Psychopaths, Sociopaths, or just Hysterical?

It's my belief that GW Bush might count that he has exposed America based secular progressives and eco-extremists as his greatest achievement. That's just ahead of returning the US Supremes from judicial legislative activism to constitutional review. The truth is that all the Halloween masks are off for the people to see the real faces of Sheehan, Dean, Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy, Durban, and others as constitutional-phobes. As value phobes. And as terrorist and tyrant embracers. It's not that Democrats luve tyrants, it's just that they feel that we shouldn't judge.

Another good example of left wing psycho and hysterical behavior is the recent Kerry dust-up. All the media, along with all Democrats know that Kerry is an example of Democrat's elitist anti-military sentiments. So why is there so much hysteria when Kerry stumbles through a military put down? That's because leftists are trying soooo hard to shape their America loving and protecting image. Have you seen Sheehan or Dean or Carter hugging Shavez lately? How about Rep. Dingle or Pelosi telling us that Iran is just misunderstood? Not before the vote on Tuesday.

The New Testament, AWS!

Those were heady times. Christians secretly recounting the works of Christ to teach that a society of values is the future. The New Testament of the Bible recounts those days and years. The Gospels and Acts and Epistles all embraced that values will save our world and each of our souls. So it's little wonder that the atheist secular-progressive-socialist movement seeks to copy the New Testament to create it's big government church.

The New Testament is necessary because the world socialist movement imploded with the end of the Soviets and with the economic globalization of China. Today only Fidel's Cuba stands alone against the advances of a value driven capitalist world. The worship of this last bastion of the Old Testament can't be overstated. On his return from a recent visit to Havana, Steven Spielberg told the LA Times that he spent his life's most important 6 hours meeting with Fidel Castro. Imagine, Spielberg, the director of some of America's most influential films feels that chit-chatting with Fidel is his life's most important moment? Maybe Spielberg's Jewish background weighs his respect for the Old Testament of Jewish power and points to his respect for Fidel, the Old Testament progressive.

The New Testament started circa 1990. The Soviets were in retreat, the Old Europe was imploding, and Asia began to taste Reagan economic and social freedoms. More than 150 years of socialist thinking seemed doomed to the ash-heap of failed ideology. The progressive coalition had several commonalities that seemed easy to exploit. Enviro-extremists joined with union-extremists to craft the New Testament. As with the birth of the "Superbowl" for professional football's annual party, the progressive coalition coined "Global Warming" as it's New Testament. The old coalition re-coalesced itself around it's Old Testament values of hate and envy for others; denying freedoms of choice and speech; driving a car; living in a house; and owning property. And they wholeheartedly embraced abortion; drug use; excused crimes and murder; and reinvigorated the Nazi progressives' human experimentation.

The New Testament, After World Socialism (AWS), was born..

It's Still the Economy, Stupid!

Nineteen days and counting. That's to election day when Democrats and the media tell us they will control the House and the Senate. And the sky is the limit. There will be higher taxes and an increase in minimum wage and socialized health-care and a cut and run retreat from Iraq.

Internationally we hear that China and the Petro-countries need to worry because Democrats will teach them a lesson about trade and energy. So who is celebrating the Democrats' "landslide" invasion? Let's see. North Korea for one will get it's usual $5 billion or so a year it got from Clinton/Carter. And Iran and Venezuela are rubbing their hands because Chavez and the Mullahs will get the respect and financial support they got from Clinton but missed desperately from Bush. Better yet is the Chinese Army will again be a major contributor to Democrats. And even Fidel Castro will be honored by several Democrat and Black-Caucus/Democrat delegations when he dies. After all he only killed those that "had it cummin."

Economic impression is that a Washington Post opinion by David S Broder tells us that the National Journal recently asked 11 "distinguished, non-aligned economists" to grade this Republican Congress. Their conclusion is "average." Yet Broder, a self appointed intellect, ends his rant by comparing the personal income results after 5 1/2 years of Reagan, Clinton, and Bush 43. He says: "Personal income after inflation and taxes rose 22.7 percent under Reagan, 20.4 percent under Clinton and only 14.1 percent under Bush. That's certainly not a C, and it may not even be a passing grade."


Problem with Broder's unintelligent comparison is that Reagan inherited 14% inflation and 22% interest rates. Clinton inherited a 4% booming economy which was bolstered by the computer productivity explosion and Y2K of almost a trillion spending and the stock market run up. Bush 43 on the other hand inherited the Clinton market crash that erased over $11 trillion and over 3.5 million jobs. Then the Clinton recession hit and Clinton's 9/11 happened. It's estimated that erased another $8 trillion in wealth and cut another 4 million jobs. Yet the Bush economy that started in late 2003 when the Clinton mess bottomed out, has performed above any reasonable expectation.

So I wonder what grade brother Broder might give using real facts? Reagan surely gets an A, while Clinton botched a strong economy and failed to protect it and America, loosing about $20 trillion in wealth and as many as 8 million jobs from 2000-03. That's an F!!! Bush 43 on the other hand earns extra credit for seeing the looming mess in 2000, when Clinton/Gore and their crowd were celebrating an estimated "$11 surplus as far as the eye could see." So let's give Bush his very deserved B+.

On another political note, Radar magazine tells America who are the dumbest of the dumb in Congress. And it's Katherine Harris Republican, Florida, that gets the nod. Why? Well the so called "I can't say there was any scientific criteria," is actually that Harris, as Secretary of State, didn't give Gore the presidency in Florida in 2000, and worse, "and some of the allegations concerning how she treats her staff. Sound like enough?" Seems to me that this is further proof that facts and science might also be outlawed if the Democrats take the House and Senate in 2006.

Can Liberals Protect America?

I see poll after poll telling me that Democrats and their secular progressive masters are better at protecting America. That's protecting the people from criminals; from sexual molesters; from an illegal invasion; and from terrorists. These polls tell us nothing about the people's opinion about the Democrats, but rather tell us that they perceive (after 6 years of daily media onslaught) that Republicans are not up to the job.

It's not that Clinton invited 9/11 by having his administration build new and taller walls between foreign intelligence gatherers and the FBI and then especially between them and local cops and prosecutors. This is the liberal game of gotcha that favors criminals and dismisses and disrespects victims, their rights to justice, and their knowledge that a criminal is punished and no longer walking the streets. But it's not about the Democrats.

The game gets more complicated when search is involved. The police and prosecutors are punished for often innocent mistakes by giving the felon a get-out-of-jail-free card. This might be fun, if it wasn't the result of a rape; murder; and other violent crimes. It's called the 'fruit of a poisoned tree" game. Don't even ask about wire taps. There the game gets very intense. The cops and the FBI and the president can get a wire tap approved if they can show "probable cause" that the person being taped is a felon or terrorist. The rest of the world that liberals use for their standard of behavior says that "reasonable suspicion" is good enough. Yet it's not about the Democrats.

But the game really starts when after a time certain, the subject is either charged or they must be told they are being surveilled. Now that means no terrorist activity can be followed under these rules because terrorists are planning a crime, while felons are being hunted because somebody committed a crime. Republicans are proactive while Democrats are reactive. And that's why Democrats can never protect America, it's institutions, and especially its people. They believe that every terrorist should have the right to do their handy work, only then can Democrats try to convict them, using their games of respect and protections, of course. So how can this be about the Democrats?

