Fifty years and counting. That's what commercials from the Wind Industry are telling us. They say we have fifty years left until the end. Problem is they are conservative in their psychotic rants compared to "Sock-Puppet-Al" who is handled by far left wing atheists and mankind haters. Al says that we have about a decade "before it all tips."
So those of us that survived the duck and cover days of nuclear attacks now need to kiss our sweet ass good bye due to global warming that some say will increase by a degree or two over the next decade or three. Just to be smart about all this, I bought a couple Korean air conditioners at COSTCO. So I say: "Bring it On," I've got my back covered.
Truth is that there isn't a single thread of evidence that carbon dioxide causes warmth or cold. The same dildos that called for a huge global cooling only 30 years ago now call for a huge global warming. I'm a sun addict, so bring on the warming. I've never used more than a 5 rated sunscreen so maybe I should jack it up to 15 or so. Those more hysterical say we should start at 50.
Reality for me is that Martians are screeching at us about global warming and Demons from Hell are telling us about the solutions to their contrived earth ending dangers. The Martians are so-called scientists that believe that the earth has too many humans and that human activity causes all the earth's ills. They have zero-squat-Nada evidence but they feel and know they are right. The Demons are left wing radicals that hate humans but hate private enterprise and profit more. So we have the Martian haters along with the human and business haters combined to blow hot air into the Al-Gore-Sock-Puppet. Go Girl Al!
This week, Michael Griffin, NASA Administrator, told PBS that it's arrogant for some to demand they know what earth temperatures and CO2 content in the atmosphere are best of some or even all human beings and/or animals and/or plants. And then the tsunami of hate overwhelmed Griffin. In fact, James Hanson, Al Gore's handler, sock puppeteer, and another NASA scientist, mercilessly attacked Griffin by "epiphanizing" that millions would suffer from his ignorance.
Waaaaaa! Millions are dead or are suffering from Billybob Clinton's and Al Gore's and/or Jimmy Carter's ignorances and stupidities. But go figure!
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Neo-Slavers are Talking
These are heady times for neo-slavers that believe a new threshold of power to impose international secular progressive socialism is now within grasp. The "Old" world is embracing global warming because they feel that others use too much and have more than they need. Others? Yes the rabble. Remember the rabble that is unmanageable. The rabble that always demands more than they need. Oh, that rabble. Most every man, woman, and child in America, as well as the rest of the world.
The people are a liability to elitists. Just watch the neo-slaver's "Bible," called the "Matrix." Billybob, Hillarybob, and Al loved it. Because they identify with the "programmer" that has failed again and again to erase human beings because they display self determination and individual behavior. While mass murderers and tyrants and despots can get a half dozen years in a cable and spa filled prison, the people must be eradicated because they often think for themselves. If ever there is a reason for using weapons of mass destruction, the people are it.
Mark Thursday, May 3rd, 2007, on your calendar. It's the day a select group of secular progressive radicals will meet at the University of Washington to frame moral and ethical policies for the multi-trillion dollar global warming religion. The "Ethics and Climate Change" clambake tells us that: "it will focus on topics such as the ethical responsibilities of scientists, obligations to future generations, and the intersection between climate change, global justice and human rights." Global justice and human rights? That's neo-slaver speak for: some use more and have more than they need. So what to do? Robin Hood got it right, they say. Steal from those that have more and give it to those that have less. Global justice and human rights are served.
So what's the problem? Duh! This is a conference of secular socialist elitists tauting global warming to rule the world. Never has a single event in human development been more comprehensive and powerful to herd the rabble. The problem is that the majority of the world's people believe in individual rights and self determination. They believe in God and seek access to America's beacon of freedoms. The people want things they don't need, say the secular progressive neo-slavers. So lets just tell them what they need and provide about 60% of it so they don't get too uppity.
Seems elitists promote the mission statements of America's government institutions. Highways? If you build more, people just drive more. Fossil fuels? If we drill and produce more, the people just abuse energy by wasting it on things they don't need. Pharmaceuticals and medical care? If the people decide, they will demand care that they don't need. Housing? We must block construction and sprawl because people demand houses they don't need. No wonder the Matrix programmer laments that he continues to fail at eradicating the Matrix of human beings.
And so will the undemocratic chit-chatters at the University of Washington. They care not for diversity or democracy. They are on a mission to enslave, err to provide for mankind. Morally and ethicall, of course!!!!!
The people are a liability to elitists. Just watch the neo-slaver's "Bible," called the "Matrix." Billybob, Hillarybob, and Al loved it. Because they identify with the "programmer" that has failed again and again to erase human beings because they display self determination and individual behavior. While mass murderers and tyrants and despots can get a half dozen years in a cable and spa filled prison, the people must be eradicated because they often think for themselves. If ever there is a reason for using weapons of mass destruction, the people are it.
