that he would make a great running mate for Fred Thompson.
But some additional research makes me wonder if another candidate isn't already considering DeMint for the position of Vice President.
I didn't know this until moments ago, but Jim DeMint has endorsed Mitt Romney and in fact is the senior advisor to the Romney for President Exploratory Committee. I have attached the links for the Press Release and the letter of support from Senator DeMint. If DeMint were more popular back in January when he endorsed Romney, this would have probably been bigger news and I probably wouldn't be sitting here saying, "Wow, look at that." But due to the fact that DeMint has just recently gained any real popularity, I am just now seeing this. I am also wondering if a few people wont read this while they are thinking to themselves that they have known this for a long time and that it isn't new news. Well, it's new to me.
"We must elect a President in 2008 who is up to the task, and I need you to encourage Mitt to run. ... As a leader who has spent most of his life in the private sector, Governor Romney will call on America's strength and character to solve problems and secure our future."
I am not sure what to think of Romney or DeMint to be honest. They are both on the radar just very recently, so their politics is only known by those who have done the research. I have been considering supporting Romney in the primaries, even over the prospect of Fred Thompson. And now that I see support from Senator DeMint, who had done a great job preventing the shamnesty bill from going to a vote, Romney has gained points in my view.
If Romney were to give indication that Senator DeMint was his choice for a running mate, he would shoot up the ladder. I may be wrong, but I think that DeMint was mentioned as a possibility when Romney was name dropping a few weeks back. And if the Senator is able to defeat shamnesty, they would gain favor in the ranks of conservatives who are against this bill. Much of the political landscape is going to be shaped by what happens to this bill and what action is taken for border security. Conservatives are split over this issue by those who want to support the GOP at all costs and those who are more concerned about policy that party. The candidate who can mend this split has the best shot at becoming the next President of the United States.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
June 14th, 2007 - Washington, D.C. - Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) made the following statement:
"I appreciate the effort to fund border security, but there’s simply no reason why we should be forced to tie amnesty to it. If the administration was serious about fulfilling the border security promises, then this funding should have been supported all along, not offered at the last minute to attract votes to a bad bill."
"We have a serious problem with our immigration system, but this mess of a bill is not the solution. It puts amnesty before security, contains loopholes for criminals, and will increase the burden on taxpayers."
"All of the border security triggers in this bill can already be implemented under current law. It is unfortunate that the bill supporters continue to hold border security hostage in return for passage of amnesty. Instead, they need to prove to the American people that they will secure the border first."
On Tuesday, nine U.S. Senators wrote a letter to President Bush urging him to fulfill the border security provisions listed in the Senate immigration bill whether the legislation passes or not. Each border security trigger in the bill can be implemented under current law without any need for new legislation from Congress. For the text of the letter and facts on the border security provisions, click here.