Today another liberal judge announced to the world that America still doesn't get it. Why shouldn't they already know that when our mainstream media trumpets that Bush is a war criminal while moderate mass murderer Saddam and multi-million mass murderer Ill are the victims of his mean-spirited attacks. Judge John G. Koeltl of Federal District Court in Manhattan today said that Lynne F. Stewart, convicted of transmitting orders from Ohmar Abdel Rahman, the convicted terrorist, to his followers. Stewart was unrepentant then saying that she was only helping freedom fighters. These are the freedoms fighters that bombed the World Trade Center killing 8. They failed to bring them down so Osama ordered a second attack. Ooops, Clinton was the Democrat and Congress and the Senate were overwhelmingly Democrat protecting us at that time

Today Judge Koeltl made a mockery of justice and law and our counter terrorism efforts by telling a crowded court that there was no proof that Rahman's order killed any Americans. Koeltl is one of the few honest liberal Democrats. He tells us that without clear proof that Stewart actually passed orders that killed an American, she is just being attacked by, in Hillary's words, the "vast right-wing conspiracy." So he says that the fact that our counter-intelligence workers caught the messages before they could be implemented means she gets a get-out-of-jail-free pass too. That's Democrat justice!

At least Koeltl is much more honest than Kerry or Hillary or Dean or Joe Biden. These children hide their feelings and sentiments when it comes to crime and punishment among a hundred other political positions.

Lies and Liars!

It headlines: "It's time for governmental truth-no lie. " This is the weekly comment from Mark Trahant, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer's editorial page editor. It's his opinion that differences of opinion are lies. Now isn't untruthful name-calling the realm of the political parties and the elected, not newspapers' editors with special constitutional protections, you might ask? Not today when America's newspapers are the breeding ground for hate and envy gorged writers that seek to end America as we know it.

What these opinions always seem to wallow in is Bush bashing. The hate for the president overshadows any sense of honesty or integrity that once seemed to define Trahant's and others' moral and ethical fabric. Dismissing lying by Clinton was fine while lying to disparage Bush is just as comfortable. Situational ethics and relative morality are the cornerstone of secular progressive thinking.

It seems irrational to answer irrationality, but let's go through the exercise. The mantra is that Bush lied because he attacked Iraq for reasons other than the "made up" weapons of mass destruction. Facts always get in the way of situational make-believe. Every major intelligence organization stated there were WMD. In fact, our CIA had missed the weapons before Desert Storm which exposed the Iraqi nuclear program.

Clinton didn't meet with any CIA officials directly during his 8 years in the White house. Why? Because he didn't like nor trusted them. So why would Bush trust a few of the more liberal agents when they said that there is scant evidence that Saddam has continued his WMD programs after the early 1990s? He and his administration rightly distrust the CIA because of their history of getting "IT" wrong. No matter what the "IT" was. They told Reagan that the Soviets were a "fast rising economic power" right up to the day the Soviets imploded.

Then Trahant wallows deeper into the sty of media lying. He attacks the Bush economic policies as lies. Why? Because they are working. Tax cuts work, which distresses the hate and envy crowd that seeks to keep wealth from others. President Bush said that his "pro-growth" policies are "proof" that tax cuts work. Trahant lies by calling Bush a liar due to his claims. Trahant says that: "The message is that the federal deficit is below projection (Fact), the trend is in the right direction (Fact), and the fiscal house is in order (Fact).

Then Trahant used the General Accounting Office, the oft wrong and never right tea leaf readers of the left of center bureaucrats in government to make his case. The GAO delivered projections of $10 trillion in surplus tax collections to the Bush administration in January 2001. Those projections were based on static dreams of tax collections and expenditures based on the late 1990s. We all know that the Tech-Bubble burst in 2000 costing Americans over $11 trillion in wealth and eventually reducing employment by an estimated 3.5 million. Then the recession caused by the bubble crash and the Clinton tax collections began. Then we had the Clinton 9/11 attacks. That reduced our economic activity by several percentage points.

Yet Trahant merrily stumbles along with the GAO projections of 2000 that have been proven wrong and "dumb and dumberer." In fact, dynamic projections using the Clinton delivered Tech-crash and the recession and 9/11 predict over $10 trillion in deficits by 2008. Yet it seems that it will be closer to $1.5 trillion even when Iraq is included (about 1/3 of the deficit). A Bush supported would say that his policy is 10 times better than Clinton using the $1 trillion governmental deficit rather than the $10 trillion expected deficit.

The lying charge comes at a most inopportune time for Trahant and his secular progressive push. The Swedes have given the Nobel Prize for Economics to a anti-big-government scholar and worse they gave the Peace Prize to a Reagan/conservative style individual empowerment guru. Both prizes are proof that secular socialism is dead man walking. So Trahant goes back to the bread & butter "Bush lied" (lying) bash to use smoke and mirrors to hide the sad news.

Worse is that Trahant demagogues and dismisses the Bush effort to correct the miserably failing New Deal Social Security and New Deal style Medicare and Medicaid programs. Why? Because they are all that's left of the secular progressive push to mold America in the image of the economically failing, morally bankrupt, and ethically challenged "Old Europe."

.

Another Nail in the Secular Socialist Coffin!

The silence from progressives is deafening in response to nails being pounded into the secular socialist coffin. Clinton said it: "Big government is over." He didn't believe it but his political instincts revealed the truth. In a week's time fourteen years after that statement, the Nobel Prize for Economics and for Peace were awarded to private enterprise researchers. Fact is that neither of the awarded plow new ground. What's unique and record breaking is that the extremely liberal Swedes are now recognizing that the socialist "government is the answer" political foundation is crumbling.

The Prize for Economics was awarded to Edmund Phelps. Phelps is a professor of economics at Columbia University in New York City. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences honored professor Phelps for his work in macroeconomics. That is the study of large forces that affect economies at the national or international level.

Phelps correctly identified the relationship between unemployment and inflation. Since the nineteen thirties, policymakers in many nations dealt with unemployment in the same way. They would let inflation increase to create jobs. Policymakers accepted that reducing unemployment required higher inflation for most of the 20th century. But he discovered that inflation hurt job creation, over the long term.

The fact that the Royals are publicly accepting that productivity and innovation are the job creators, not government actions, might just be America's progressives' most damaging moment. Imagine that America's over 30 million government workers are employed, compensated, and promised unfunded retirement and health-care riches based on inflation, not on real work. No wonder the silence.

Worse news for secular progressives is the just awarded Nobel Peace Prize to Muhammad Yunus for organizing Grameen Bank. Professor Yunus decided that government programs for the poor were not benefiting the needy, rather these programs employed the educated with jobs for life. The bank was formally established in 1983 and exploded in the early 1990s when the UN provided data that showed that "President Reagan tax cuts and his concept of economic globalization had lifted more poor than all government programs combined." It was commerce and working that offered hope and opportunity to the poor everywhere.