Mark Thursday, May 3rd, 2007, on your calendar. It's the day a select group of secular progressive radicals will meet at the University of Washington to frame moral and ethical policies for the multi-trillion dollar global warming religion. The "Ethics and Climate Change" clambake tells us that: "it will focus on topics such as the ethical responsibilities of scientists, obligations to future generations, and the intersection between climate change, global justice and human rights." Global justice and human rights? That's neo-slaver speak for: some use more and have more than they need. So what to do? Robin Hood got it right, they say. Steal from those that have more and give it to those that have less. Global justice and human rights are served.
So what's the problem? Duh! This is a conference of secular socialist elitists tauting global warming to rule the world. Never has a single event in human development been more comprehensive and powerful to herd the rabble. The problem is that the majority of the world's people believe in individual rights and self determination. They believe in God and seek access to America's beacon of freedoms. The people want things they don't need, say the secular progressive neo-slavers. So lets just tell them what they need and provide about 60% of it so they don't get too uppity.
Seems elitists promote the mission statements of America's government institutions. Highways? If you build more, people just drive more. Fossil fuels? If we drill and produce more, the people just abuse energy by wasting it on things they don't need. Pharmaceuticals and medical care? If the people decide, they will demand care that they don't need. Housing? We must block construction and sprawl because people demand houses they don't need. No wonder the Matrix programmer laments that he continues to fail at eradicating the Matrix of human beings.
And so will the undemocratic chit-chatters at the University of Washington. They care not for diversity or democracy. They are on a mission to enslave, err to provide for mankind. Morally and ethicall, of course!!!!!
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Conservation is a Conservative Value
It's no coincidence that conservative and conservation share a root word. Conservative values and ethics demand that all respect nature while sharing this planet with plants and animals alike. History tells us that most conservation is achieved by the private sector employing competitive means to improve efficiency and to reduce cost. Not so for liberals and their especially hysterical progressive co-conspirators. Secular socialists, greens, and communists twist and abuse environmental issues as hammers to impose their radical political agenda. This is the political agenda that was politically, economically, militarily, and morally defeated worldwide.
The problem for the moderate conservative is that radical eco-extorters are so extreme and dishonest that the knee-jerk reaction to this oppressive agenda is to oppose it. And that's how radicals can then label conservatives as anti-environment. Of course the media can take an encore because it's their misrepresentations and outright lies that keep the people believing that conservatives hate the environment, the average guy, the poor, and the needy. That's about as honest as sexual predator Billy Clinton wagging his finger about "that woman."
Conservation is now the major world topic. So conservative voices are again calling for conservative solutions to liberal hysteria. Why? Because if left unchecked, liberals will destroy the world. Newt Gingrich recently wrote in Human Events.com that: "The time has come to define a fundamentally different approach to a healthy environment and a healthy economy. The time has come for the development of Green Conservatism as an alternative to big bureaucracy and big litigation liberal environmentalism." Don't forget elitist subjugation, Newt!!!
Every conservative I know cares about the environment. None I know attempt to use the environment to oppress others. True conservatives feel that every day freedoms must be supported with a large variety of diverse choices that allow the individual to make moral, ethical, and values based behavior decisions. The fewer the choices, the smaller the diversity of decisions. So a one size fits all Marxist solution to complex environmental challenges is doomed to the same abject failure as Marxist politics. The people reject someone like Al Gore, a fat, lazy, intellectually challenged, and dishonest person, demanding that they walk so that he can ride on a jet. They reject the likes John Kerry and Barbra Streisand demanding that we reduce our "carbon footprint" so they can make "footprints"a thousand times larger than an average person.
Proof again is that energy efficiency has increased and greenhouse gas emissions have moderated more under President Bush than any world leader in any country of the world at any time of human history. Why? Because this president uses incentives and rewards for clean and efficient behavior while all others use oppressive laws and penalties and even the threat of criminal prosecution. Incentives and rewards in a competitive environment achieve results never achieved by coercion and threats. So, as with all other human and natural challenges, competition with incentives and rewards for successful improvements and increased eficiencies is the only way to balance man's needs with nature's ability to support them. That's the conservative way and it's the only way to real conservation.
Only Judeo-Christian ideals of personal responsibility and self determination can build a healthy economy supported by a healthy planet. Tell me about one elitist liberal that can improve on this 2,000 plus years old concept?
The problem for the moderate conservative is that radical eco-extorters are so extreme and dishonest that the knee-jerk reaction to this oppressive agenda is to oppose it. And that's how radicals can then label conservatives as anti-environment. Of course the media can take an encore because it's their misrepresentations and outright lies that keep the people believing that conservatives hate the environment, the average guy, the poor, and the needy. That's about as honest as sexual predator Billy Clinton wagging his finger about "that woman."
Conservation is now the major world topic. So conservative voices are again calling for conservative solutions to liberal hysteria. Why? Because if left unchecked, liberals will destroy the world. Newt Gingrich recently wrote in Human Events.com that: "The time has come to define a fundamentally different approach to a healthy environment and a healthy economy. The time has come for the development of Green Conservatism as an alternative to big bureaucracy and big litigation liberal environmentalism." Don't forget elitist subjugation, Newt!!!
Every conservative I know cares about the environment. None I know attempt to use the environment to oppress others. True conservatives feel that every day freedoms must be supported with a large variety of diverse choices that allow the individual to make moral, ethical, and values based behavior decisions. The fewer the choices, the smaller the diversity of decisions. So a one size fits all Marxist solution to complex environmental challenges is doomed to the same abject failure as Marxist politics. The people reject someone like Al Gore, a fat, lazy, intellectually challenged, and dishonest person, demanding that they walk so that he can ride on a jet. They reject the likes John Kerry and Barbra Streisand demanding that we reduce our "carbon footprint" so they can make "footprints"a thousand times larger than an average person.
Proof again is that energy efficiency has increased and greenhouse gas emissions have moderated more under President Bush than any world leader in any country of the world at any time of human history. Why? Because this president uses incentives and rewards for clean and efficient behavior while all others use oppressive laws and penalties and even the threat of criminal prosecution. Incentives and rewards in a competitive environment achieve results never achieved by coercion and threats. So, as with all other human and natural challenges, competition with incentives and rewards for successful improvements and increased eficiencies is the only way to balance man's needs with nature's ability to support them. That's the conservative way and it's the only way to real conservation.
Only Judeo-Christian ideals of personal responsibility and self determination can build a healthy economy supported by a healthy planet. Tell me about one elitist liberal that can improve on this 2,000 plus years old concept?
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Psychosis On Display
A treasure trove of Supreme Court opinions shines the stark light of day on elitist secular progressive thinking and acting. First example is liberal thinking when the constitution or legal precedents don't support their feelings? Not to worry, use other's values and morals to guide and justify creating (unconsitutional) judicial laws. In the infamous Roper vs. Simmons, The liberal Supremes told us that Europeans don't execute the under-aged (they of course don't execute the over-aged either) and that American "public opinion" now favors ending this form of capital punishment. The implication is that Europe is modern and US citizens are at last catching up.
The problem with this opinion isn't just that it relies on European sentiments and unnamed US public opinion polls, it also is disconnected from European and world behavior. The French kill children indiscriminately when it's convenient or even reasonable. They recently shot over a dozen children during a "peaceful" march in the Ivory Coast that murdered over 150. Why? Several French colonialist felt endangered even though the Ivory Coast is an independent UN recognized member country. Worse, the French abuse Muslims living in France without due process and even debate whether rioting Muslim children should be shot on sight or hanged for terrorism only after due process. Now this is European justice!
Worse is the Mass. vs EPA regal ruling. Here the far left progressives decided that American process doesn't count when it's a pet project of the lefties they worship. The Bush administration argued that the EPA can't control C02, carbon dioxide, which is the building block of life and is the most critical food of plants and is the only way oxygen is created, because it's not proven to be a pollutant.
Not to worry, say the blathering bumblers! Let's just use the new product process where a new product must be proven safe before it can be introduced to the market place. So without a wink and a sigh, the lesser Supremes said that the EPA: "must regulate C02 unless it proves that it isn't a pollutant."
Better than the infamous EPA ruling is the most recent Left Wing Tripe Award Winner, in Gonzales v. Carhart, the loosing Supremes didn't find that partial birth abortion is needed or even legal, they just said that: "restricting this particular procedure is a purely political slippery slope" to further restrictions to legal abortion. Breathtaking law analysis. True progressive thought!!! Imagine that four political extremists actually answered honestly that their legal opinion is based on political feelings and far left paranoid sentiments, not the law or the constitution!!!!!! Even Europe, often the Garden of Eden for lefties, regulates every abortion procedure with both the mother and the baby receiving respect. But what do they know? Ask Johnny Kerry, who is America's resident Frenchie!
Further court psychosis is represented in a recent Washington State Supreme Court ruling. In "Everybody gay vs. Washington," the court stammered and fumbled but finally said that legislatures have a right to regulate most everything, including marriage. While court members cringed, they had to say that the people's representatives can legislate and regulate. Seems to me that these lefties were hounded by the act that Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMA) and resolutions and referendum ARE the cornerstone of democracy, especially when DOMAs all over the country have received in direct voting over 70% super majority support by the people. Yet the extremists attempted to encourage other means of overturning Washington's DOMA.