John F Kennedy is worshiped for saying among other things something like: "giving a fish to a poor person feeds him but teaching him how to fish sustains his life." Further, JFK demanded in his inauguration: "Ask not what your government can do for you, ask what you can do for your government?" Yet his adherents and worshipers didn't hear the call. Yunus did. By May, 2006, over 6 million micro-credit loans have been made to the very poor and very needy worldwide through Grameen. And dozens of Grameen-like micro-lenders are now plying their trade among the world's NGOs. Today more than 20 million micro-loan funded free-enterprise companies are providing an income for their owners and employment for another 250 million more. Today big government taxation is their oppressor not their savior.

I wonder how much Kool-Aid needs to be dispensed to keep secular progressives and their followers thinking that destroying capitalism will cure all the world's ills? Seems reasonable that progressives' hate and envy are negatives, not a foundation for a world movement.

.

The Fossil fuel Myth: Again or Still?

Oil prices are falling. Falling prices proves the conspiracy paranoids wrong again. Democrats and their radical secular progressive told us day in and day out in the liberal media, that the days of cheap oil were gone. In fact, left thinkers that manage trillions on Wall Street predicted $200 a barrel cost within a few month's time. They were wrong. And it has caused the demise of at least one if not two major hedge funds.

Today along comes the Washington Post staying the coarse of yelping that oil is more evil than even grubby money and wealth. The Post laments the decline in barrel cost to less than $60 by telling us in its editorial comment that using less oil will defuse world tensions. Tensions they say, are caused by lots of dough flowing to Venezuela, Iran, and even Saudi Arabia. Does the Washington Post really feel that keeping petro-nations poor will stabilize the world?

The argument is still over the myth that petroleum supply is decreasing. There's little question that the easy to produce petroleum, that just under the surface of the earth, is produced faster than it is replaced with new finds. But new finds are now announced with regularity because technology allows for drilling deeper in more inaccessible places. These technological advances might otherwise end the Carter style malaise of "The end is near," but it doesn't because politics skews science.

In reality today's Post comment starts the Euro-push for high taxes on fossil fuels to reduce their use. We all know that this strategy doesn't just reduce petroleum use, it also starves the world economy driving most developing countries back to poverty and guarantees to drop the United States into the slow European economic death spiral now under way. Seems to me that liberal thinkers actually have no solution to their straw man problem: Fossil fuel consumption.

Inter-Religious Strife!

It's argued that "mission creep" is an ever present assault on initially well designed and executed projects and programs. Two landscapes are extremely susceptible to "mission creep." Military adventures often respond to changes on the ground that can blurr the initial task's boundaries. A good example can be seen in Iraq and Afghanistan where initial removal of despot and terrorist supporting regimes has led to the need to employ elements of "nation building" to create and maintain political and social stability. Winning the war can be much easier than the "mission creep" of winning the peace.

The other arena of "mission creep" is, of course, government. Government's "mission creep" is as intrusive and as deadly to a cause as the military can be to the death of a murderous and abusive regime. We read about and experience government's pernicious reach daily. In fact, what some call forward progress is actually government's often unconstitutional intrusion into personal and religious rights, privacy, and freedoms. Can you spell educational intrusions? Or what about transportation restrictions? Or often unscientific environmental restrictions? Yes, many might wonder how government that self-describes its search and defense of rights and uber-privacy, can be so threatening of the same? Don't ask!

Today's NY Times tells us in an article by Diana Henriques, that churches are fighting the 'government's mandate" to protect the rights of employees in the workplace. Of course this workplace is religious. Seems that secular socialists and progressives in government and the judiciary want nothing more that to intrude into the daily activities, values, morals, ethics, and management decisions of their religious competitors.

This begs the question: "What if a religious person works for the government and demands religious rights, religious privacy, and especially religious freedoms? We know that answer. No rights! No freedoms! No way! No how! No where! No when! If you are Christian that is. Muslims can use their rug anywhere. Others are given wide discretion to practice religions even though they must be unionized and labor law adherent.

For me it's clear that the government's intrusive and oppressive reach will continue and even accelerate unless the people say enough! Merry Christmas is still a legal greeting only because some stood up to hate driven secular progressives eager to erase their religious competition from the public square. Not then, not now, and not tomorrow.
.

Inclusive or Illegal, Unconstitutional, Un-American?

An almost equally divided electorate can energize fierce efforts by some to convince illegal aliens and felons to vote. Others encourage double voting and even help the dead vote. Moral and ethical persons try establish that all votes cast are legal and fair. Problem with this process isn't that it's as important to establish that a vote is legal as voting itself, the problem is that many in the media and radical extremists attack anyone that tries to keep voting legal. The usual suspects are race baiters, democracy haters, and often radical left wing-nuts. Their sentiments are that any attempt to qualify or verify someone's identity and their legal right to vote is racist, abusive, and exclusionary. Say what?

Accusations vary such as some in Ohio where the police were called to a murder a block from a polling place. Race exploiters then claimed that the presence of the police intimidated voters.

Today's N Y Times leads again with its constant effort to attack those that follow the law as anti-democrats and racists. This time the opinion is written by Adam Cohen, a card-carrying, bomb throwing, anti-democracy basher. For Cohen, 'disenfranchisement' is the code word for the result of obeying the law. As obeying immigration laws is anti-immigrant bashing for the same dirt dishers.

America is a nation of lawful behavior that encourages opportunity for all. When a political movement frames it's values by encouraging lawless and illegal behavior, chaos and anarchy result. Shame on the perverse, dishonest, ill-informed, and abusive spewed by Adam Cohen.

Regressive Progressives?

Progressive regression is the coin of the liberal realm. The world appears awash in liberals resisting change and progress. Some might say that improvement and progress aren't really what 'progressives' seek. Fact is that liberals are the 'Amish' of politics. Liberal political thinking stopped with Marx and Engels. Liberal political activity reached its high point with Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, and Fidel Castro. It's easy to understand that the current crop of liberals, Schavez, Sheehan, Dean, Murray and Cantwell, McDermott, and Gore and the Clintons are psychological children and political ignorants when compared to their pedagogues.

Monday's Wall Street Journal's 'Review & Outlook' speaks to regressive progressives by exposing the World Bank board's effort to keep corruption in loans and payments to third world nations; speaks to Richard Branson's 'Virgin' commitment to green energy causes; and Europe's effort to destroy Microsoft after the Clinton Administration's failure to do so here.

The WSJ writes that at the annual World Bank meeting in Singapore, European elites let it be known "that they prefer a (current) lending system that gives lip service to ending graft but in fact turns a blind eye to corrupt government officials on the receiving end of billions in foreign aid." Worse, "British Development Secretary Hilary Benn threatened to withhold $94 million in funding next year to protest the transparency and accountability conditions that Paul Wolfowitz (former Bush administration member) is implementing." Imagine that so called progressives attempt to continue corrupt and failed ways? That's regressive progressive behavior.

Then the WSJ says that "There's plenty of reason to cock a sceptical eye at Richard Branson's pledge, announced last week in New York in the company of Al Gore and Bill Clinton, that he will devote 10 years and about $3 billion of profits form his Virgin airline and railroad businesses to combat global warming." While it all sounds like Branson is supporting Gore and Clinton on questionable climate claims, he's actually investing in energy businesses like rapeseed and ethanol production. The WSJ questions "There are serious doubts among scientists whether biofuels can serve as safe and reliable substitutes for current fossil fuels. There are also real questions about the environmental impact-in deforestation and intensive farming-of switching to biofuels."