The problem with this opinion isn't just that it relies on European sentiments and unnamed US public opinion polls, it also is disconnected from European and world behavior. The French kill children indiscriminately when it's convenient or even reasonable. They recently shot over a dozen children during a "peaceful" march in the Ivory Coast that murdered over 150. Why? Several French colonialist felt endangered even though the Ivory Coast is an independent UN recognized member country. Worse, the French abuse Muslims living in France without due process and even debate whether rioting Muslim children should be shot on sight or hanged for terrorism only after due process. Now this is European justice!
Worse is the Mass. vs EPA regal ruling. Here the far left progressives decided that American process doesn't count when it's a pet project of the lefties they worship. The Bush administration argued that the EPA can't control C02, carbon dioxide, which is the building block of life and is the most critical food of plants and is the only way oxygen is created, because it's not proven to be a pollutant.
Not to worry, say the blathering bumblers! Let's just use the new product process where a new product must be proven safe before it can be introduced to the market place. So without a wink and a sigh, the lesser Supremes said that the EPA: "must regulate C02 unless it proves that it isn't a pollutant."
Better than the infamous EPA ruling is the most recent Left Wing Tripe Award Winner, in Gonzales v. Carhart, the loosing Supremes didn't find that partial birth abortion is needed or even legal, they just said that: "restricting this particular procedure is a purely political slippery slope" to further restrictions to legal abortion. Breathtaking law analysis. True progressive thought!!! Imagine that four political extremists actually answered honestly that their legal opinion is based on political feelings and far left paranoid sentiments, not the law or the constitution!!!!!! Even Europe, often the Garden of Eden for lefties, regulates every abortion procedure with both the mother and the baby receiving respect. But what do they know? Ask Johnny Kerry, who is America's resident Frenchie!
Further court psychosis is represented in a recent Washington State Supreme Court ruling. In "Everybody gay vs. Washington," the court stammered and fumbled but finally said that legislatures have a right to regulate most everything, including marriage. While court members cringed, they had to say that the people's representatives can legislate and regulate. Seems to me that these lefties were hounded by the act that Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMA) and resolutions and referendum ARE the cornerstone of democracy, especially when DOMAs all over the country have received in direct voting over 70% super majority support by the people. Yet the extremists attempted to encourage other means of overturning Washington's DOMA.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Blah, Blah, Blah!!
One wonderful example of the global warming religion's propaganda is the "anecdotal docu-drama." This story line is used to gain "political consensus" where no scientific evidence supports climate alarmists. The NY Times prints one of these on April 11th. It's headlined: "Seas Rise causes...." This meandering story is written by By Somini Sengupta, an Indian journalist.
Sengupta talks with residents of the Ganges River Delta as the river meets with the volatile Bay of Bengal of the Indian Ocean. This delta is one of the world's most dynamic environments with regular typhoons and floods and the world's most extreme Monsoon climate. We've all learned a little about the Mississippi Delta on which New Orleans is built and where New Orleans unrelentingly sinks into the marsh. Deltas are dynamic by definition. They flood and islands grow and break apart with predictability. Science tells us that there is no delta more in motion than the Ganges River Delta.
So what does global warming disciple Sengupta tell us? That the islands of the outer Ganges River Delta are exposed to tides, typhoons, and river flooding every year. Duh! This might be a question for "Are You Smarter Than A Third Grader" on FOX. But among the global warming followers, truth and science are but facts that others use to try to discredit their God.
The Big Lie of this article is that while the headline says "Rising Sea," there is not a single article mention of a rising sea level. Why? Because there is not a single scientific fact that supports the assertion that the Bay of Bengal's mean sea level is rising. In fact, some say that the sea is actually a little lower today than 100 years ago. But then actual sea level isn't important in this article. It's the feeling and the perception of a stronger and more volatile sea that is important and that this is caused by man-made pollution. Propaganda like this still underscores a Newt Gingrich quote from 1994 after American voters swept corrupt Democrats out of the House and Senate: "We will no longer legislate feel good and happiness and self worth." Worse is that we may now be legislating " global warming religious consensus."
Sengupta talks with residents of the Ganges River Delta as the river meets with the volatile Bay of Bengal of the Indian Ocean. This delta is one of the world's most dynamic environments with regular typhoons and floods and the world's most extreme Monsoon climate. We've all learned a little about the Mississippi Delta on which New Orleans is built and where New Orleans unrelentingly sinks into the marsh. Deltas are dynamic by definition. They flood and islands grow and break apart with predictability. Science tells us that there is no delta more in motion than the Ganges River Delta.
So what does global warming disciple Sengupta tell us? That the islands of the outer Ganges River Delta are exposed to tides, typhoons, and river flooding every year. Duh! This might be a question for "Are You Smarter Than A Third Grader" on FOX. But among the global warming followers, truth and science are but facts that others use to try to discredit their God.
The Big Lie of this article is that while the headline says "Rising Sea," there is not a single article mention of a rising sea level. Why? Because there is not a single scientific fact that supports the assertion that the Bay of Bengal's mean sea level is rising. In fact, some say that the sea is actually a little lower today than 100 years ago. But then actual sea level isn't important in this article. It's the feeling and the perception of a stronger and more volatile sea that is important and that this is caused by man-made pollution. Propaganda like this still underscores a Newt Gingrich quote from 1994 after American voters swept corrupt Democrats out of the House and Senate: "We will no longer legislate feel good and happiness and self worth." Worse is that we may now be legislating " global warming religious consensus."
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Silence is Deafening!
Global warming religion's silence since this week's US Supremes fractured finding in Mass vs. EPA is deafening. Seems to me that some are digesting this finding's ultra-progressive left wing view, while others wonder if this position is short-lived because it's not based on law or on common sense. In fact the imperial Supremes, four individuals that care not for the constitution or the people, have again decided they can do as they feel because "they can." This is the European judicial view that has crept into our Supremes over the past 50 years time.
A recent similar crowing glory came in Roper vs. Simmons, where the same loony suspects decided that underage executions are unconstitutional. Why? Because they said with a straight face that European laws and public sentiment demanded it. They didn't base that finding on a single law or even on the US Constitution. They just said it's time to move on. They also ignored the fact that states regulate minor age executions more than any other criminal punishment. They ignore that the feds have no right to tell a state how to punish a criminal unless the punishment is cleary unconstitutional.
These Supremes are no less criminal in their views than earth's most desperate despots and tyrants. There are few greater single dangers to America than four make-believe tinpot jurists feeling they are above the law. If ever a group needs to be dragged into the pubic square to be exposed for their fraudulent and abusive behavior, these are the ones. Elitist Justice John Paul Stevens will take his place among the court's most illustrious double talkers. A place of Supreme Court infamy that counts racists, America haters, KKK members, communist worshipers, and power abusers among its membership. Worst is they are the foundation for future oppressions that will evolve America from a land of hope and opportunity to a racist, anti-capitalism, and atheist wasteland of John Kerryeske and Billybob/Hillarybob Clintonian liars and cheats oppressing the people.
A recent similar crowing glory came in Roper vs. Simmons, where the same loony suspects decided that underage executions are unconstitutional. Why? Because they said with a straight face that European laws and public sentiment demanded it. They didn't base that finding on a single law or even on the US Constitution. They just said it's time to move on. They also ignored the fact that states regulate minor age executions more than any other criminal punishment. They ignore that the feds have no right to tell a state how to punish a criminal unless the punishment is cleary unconstitutional.
These Supremes are no less criminal in their views than earth's most desperate despots and tyrants. There are few greater single dangers to America than four make-believe tinpot jurists feeling they are above the law. If ever a group needs to be dragged into the pubic square to be exposed for their fraudulent and abusive behavior, these are the ones. Elitist Justice John Paul Stevens will take his place among the court's most illustrious double talkers. A place of Supreme Court infamy that counts racists, America haters, KKK members, communist worshipers, and power abusers among its membership. Worst is they are the foundation for future oppressions that will evolve America from a land of hope and opportunity to a racist, anti-capitalism, and atheist wasteland of John Kerryeske and Billybob/Hillarybob Clintonian liars and cheats oppressing the people.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Al Speaks or is it Wags His Finger?
Big Al Gore came to the "Hill" and the Hill embraced his words, except for a couple Republicans that pointed to Al's less-than-scientific and overly "shrill," in his words, message. Al, according to the N Y Times article "Warned Congress of Planetary Emergency." That's more danger and worse results than thermonuclear war, Al says. Yet when it came to details, Al skated better than Oregon's Tonya Harding. And like Tanya, Al's supporters used a club on the knees of anyone asking Al for answers to Al's claims and personal behavior.
Envirowars' award for plain speaking goes to Senator Inhofe (R) Oklahoma. Inhofe is on record questioning global warming and its secular socialist religious zealots, including Big Al.
Inhofe asked Al to justify his connecting 2005 hurricanes to global warming when hurricane experts say otherwise? Al (Tonya Harding) Gore skated with flair.
Inhofe asked Big Al to explain why the worst case scenario by the UN estimates a sea level increase of 12-17 inches in this century while he scares elementary school children and lectures the rest of us that it's at least 20 feet? Al rolled his eyes and grinned while not answering.
Inhofe asked Al since mankind's existence is on the line, why he hasn't adhered to the eco-demands he makes on the rest of us? Al could have pulled out a tutu while he spun a tale of non-denial denial. When asked to pledge that he would adhere to his eco-demands to prove to the world and little children that he really believes what he says, Al declined.