Again, the liberal progressive obsession with fossil fuels 0vershadows the often unintended negative and costly side affects of just doing anything to feel good. The replacement of cheap and powerful fossil fuels requires more than a few cottage industry wind farms and corn growing fields. In fact, it's now estimated that all the world's corn and other biofuel feedstocks can generate about 5% of the world's current energy demands and less than 2% in the next decade's time.

Then the WSJ explains Europe's Neelie Kroes' effort to: "ensure a level playing field." That's liberal progressive regressive speak for keeping innovations and improvements out of products unless regulators and oppressors direct it. This is of course a return to the Soviet style "command economy." Ms. Kroes feels that she and her fellow "know it alls" say that they know what the people need and at what fair cost. and they are willing to use our tax dollars to get their way.

The fight is over Adobe document functions and file security. While the liberal progressive regressives attack Microsoft (for beating Apple like a drum) for lacking security features to protect users from hackers, the same drum beaters say that any new security features must be kept separate and must cost accordingly. Then Microsoft asked Adobe to provide a document security function in Vista, the new and improved Windows, which Adobe declined to do. So Microsoft offers its own document security feature along with the free Adobe reader. Ms. Krores screams bloody murder because this will improve Windows and will give Microsoft a market advantage. Duh! It's an earned market advantage due to Adobe's business strategy. In the words of the venerable (loony) Al Gore: "How dare they; who do they think they are?"

We are living in the days of the regressive progressives that pine for a Cuban 19th century style government and economic environment. Seems that when the world gets too complicated and too filled with opportunity and hope, the liberal progressive regressives will find the energy to stop all this progress.

Clinton tells the truth!

The recent dustup between Billy Clinton and Chris Wallace on FOX News Network has finally exposed the underbelly of the Clinton/Democrat 'world view.' Clinton explained and even ranted that he "did everything he could to kill Osama." He sought probable cause indictments; sought CIA certification; respected the rights of Osama and others nearby so that any action against Osama wouldn't hurt his possibly innocent friends or his co-conspirators and co-murderers.

Clinton was honest that he did everything that "HE" could. That he tried to get the "alleged terrorist" which Clinton and Democrats everywhere feel must be accorded all if not more than your and my constitutional rights and protections. And that's what the people should know. The people must know that the Clinton and Democrat/liberal 'world view' is that every single person on earth must be provided every possible right and protection from getting caught. Problem is that neither the American people nor most American jurisprudence experts agree with that extreme if not childish and pollyannish view.

Clinton's administration had what insiders say over a dozen opportunities to arrest or kill Osama. Yet each opportunity was met with self doubt and sometimes even with "political focus group" thinking. Several opportunities came and went because Clinton's legal beagles said "they didn't have probable cause" under US constitutional protections to arrest him. Several opportunities to kill Osama and his top Al Qaeda advisers were passed because of fear of hurting others and because of concern that the media might call the attack a 'wag the dog' attack to divert attention from Clinton's White-house sex scandal, according to Dick Morris, Clinton's political advisor.

The truth is that Clinton did his best based on Democrat/liberal legal views that are disconnected from the American people and especially from the historical application of the American Constitution. The fact is that the CIA and the FBI did their best at protecting the American people based on the extreme Democrat/liberal 'world view' that the FBI can't warn the CIA and the CIA can't warn the FBI. The truth is that the Clinton crowd, led by Jamie Gorlic, their most extreme firewall advocate, created the legalistic minefield that prevented reasonable homeland protection.

A reasonable example of this firewall between law enforcement, the FBI, and intelligence agencies is this: A counter-terrorist agent enters the home of a suspected terrorist. He finds no evidence of this person's possible activity. Yet there is a dead girl in the bedroom. She's been raped and strangled the night before and the body has not yet been dumped elsewhere. Fact is under the Clinton/Democrat/liberal 'world view,' the agent is forbidden under CRIMINAL threat to disclose the murder to local law enforcement or even the FBI. This same type of gamesmanship goes for illegal immigration and for any other crimes, no matter how heinous.

Democrats and the media do everything in their power to hide these views. The truth is that only the people have the right to decide whether our government adheres to these extreme views and legal interpretations. Not the dishonest and complicitous media; not the Clintons; not liberal courts; and not the Democrats!

NY Times Speaks

Today's Times' editorial discussing the impending illegal combatant detention and trial needs a line by line response.

NY Times Editorial-My comments in red!

Here’s what happens when this irresponsible Congress railroads a profoundly important bill to serve the mindless (?????) politics of a midterm election: The Bush administration uses Republicans’ fear of losing their majority to push through ghastly ideas about antiterrorism that will make American troops less safe (A disproved assertion because American troops and our diplomatic corps have yet to be accorded Geneva protections in any war or military action since the Geneva Convention was adopted) and do lasting damage to our 217-year-old nation of laws (Dishonest hyperbole because America has always considered those warring with America to be out of the reach of domestic courts, rather they are subjected to military courts) — while actually doing nothing to protect the nation from terrorists (Another misrepresentation because the CIA has supported the Newsweek examination of the intelligence gathered from the now famous 14 high level prisoners that gave up critical intelligence through coercive interrogation. In fact, the CIA says and Newsweek's Pulitzer reporter say that 8 attacks in final planning were thwarted). Democrats betray their principles to avoid last-minute attack ads. Our democracy is the big loser (Democracy is the BIG winner because the people support aggressive interrogation).

Republicans say Congress must act right now to create procedures for charging and trying terrorists — because the men accused of plotting the 9/11 attacks are available for trial. That’s pure propaganda. Those men could have been tried and convicted long ago, but President Bush chose not to. He held them in illegal detention (Dishonest representation), had them questioned in ways that will make real trials (Again a lie because real trials for enemy combatants, legal or not are in military courts) very hard, and invented a transparently illegal system of kangaroo courts (Their less than professional and very bigoted opinion) to convict them.

It was only after the Supreme Court issued the inevitable ruling (It was called by even Democrat experts an overreach for applying Geneva rules to terrorists) striking down Mr. Bush’s shadow penal system that he adopted his tone of urgency. It serves a cynical goal: Republican strategists think they can win this fall, not by passing a good law but by forcing Democrats to vote against a bad one so they could be made to look soft on terrorism. (Democrats are soft on terrorists because they feel that respecting them will change their ways. The lie is that Democrats refuse to say it because they know the people don't support that position)

Last week, the White House and three Republican senators announced a terrible deal on this legislation that gave Mr. Bush most of what he wanted, including a blanket waiver for crimes Americans may have committed in the service of his antiterrorism policies (Duh!). Then Vice President Dick Cheney and his willing lawmakers rewrote the rest of the measure so that it would give Mr. Bush the power to jail pretty much anyone (Flat out lie) he wants for as long as he wants (Flat out lie) without charging them, to unilaterally reinterpret the Geneva Conventions (Flat out lie), to authorize what normal people consider torture (they say less then 8 hours of sleep is torture and so on), and to deny justice to hundreds of men captured in error (We are back to the excuse that a person in the wrong place at the wrong time that just happens to live with terrorists and murderers are just misguided).

These are some of the bill’s biggest flaws:

Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal (Dishonest, there are several avenues of appeal to define illegal combatant). The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted (Lie, because the combatant can appeal his or her definition of illegal combatant to US courts).

The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate (Absolute lie) a half-century of international precedent (Precedent has be fair but now US lawyers say that even female interrogation of a Moslem is torture) by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret — there’s no requirement that this list be published.

Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment (They can challenge their definition which then puts them into the right court of jurisdiction). These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists (Again an dishonest assertion). They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence.

Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals (As America does. Nobody reviews anything but the verdict and if it was fairly asserted). The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly (This is the anti-US-lawyer full employment opportunity by suing under Geneva day and night). All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant (Which is then reviewed by US federal courts) and not have a trial (Also dishonest because illegal combatants don't get trial anywhere until the war is over, or they are executed by past standards).

Coerced Evidence: Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable — already a contradiction in terms (Again the myth that Newsweek and the CIA and even my previous article have dispelled. Coercive evidence is often reliable when supported by subsequent evidence. Democrats want any additional evidence to be quashed even though it proves the guilt of the terrorist) — and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses (That's American law).

Secret Evidence: American standards of justice prohibit evidence and testimony that is kept secret from the defendant, whether the accused is a corporate executive or a mass murderer. But the bill as redrafted by Mr. Cheney seems to weaken protections against such evidence (The New York Times forgets that illegal combatants aren't regular US criminals. They can't get their bigoted terrorist coddling brain around that distinction) .

Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture (Absolute lie because rape is not sexual coercion like stripping a guy).

•There is not enough time to fix these bills, especially since the few Republicans who call themselves moderates have been whipped into line, and the Democratic leadership in the Senate seems to have misplaced its spine. If there was ever a moment for a filibuster, this was it.

We don’t blame the Democrats for being frightened. The Republicans have made it clear that they’ll use any opportunity to brand anyone who votes against this bill as a terrorist enabler (Which they appear to be anyway). But Americans of the future won’t remember the pragmatic arguments for caving in to the administration.

They’ll know that in 2006, Congress passed a tyrannical (The tyranny is with far left wing bigots) law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation’s version of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Myth Busting

The news is not good for a long held liberal position on granting special protections to foreign despots, murderers, tyrants, and terrorists. The basis for extending special constitutional protections is the Geneva Convention treaty for treatment of military combatants and civilians. This treaty was proposed by the United States after more than 62 million soldiers and civilians were killed during World War II. Some estimate that more civilians died than soldiers.

The intent of the Geneva Convention was to establish clear wartime treatment standards that all signatories would respect. Problem is that only the United States has respected the Geneva Convention. Fact is that North Korea and China didn't respect Geneva in the UN's action. The Soviet Union didn't respect Geneva when they shot down Powers' U2 spy plane. North Vietnam's soldiers didn't respect Geneva during the late sixties and early seventies. In fact Senator McCain was tortured with hundreds of other pilots and captured soldiers.

We know the French tortured Algerians after signing the Geneva Convention. We know the British tortured IRA terrorists during the 1970s and 1980s. We know South American and Central American dictators tortured and murdered thousands without a thought of Geneva Convention protections. And we know what Middle Eastern despots and terrorists do to Americans, civilian and military. That leaves only the United States. So the myth that we must adhere and even provide extra protections to not just soldiers, but illegal combatants and terrorists, so that our soldiers and civilians will receive respectful treatment is not just misguided, but factually inaccurate.

Worse is the myth that aggressive interrogation doesn't result in successfully gathering usable information. A CBS investigative story debunks the myth that only respecting and hugging terrorists will encourage them to rat on their fellow murderers. Proof is that coercive interrogation works. Some say that Senator McCain opposes coercive questioning because he was tortured and then accused of talking by several other torture victims in Hanoi, North Vietnam. If he did talk, he would have to admit it by saying that torture works because it worked on him. So he says no way.

Bottom line is that no other nation respects the Geneva Convention and most importantly, coercive interrogation works.

Censorship!

Wasn't it the 'National Socialists' of Germany that found repeating an untruth three times internationally makes it a fact? Seems the inheritors of both their politics and their propaganda programs follow the same line. Carbon dioxide is pollution! Carbon dioxide is pollution! Carbon dioxide is pollution! Now that the debate is over, let's decide which liberal programs are funded and which liberal extremists will benefit from them.

Wrong answer! There is no proof that man-released carbon dioxide warms or even cools the planet. Some feel CO2 cools mudda earth, but their voices were silenced decades ago. Some scientists feel that the sun and our planet's hot core are actually the culprits. But the hysteria-du-jour is that man is guilty. American jurisprudence claims that we are all innocent unless proven guilty. This protection doesn't apply to science nor does it apply to conservative thinkers.

Remember that Osama is an "alleged" terrorist while president Bush is "a terrorist." Go figure! In secular socialist thinking, relative morality and situational ethics rules. So all liberals need is to censor scientists so that only one voice of consensus is heard. And they are at it again. Today's NY Times tells us that the venerable Royal Society of Britain has accused ExxonMobil of funding organizations that God forbid, believe the global warming debate is not over.

So we can now ad selective censorship to relative morality and situational ethics as the cornerstones of secular socialist thinking.

What's Torture, Stupid?

Seems to me that Americans are burned out on politics after decades of liberal torture. We're tortured by tortured explanations, tortured definitions, and tortured deceptions to prevent us from learning what liberals really think about the constitution, rights for murderers and terrorists, and especially a hate for competitive private enterprise.

The "Happy" news is that the people hear, probably for the first time ever, liberals openly demand that we must extend extra constitutional protections and privileges to foreign terrorists, tyrants, and despots, as liberal courts drape uber-constitutional protections and privileges around our citizen felons and murderers.

The issue is the "world court" believes that extracting information from a person without their consent is torture. This opinion flows from the Geneva Convention's Article 3 "(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment." So any effort, overt or covert, to confuse, tire, trick, or otherwise force an "unlawful combatant," a usually armed fighter out of uniform, to divulge secret information about their organization and its members they say is torture. Americans say otherwise.

Seems that Americans almost always think and believe other than the 'world.' Why I ask? The answer is simple. The 'world,' meaning other industrialized nations, is founded on a secular socialist or mostly Islamist political infrastructure. It's a world of "foreign values, foreign morals, and foreign ethics." It's these values and the 'world view' they represent that American liberals embrace. It's these values and the 'world view' they represent that the American majority soundly rejects.

American values are indisputably Judeo-Christian in touch and feel. American values encourage freedoms, choices, and equal opportunities that the 'world view' dismisses. Americans know right from wrong. The 'world view' says right or wrong are shaped daily by consensus. Clinton's bombing civilian targets in Yugoslavia, a UN member nation, without UN support was "legal," "proper," and even "moral," because he sought and got general 'world view' consensus. President Bush acts within American laws, values, and morals. Yet Democrats, liberals, and the "world view" is that he is a war criminal. Why? Because he didn't get their "consensus (approval)" before acting.

So it goes for torture. Torture is whatever the 'world view' feels it is. All that is required to redefine torture is to gain consensus. Just convince your neighbors that a killing or raping is moral because the "bitch" had it coming. Get a free pass from the law. Convince 300 plus mayors that there is global warming, and by definition IT IS.! Convince the 'world view' that pressuring terrorists to talk is torture, and bada bing, IT IS.