Inhofe then asked Al to explain America's estimated cost of $300 billion plus and about 4% of productivity per year to get started. Even the UN says that if all Kyoto Protocols are adopted worldwide, at a cost of trillions, the result will be a change of 7/100th of one degree Celsius in the world's temperature.
Al Gore and BillyBob Clinton left a shambles of the world and our economy as pardons were sold on their last days in power. So why would any reasonable and rational person believe that Al could identify a real problem and worse, suggest an adult solution? Al's skating on the Hill seems to answer that question in spades.
Envirowars' award for plain speaking goes to Senator Inhofe (R) Oklahoma. Inhofe is on record questioning global warming and its secular socialist religious zealots, including Big Al.
Inhofe asked Al to justify his connecting 2005 hurricanes to global warming when hurricane experts say otherwise? Al (Tonya Harding) Gore skated with flair.
Inhofe asked Big Al to explain why the worst case scenario by the UN estimates a sea level increase of 12-17 inches in this century while he scares elementary school children and lectures the rest of us that it's at least 20 feet? Al rolled his eyes and grinned while not answering.
Inhofe asked Al since mankind's existence is on the line, why he hasn't adhered to the eco-demands he makes on the rest of us? Al could have pulled out a tutu while he spun a tale of non-denial denial. When asked to pledge that he would adhere to his eco-demands to prove to the world and little children that he really believes what he says, Al declined.
Inhofe then asked Al to explain America's estimated cost of $300 billion plus and about 4% of productivity per year to get started. Even the UN says that if all Kyoto Protocols are adopted worldwide, at a cost of trillions, the result will be a change of 7/100th of one degree Celsius in the world's temperature.
Al Gore and BillyBob Clinton left a shambles of the world and our economy as pardons were sold on their last days in power. So why would any reasonable and rational person believe that Al could identify a real problem and worse, suggest an adult solution? Al's skating on the Hill seems to answer that question in spades.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Is it the Message or is it the Truth?
Seems that science is rearing it's ugly head. This is the science we are told works by peer review that develops hard emotionless consensus. The science of facts and the science of reality. Then along comes Al. He's quoted today in a NY Times puff piece saying that "after 30 years of trying to communicate the dangers of global warming, “I think that I’m finally getting a little better at it.” A little better?
One of Al's biggest supporters is James E. Hansen, an environmental scientist, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. This is the very James E. Hansen that accused the Bush administration of restricting his global warming warnings. Yet truth is Mr. Hansen is a far left wing political activist that uses his position at NASA to promote his political views through Al Gore. Hanson says: "Al does an exceptionally good job of seeing the forest for the trees,” adding that Mr. Gore often did so “better than scientists.”
Truth is that credible scientists dispute every facet of Al's global warming hysteria. While the NY Times fronts their article with support for Al, they do still grit their teeth to ignore why Al flunked out of Harvard before earning a degree in religion. Seems to me that this surely prepared Al for his big government secular socialist religion's global warming program. And reading Al defenders surely seems that they too believe that this "Pope of global warming" is infallible. The Times agrees when they say: "Some backers concede minor inaccuracies (in Al's "Inconvenient Truth") but see them as reasonable for a politician. "
The biggest lie is of course about today's temperatures. Most Americans believe that our temperatures are the highest ever for planet earth. Truth is that temperatures are the highest since 1600 or so. Then the earth went into a mini-ice-age from which we are just now fully recovering. Al's patent dishonesty flies in the face of scientific facts.
“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog.
“Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.” Worse is that "in October, Dr. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, made similar points at a geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change."
"Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”
Truth is that secular socialists believe that mankind consumes too much and has too many choices and freedoms. This political movement began with the Bolsheviks and morphed into Fascists and today's secular socialists. Problem is that this minimalist political movement has been politically, democratically, economically, and militarily discredited. Today these same radical anti-human extremists have wrapped all of what they see is evil about personal freedoms and choices into eco-abuses which are so easily solved by global-warming-bullied solutions.
What gives me a bad feeling in the pit of my stomach is that the educated are so gullible. That so few have the intellectual curiosity to ask the tough questions. Maybe this is a values and morality issue after all. How can a group that feels racism can cure past racism; oppression solves problems; lying to promote good is OK; and bullying and oppressing those that have different opinions is fair and just; be trusted to vote and get elected and work in the government? They can't, Period!
One of Al's biggest supporters is James E. Hansen, an environmental scientist, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. This is the very James E. Hansen that accused the Bush administration of restricting his global warming warnings. Yet truth is Mr. Hansen is a far left wing political activist that uses his position at NASA to promote his political views through Al Gore. Hanson says: "Al does an exceptionally good job of seeing the forest for the trees,” adding that Mr. Gore often did so “better than scientists.”
Truth is that credible scientists dispute every facet of Al's global warming hysteria. While the NY Times fronts their article with support for Al, they do still grit their teeth to ignore why Al flunked out of Harvard before earning a degree in religion. Seems to me that this surely prepared Al for his big government secular socialist religion's global warming program. And reading Al defenders surely seems that they too believe that this "Pope of global warming" is infallible. The Times agrees when they say: "Some backers concede minor inaccuracies (in Al's "Inconvenient Truth") but see them as reasonable for a politician. "
The biggest lie is of course about today's temperatures. Most Americans believe that our temperatures are the highest ever for planet earth. Truth is that temperatures are the highest since 1600 or so. Then the earth went into a mini-ice-age from which we are just now fully recovering. Al's patent dishonesty flies in the face of scientific facts.
“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog.
“Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.” Worse is that "in October, Dr. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, made similar points at a geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change."
"Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”
Truth is that secular socialists believe that mankind consumes too much and has too many choices and freedoms. This political movement began with the Bolsheviks and morphed into Fascists and today's secular socialists. Problem is that this minimalist political movement has been politically, democratically, economically, and militarily discredited. Today these same radical anti-human extremists have wrapped all of what they see is evil about personal freedoms and choices into eco-abuses which are so easily solved by global-warming-bullied solutions.
What gives me a bad feeling in the pit of my stomach is that the educated are so gullible. That so few have the intellectual curiosity to ask the tough questions. Maybe this is a values and morality issue after all. How can a group that feels racism can cure past racism; oppression solves problems; lying to promote good is OK; and bullying and oppressing those that have different opinions is fair and just; be trusted to vote and get elected and work in the government? They can't, Period!
Monday, February 26, 2007
Al "Earns" the Oscar for Docu-drama.
We can all rest this morning because Hollywood "dun da right tang" last night by shoveling the Documentary Feature Oscar to Al Gore over films that exposed world torture, abuses, self help successes, and other relevant topics. Thanks Al, for failing at everything in your life so that you can lead the world into the 19th century. Maybe we should call Al the the "First Amish President."
This brings to mind a Seattle Times enviro-story about Phillip Mote, a University of Washington climate wonk. The article says:
"Mote gives Gore's presentation, featured in the hit movie "An Inconvenient Truth," an A-minus on the science. He marks Gore down for claiming that global warming is behind shrinking snows on Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa, for example, and for saying that changes in ocean currents could throw Europe into deep freeze.
But when he met Gore at a dinner in Seattle, Mote balked at telling Gore he disagreed with him. "It was just too intimidating for a nonconfrontational person like me," Mote said.
Say What? It's too intimidating to point out that Gore's docu-drama is based on zero science? That's it's based only on communist/socialist elitist thinking? It's too intimidating to point out to Gore that he needs to once in his life do the right thing?
.
This brings to mind a Seattle Times enviro-story about Phillip Mote, a University of Washington climate wonk. The article says:
"Mote gives Gore's presentation, featured in the hit movie "An Inconvenient Truth," an A-minus on the science. He marks Gore down for claiming that global warming is behind shrinking snows on Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa, for example, and for saying that changes in ocean currents could throw Europe into deep freeze.
But when he met Gore at a dinner in Seattle, Mote balked at telling Gore he disagreed with him. "It was just too intimidating for a nonconfrontational person like me," Mote said.
Say What? It's too intimidating to point out that Gore's docu-drama is based on zero science? That's it's based only on communist/socialist elitist thinking? It's too intimidating to point out to Gore that he needs to once in his life do the right thing?
.
Friday, February 09, 2007
Don't Ask and Don't Tell!
The pressure is off now that so-called scientists have crept to the 90% certainty threshold for man caused global warming. I can feel the warming air and see the clouds parting to shine the light of socialist propaganda on each and every American child, woman, and girlyman. Some bathe in this light because it gives them oppressive powers over others. And that's still what it's all about.
Today's Washington Post shines with an offer by Richard Branson to pay $25 million for discovery of a minimum tonnage method to cleanse the atmosphere of carbon dioxide. Branson shines standing next to Al, Bella-lugosi-the-Eco-vampire, Gore. Yes, the Al Gore that flunked out of government classes at Harvard, twice. Yes, the Al Gore that then sought a degree in religion because he couldn't pass any other class load. And yes, the Al Gore that once demanded a constitutional amendment in support of human creation at conception and now marches in parades celebrating the 10th million late third-term-abortion in the USA.