Not in America. Not now and not ever.

Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth

Envirowars today reasserts its commitment to exposing untruth, half truths, political exploitations, and to seek and publicize dishonesties in the radio, print, and TV media, and in the general culture, and in the entertainment and political landscape.

It's less than 60 days to the election that will either continue America's major toward world stability through hope, opportunity, and freedom for all or will return this nation on a path to minimalism, atheism, and a hopeless malaise.

.

Consensus Science or Religion?

Remember 300 some mayors concluded, after soul searching I suppose, that the world is spiraling into global warming. They concluded that they must combine their efforts to fight man's negative influence on the earth. Today the Washington Post tells us that cities and states are moving to fight carbon dioxide on their own.

The Post's Juliet Eilperin says: "With Washington lawmakers deadlocked on how best to curb global warming, state and local officials across the country are adopting ambitious policies and forming international alliances aimed at reducing greenhouse gases." Since most mayors are left wing Democrats it's not unusual for the left to walk to the beat of its own drummer when federal policy is otherwise. In fact, global warming promises so much profit that both Billy Clinton and Al Gore are grabbing some of the dough.

Billy's been busy rounding up 6 and 7 figure speaking fees that the Post's Eilperin says: "Last week alone, former president Bill Clinton launched an effort with 22 of the world's largest cities to cut their emissions." While some feel that pushing from Democrat celebrities is lighting a fire under the global warming movement, the Post says: "Some local officials said they are pushing ahead with plans because the Bush administration, which has promoted cleaner technology but opposes mandatory curbs on greenhouse gas emissions, has failed to adequately address the problem."

The issue is what is "adequate." The Bush administration claims credit for greater omissions reductions that any other administration using technological improvements, tax incentives, and voluntary efficiency commitments. Fact is that businesses and industries work more comfortably for a carrot than threat of a criminal stick. Democrats use carrots on tyrants, murderers, child molesters, terrorists, and despots. Yet they use threats of criminal prosecution when dealing with the private sector and political opponents.

Troubling is that city and state employees spread misrepresentations and lies when the Post says: "Some state officials and environmentalists said their efforts will soon surpass anything Bush has done to combat climate change." Truth is that the Bush administration is getting results without hate and envy, the food of liberal extremists.

The joke here is that 300 plus mayors join in religious fervor to promote their political agenda under the heading of environmental religion. They say that 300 mayors agree so that's democracy, isn't it? But it's not science.

Toni & Arnold

The Tony (Blair) and Arnold (Schwartzenegger) show gets NY Times editorial and LA Times approval. The boys tell us that they will increase regulations beyond the federal government. They say they will build on past California leadership in automobile and powerplant emissions. In fact, other states such as Washington and its largest county are crafting environmental regulations where they once ran their own foreign policies.

But who's studying history here? Nobody, absolutely nobody!! The Wall Street Journal ran a front page article titled: "How California Failed in Efforts To Curb Its Addiction to Oil" on Wednesday, August 2nd. The WSJ says that: "For a quarter century, California has pursued petroleum-free transportation more doggedly than any other place in the U.S. (and probably the world). Even with today's "$75 per barrel oil, and increasing concern about the role fossil fuels are playing in global warming, 99% of its cars and trucks still run on petroleum products."

Truth is that the president's voluntary emission reduction programs lead the world in results. Seems the tighter the regulations, the more costly the regulations, the less effective the results. Some now believe that forcing the unwilling to change their behavior only generates additional hot air. The WSJ agrees that the markets responded opposite of the way the hard core regulators believed.

The auto industry and the petroleum companies forced California to set some benchmarks of pollution improvements and standards for clean cars. Then the markets produced fossil fuel running cars and trucks that operate within the guidelines. Truth is that since California began serious pollution enforcement in 1980, its numbers of cars have more than doubled; its driving mileage is up by over 125% while fuel use in barrels is up only over 50%. The best is yet to come.

Today California has over 26 million gasoline or diesel only cars and trucks. It has about 250,000 ethanol flex-fuel cars and trucks; and about 88,000 hybrids. Yet in the past 15 years, emissions of oxides of sulfur have been reduced by almost 93%; Oxides of nitrogen reduced by over 43%; and carbon monoxide is reduced by 67%. Only carbon dioxide emissions, what some believe to be pollution and others believe to be earth's most critical plant food, are up about 17%.

California's regulatory fun-fest has cost more than $50 billion without reducing fossil fuel consumption by even a single pint. Yet the fossil fuel industry and the automobile industry will continue to roll out more fuel efficient and much more environmentally sound cars without cost to taxpayers. So how do other states and communities respond to this dismal failure? They too want to tax the people to build a huge bureaucracy that has the power of the government to demand social changes that are not based on any scientifically supported research.

Here in Western Washington we too see that the big government tax addicted are struggling to get ahead of the spending wave. In fact, Seattle, King County, and Washington, the big spender tri-fecta, are fighting to create more oppressive and costly regulations than the other. Stay tuned for the results from the jack-booted "Soviet of Washington."

.

Sorry Record or Skinning the Cat in Other Ways?

The attack left wing print media's bad-boy posterchild for oppressive activity today launches a post 60th birthday assault on the first couple. Why today's Bush bash? The Times' editors tell us that Bush is fibbing when he tells us that his enviro-record is "great."

Why is Bush not actually helping the environment? Because the NY Times' left wing extremists say he hasn't used their long menu of oppressive and unconstitutional means to stop the people from doing what they want to do; going where they want to go; live the way they choose to live; and pay competitive prices for what they want to buy.

The truth is that 6 years of Bush environment policy has resulted in pollution reductions that near twice the Europeans. All this by encouraging business to improve their use of power and to reduce the resulting pollution. Fact is that America leads the world (by far) in energy use efficiency and energy use productivity. While our economy increases by 4% or more, our population swells by several million every year, our energy use declines.

From my viewpoint it's not the environment. It's the end of secular socialism that sends the Times' far lefties into deep frustration, illegal behavior, and desperation. I encourage all to voice their agreement to regulating the print media and regulating all media in the last 60 days of all elections. These regulations should be criminally enforced, as these same liberals seek to criminalize those with other political opinions.

Who will do the perp walk?



.

Congress to the Rescue!!

Congress moves to increase domestic fossil fuel exploration and production. When connected to recent refining encouragements, domestic production and refining will increase dramatically. More importantly is that a three decade assault on fossil fuel production and usage might be at an end.

The initial attacks on petroleum usage were rightly due to its large scale pollution. Today, little pollution is emitted from cars, trucks, and aircraft. There is no consensus that CO2 emissions are pollution harmful to humans and the planet. In fact many say that increased levels of CO2 actually strengthens plants because carbon dioxide is plants' primary food.

Why is there quick movement to encourage exploration and production? It's off year election time. The people can see clearly which party supports environmentally safe production and which party wants to end all fossil fuel usage. Maybe annual elections will expedite legislative activity.

The Gloves are Off!

The last vestiges of the Supreme liberals are attempting to write new environmental law by accepting review of an assault on EPA refusal to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Some believe that rising atmospheric CO2 content contributes to global warming. The reasoning might be that the people aren't smart nor aggressive enough to demand that the EPA and the Bush administration immediately take steps to reduce CO2 emissions.