Better is that Al is slated for the Docu-drama Oscar and it's now said that the Swede's are talking about giving Al the Nobel Peace Prize much as last year's award to Jimmy, the communist and Jihadist, Carter. They gave it to Carter to teach President Bush a lesson about war and peace. And now they want to teach President Bush about climate change. Maybe we should rename Nobel's once relevant Peace Prize "The Political Attack Award." After all, these same dipwads gave Arafat, one of the world's most noted mass murderers, the very same award. There is poetic justice having Arafat, Carter, and Al, standing side by side. We then only need Fidel and Steven Spielberg to join this gang of intellects.
Today's Washington Post shines with an offer by Richard Branson to pay $25 million for discovery of a minimum tonnage method to cleanse the atmosphere of carbon dioxide. Branson shines standing next to Al, Bella-lugosi-the-Eco-vampire, Gore. Yes, the Al Gore that flunked out of government classes at Harvard, twice. Yes, the Al Gore that then sought a degree in religion because he couldn't pass any other class load. And yes, the Al Gore that once demanded a constitutional amendment in support of human creation at conception and now marches in parades celebrating the 10th million late third-term-abortion in the USA.
Better is that Al is slated for the Docu-drama Oscar and it's now said that the Swede's are talking about giving Al the Nobel Peace Prize much as last year's award to Jimmy, the communist and Jihadist, Carter. They gave it to Carter to teach President Bush a lesson about war and peace. And now they want to teach President Bush about climate change. Maybe we should rename Nobel's once relevant Peace Prize "The Political Attack Award." After all, these same dipwads gave Arafat, one of the world's most noted mass murderers, the very same award. There is poetic justice having Arafat, Carter, and Al, standing side by side. We then only need Fidel and Steven Spielberg to join this gang of intellects.
Monday, February 05, 2007
Pass the Drugs, Dude!
Seems that the United Nations operates at the speed of the world's slowest melting glacier except when Israel and the United States are being attacked. It took 10 years to hold Saddam accountable even though the UN then reversed itself. It's taken more than a dozen yeas to hold North Korea accountable or almost as long to discuss stopping Iran's nuclear ambitions. There were the million dead in Rwanda while France fiddled with Clinton to stop intervention. Israelis die without a whimper from the UN but when a Palestinian is killed in retaliation for mass murder, the UN jumps to attack the innocent victims.
And so it's with the United States. Socialism and communism have gone the way of Dodo, but not at the UN. There the fight against America's successes and economic power is just getting ramped up. We're told that February 2nd, 2007, will be the date that will signal the beginning of a new world order and the end of America. This is the date that the world, aka UN, decided that America is the world's greatest villain because of our economy. In fact, 1,700 communists and socialists claim that we are killing the planet because we drive too many cars and watch too many flat panels.
The Washington Post's editorial today tells us that President Bush can no longer stand in the way of a world movement to save our planet.
Problem with this opinion is that President Bush has since 2001 reduced US emissions by all measures including tonnage, percentage, and efficiency more than any other administration or country.
Problem for the politicals is that our economy is solving emissions while government controls elsewhere are not.
Problem is, and that's why the UN is now hysterical about climate change, that the US economy adds another trillion dollars every two years or less.
While Kyoto might have stopped the US consumer society, today's political so called scientists know that each new trillion in economic output makes it much less likely that socialism and communism can be resurrected. As with Christianity, communists and socialists dream of their own religious resurrection. In fact, without a resurrection, they are "dead children walking."
.
And so it's with the United States. Socialism and communism have gone the way of Dodo, but not at the UN. There the fight against America's successes and economic power is just getting ramped up. We're told that February 2nd, 2007, will be the date that will signal the beginning of a new world order and the end of America. This is the date that the world, aka UN, decided that America is the world's greatest villain because of our economy. In fact, 1,700 communists and socialists claim that we are killing the planet because we drive too many cars and watch too many flat panels.
The Washington Post's editorial today tells us that President Bush can no longer stand in the way of a world movement to save our planet.
Problem with this opinion is that President Bush has since 2001 reduced US emissions by all measures including tonnage, percentage, and efficiency more than any other administration or country.
Problem for the politicals is that our economy is solving emissions while government controls elsewhere are not.
Problem is, and that's why the UN is now hysterical about climate change, that the US economy adds another trillion dollars every two years or less.
While Kyoto might have stopped the US consumer society, today's political so called scientists know that each new trillion in economic output makes it much less likely that socialism and communism can be resurrected. As with Christianity, communists and socialists dream of their own religious resurrection. In fact, without a resurrection, they are "dead children walking."
.
Friday, November 03, 2006
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.
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.
Friday, October 27, 2006
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..
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..
Thursday, October 19, 2006
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.
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.
Monday, October 16, 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.
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.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
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."
.
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."
.
Saturday, October 14, 2006
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 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.
.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
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.
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.
Monday, October 09, 2006
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.
.
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.
.
Sunday, October 08, 2006
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)