This strategy seems to be Plan B, after Plan A inspired widespread economy killing Democrat regulatory laws based on hysterical reporting and often psychotic "the end of the world is now" religion revelations failed.

The Bush admininstration can take claim to exposing an unprecedented judicial overreach and make-believe construction of constitution and precedent disconnected laws and feel good special rights giveaways. It surprises me that the early skirmishes of the impending envirowars are being fought in the courts. Going to the courts seems unlikely because most rely on facts and truth to find for or against. Truth about global warming can only be established with facts. Problem is there aren't any. Climate science is now a cabal of projections and averages and computer models. Not a single conclusion is based on verifiable facts.

Truth is that facts and precedents and truth are not of high priority for the liberal Supremes in their loosing fight with conservative ideals, values, ethics, and morals. Years 2002- now 2006 are awash with 5-4 Supreme Court make-believe rulings. Eminent domain is one. Rights for terrorists is another in 04. Underage executions in 05. Recently on Hamdi they attempt to repaint foreign criminal's civil rights with a 3,000 mile brush. I doubt this paint will dry before it's wiped away.

Remember Psych 101 taught us that abused and mentally unstable children give tangible and intangible value away to prove that they care for others and to beg for validation by strangers. Liberal elites and the liberal Supremes seem to fit that basic characterization. Children gave their parent's property and often sacrificed their word and trust. Liberals wrap special rights around extremists at home and special protections on foreign murderers and terrorists.

Do the liberal elite really feel that giving the people's exclusive civil rights and protections to despots, terrorists, and tyrants will change their evil ways? Do they not care that taking from the people endangers them?

Do the liberal elite and their Kool Aid drinking followers really need validation from Europe and elsewhere to feel 5 feet tall? Why not seek domestic validation by cleaning up miserably failed programs and by respecting the electorate?

Do they really believe that hating America will bring respect and support from abroad? Liberal hate and envy will for ever distinguish them from Americans, patriots, and conservatives.

I think not. The envirowars will not be long fought in our courts, maybe in kangaroo courts and the UN, but not in our truth and fact based judiciary.

Global Hysteria

Kevin Trenberth, remember that name. He is the forward attacker on the National Center of Hurricanes and on NOAA's position that hurricane incidence and strength are a reflection long-term global and oceanic oscillations. The experts say we are at the apex of one now. Trenberth says otherwise. He says that he has taken the broadly estimated central Atlantic and Gulf temperatures, subtracted the broadly estimated impact of oscillations, subtracted other likely factors to arrive at a broadly estimated unaccounted 0.08F temperature.

Trenberth is a major poohbah of the secular socialist global warming religion. In this religion all is estimated and averaged. Actual facts and real science stand in the way of the religious beliefs. The religion follows scriptures like this:

Government is God. Government decides on several classes of living for all the people.

The elites control all because they know all. Then there are the governing class and bureaucratic class and the service class and other similar classes.

Government outlaws competition because it disrespects the class system and wastes energy.

Government decides that the people should get what they need. Who decides what they need? The elites.

Government assumes all risk and all rewards. The rabble are told they have cradle to grave security for embracing a mediocre life.

But what happens when competition and private sector success create wealth among the rabble? Government must stop the spread of that cancer at all costs. Freedom of choices and self determination are like tooth paste out of a tube. Once you have it all over your hands, the paste will never ever go back in.

The religion is now attempting the tooth paste put-back. Global Warming is their epiphany. The earth is fast uberheating from pollution created from economic activity, transportation choices, and personal consumption. This must end.

Trenberth is one of the church's high priests telling us that he and his disciples can cobble together "scientific," err political and religious studies that prove all. And so he did one for hurricanes. Church leaders like Kerry, Biden, Clinton, Durben, Fidel Castro, Jung il of North Korea, and Trenberth believe they can stop the US economy by proving among a dozen other things that hurricanes are global warming inspired.

Problem is that the broadly estimated unaccounted 0.08F has no scientific connection to the 2005 hurricane number and strength. Why? Because real hurricane experts estimate that water temperature is responsible for about 5% to 7% of a hurricane's intensity. So when the Gulf of Mexico averages 88F which annually fuels several hurricanes of about 130 mph, an increase of 0.08F, a 1/100 degree F increase divided by an average 6% of hurricanes' strength, estimates a miniscule or even immeasurable increase.

I ask if Trenberth is just hysterical or possibly psychotic in his desperation to tell the world's people that the 2005 hurricane season was caused by a broadly estimated 0.08F temperature variation. Truth is that he is a corrupt and criminal government employee using his position to extort law and behavior changes. Isn't it time to make these abusive pay for their mischief?

.

Al's getting hot under the collar.

Al Gore, the retrovirus that won't stay down is back. Few have flunked out of college more than Al. In fact he had to go for a religious degree that only required pass/fail class effort. So he entered politics believing that life begins at conception; that we all need a moral and ethical compass; and that secular socialism is the dark side.

Then Billybob Clinton made him an offer he couldn't refuse. Al successfully politicized the death of his sister and the near death of his son to buy sympathy, so how much worse would it be to join the trailer park duo? The rest is history. Except, Al also read a book about fossil fuels and communism. I thank God that Al didn't read Green Eggs and Ham first.

Today we see Eco-Al. Remember the eggs frying in a pan called "this is your mind on drugs?" They used Al's mind to make their point. In fact, Al has fused Clinton's southern evangelical rock star style with his desire to control the world to arrive at Eco-Al, the man that singularely saves the earth. There's little chance he'll succeed in this life, so stay tuned for the Hollyweird sequel.

Al tells the Seattle PI's William Arnold, the very liberal paper's entertainment critic, that his presentation made into a movie is so good that "about 50 or 60 Pabst drinking Tennessee bubbas saw this after one midnight. They were so impressed and got it's point so clearly that they vowed to get involved. Have you heard of the Tennessee round of Kyoto 2? Me neither.

Al tells us that he's disappointed that America hasn't risen to Europe's and others' level of eco-commitment. Ah yes, those guys that have no economic growth while they use more energy to maintain half our lifestyle level. Those guys mirror our government that uses more of everything, every year, and costs more while delivering less. Yes, Al is disappointed that American's aren't buying into his comedy act. Maybe Al should join Stewart and Colbert, two other funny liberals on Comedy Central.

Comprehensive Propaganda

Is the NY Times the most discredited American news source? USA Today is going all out for that Pulizer with the LA Times and the NY Times running second by a nose. Time and Newsweek went to the dark side without much loss to the people. Let's not speak of the power hungry and corrupt alphabet media from ABC to NBC, CBS, and CNN to MSNBC and PBS and especially NPR.

The NY Times along with the Hollywood establishment are attempting to resurrect Al Gore. First they must continue to spin his election loss. The Times' Andrew Rivkin writes: "the Supreme Court vote that denied Mr. Gore a chance to win the 2000 presidential election" grants him the right to his prize. Revkin knows that Al lost, fair and square. Al even lost after mischief by Democrat election aficionados and a reported race based attempt to give him the election by the Florida Supremes, according to its Chief justice. But when we're talking liberal lore and urban myth, truth can't hold a candle to party need.

The need is to give Al a chance at the treasury and the economy through the cloak and mantle of global warming and eco-fascism. Bedmates made in hell. Almost 300 million seeking hope and opportunity and Al seeking the 19th century.

The New and Improved Envirowars!

All things come around. A retooled 2006 version of Al Gore is back after snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory in 2000. What has changed since he went away and then reemerged in 2002 to yell and scream? Al is still convinced that he won the election; he is still convinced that he can save the earth; and Al is still convinced that fossil fuels are the cause of all evil. So why is he being cheered by the far left?

For one the NY Times needs to reinterpret Al's legacy. I ask which legacy? Is it his effort to create 8 million new citizens without following the legal process? Today we hold tens of thousands Clinton/Gore citizens in federal prisons. These are the same that were given citizenship without background checks. The same criminals that then went out and killed, raped, and plundered.

Or is it the legacy of over 100 campaign "workers" fleeing the country with the FBI close behind? How about the dozens upon dozens that took the 5th amendment against self incriminating when questioned about their fund raising for Clinton/Gore?

Or is the new and improved Al turning away from race exploitations? I think not. The rewrite will be about Al, the child that cried wolf. Al, the man that exposed how CO2 is fast spiraling the earth into the sun. "We are all toast," he laments. Only Al can save mankind from greedy profit seeking multi-nationals. Only Al stands between us, the rabble, and certain death.

.

Buy Your Boots Now

The NY Times tells us that: Greenland's glaciers are melting into the sea twice as fast as previously believed, the result of a warming trend that renders obsolete predictions of how quickly Earth's oceans will rise over the next century, scientists said yesterday. Now this is worthy news, if it's reliable. This study is unique among most that are actually a rehash of century old and unverifiable logs and notes. This study is a review of recent satellite pictures. Problem here is that NASA managers tell us that few if any scientists understand how to read satellite data.

It's common knowledge that temperatures are slightly warming in the Northern Hemisphere. The Arctic is experiencing a cycle of ice melting. So what does this mean to you and me? Nothing, absolutely nothing because more ice is accumulating elsewhere than is being melted. Is there a central clearing house where ice melting is added to ocean volume and then new freezing is subtracted? No. Why not? Because it appears that the global warming crowd is driven by their feelings, not by science.

Truth is still that the Antarctic is cooling. The proof is published everywhere that ice is building at never before observed rates. On a personal note, one of Seattle's super icebreakers returned from the Antarctic late in 2005. The return was a few weeks delayed because the ship encountered huge new and quickly thickening ice fields. The ice breaker crew talked about how far out from land the new ice is growing. Yet in the same issue of the Seattle Times that printed their report, a global warming and rising sea level article is printed.

A quick check of tidal charts both in the Atlantic and the Pacific show that the mean sea level is not rising. Not a millimeter, not a centimeter, not an inch, according to the Australia based National Tidal Facility. So why do government scientists tell us that the rise is on and it will be as much as ten of feet and more? Because it's their blind faith belief.

The "Tipping Point" is Coming!

Fasten your seatbelts, we're off to the "Tipping Point." This reminds me of a film about a Black Hole a decade or two ago. The setting is a spaceship caught in a black hole vortex along with millions of suns and their now doomed planets. We watch subplots roll past as planet after planet disappears into the abyss. While life goes on, the end is certain. I guess that's the tipping point that enviro-extremists are now screeching about.

The Tipping Point is much like a point of no return. Go so far and there's not enough juice left to come back. It confuses me that the tippers are so called progressives. They really believe that anything they feel and experience is world shattering. And worse, they say that their feelings and the consequent demands must be supported by criminal laws and government power.

My problem is that I have a different Tipping Point than say Johnny Kerry or Al Gore. They are permanently tipped. Their every thought is connected to world tipping and to other unimaginable intentional damage to mother earth. Of course they will never end their entitlement to huge SUVs and dozens of houses and condos and private jets and so on. Only we the rabble need to let go of those dreams.

Before we can find our Tipping Point, we need a journey. So is the fact that earth is moving away from an ice age something to worry about? Maybe! But no intelligent person knows for sure. Should we respond to other's feelings and wants and political demands? Not by law or through extortion. Dah!

Northwest Pacific Coast is Changing!

The title wave of connected dots is breathtaking. Every-day-weather is now part of a mosaic of anecdotal (unscientific) global warming proof. But weather changes all the time, you say. And I say the same. Weather does change every day. It's climate that averages and moderates the changes so that we can estimate long-term weather changes.

But what if we mix and match weather with climate, with observations, and with feelings? Some say that we will get true scientific results. But others say that mixing wine with beer and with vodka doesn't make it more precise, it makes it exactly the opposite.

Monday's (Jan 30) Seattle PI tells us that the Northwest Pacific coast is under dramatic change that will result in? Global death, due to global warming, silly!!!! It seems that ocean flows and subsequently fish movements are helping some birds feed better than ever and others to starve. We are told that this is all caused by man's need to drive a car or an SUV. And it's caused by slightly higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

So what does science say? It just nods and ahas it. In fact, there is little science on CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. And worse is that the little science is disputed. Some say that higher CO2 will increase atmospheric temperature while others say it will decrease it. And another faction says it will do nothing.



.

Ten Years or Else!!!

Today's Washington Post tells us that some now say we've got 10 years before it's too late. An article by Juliet Eilperin underscores that "the end of earth is now within sight." What's interesting is that the so called "tipping point" is now on the table. This means that events are now accelerating beyond man's ability to reverse them. And how will this happen?

Self absorbed climate researchers are now telling us that the "collapse of Greenland's ice sheet and that of Antarctica" will overwhelm the world, sinking Manhattan and south Florida. They say that events are now clearly underway that will assure that these ice sheets will melt. To Eilperin's credit, she includes real measurements that tell us that: "While both the Greenland and the Antarctic ice sheets as a whole are gaining some mass in their cold interiors because of increasing snowfall, they are losing ice along their peripheries." Say what? Both are gaining ice, but in the wrong places?

It gets better. "Stanford University climatologist Stephen H. Schneider, who is helping oversee a major international assessment of how climate change could expose humans and the environment to new vulnerabilities, said countries respond differently to the global warming issue in part because they are affected differently by it. The small island nation of Kiribati is made up of 33 small atolls, none of which is more than 6.5 feet above the South Pacific, and it is only a matter of time before the entire country is submerged by the rising sea."

Imagine an entire nation and culture now ending. So I checked on the Nation of Kiribati. It seems the government has asked Australia to allow its citizens to emigrate there because they charge that Australia is part of the CO2 pollution that is raising the sea level. But Pacific Magazine's Michael J. Field writes otherwise. "The problem, however is this: the Pacific Ocean has not risen in the last decade. The data does not support any sea-level rise at all says Wolfgang Scherer, the director of Australia's National Tidal Facility at Flinders University in Adelaide. The facility, funded by Australian aid, has over the last decade installed tide gauges across the Pacific, including one at Tuvalu's capital atoll, Funafuti. Results are 0.00 gain in sea level."

In fact, the only measure is that the "sea level is lowering." For me it's again fact over fiction. If it's so clear and apparent that the earth is at risk, where's the beef? Not at the Washington Post or in Greenland or Antarctica and especially not in Kiribati.