Pope Barack Forecasts Bad Days Ahead

We've heard all this doom and gloom before!

An estimated 75,000 gathered on the banks of the Willamette River in Portland on Sunday to see and hear the words of their new messiah.

Instead of feeding the assembled mass as the real the Messiah did with loaves and fishes, this false prophet predicted bad days ahead:

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times."

It was a sentiment that reminds some of a Democrat President who said:

The "Malaise Speech"
President Jimmy Carter
July 15, 1979
transcript, audio

...In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we've discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. We've learned that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives which have no confidence or purpose.

The symptoms of this crisis of the American spirit are all around us. For the first time in the history of our country a majority of our people believe that the next 5 years will be worse than the past 5 years.

Yes, get used to having less... it will be good for you. President Reagan came along shortly afterward and showed that to be another of the great lies of the left.

Oh, and here's another nugget from Carter's speech:

Point one: I am tonight setting a clear goal for the energy policy of the United States. Beginning this moment, this Nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977 -- never. From now on, every new addition to our demand for energy will be met from our own production and our own conservation. The generation-long growth in our dependence on foreign oil will be stopped dead in its tracks right now and then reversed as we move through the 1980's, for I am tonight setting the further goal of cutting our dependence on foreign oil by one-half by the end of the next decade -- a saving of over 4 1/2 million barrels of imported oil per day.

Yes, and we all know how that worked out don't we? We currently import more than three times the amount of crude oil that we produce and it's all thanks to Democrats.

The last thing this country needs is another dose of doom and gloom politics in the form of another Carter Administration. Those of us with long memories remember what a mess that was and we are still dealing with the consequences of Carter and the left's monumental stupidity in places like Iran which went from being America's ally to the seed of today's current worldwide terrorism, murder and horror.

We don't need another Carter!

One Reason to Vote FOR McCain

And not just a dangerously inexperienced, whining Obama!

Bush Speaks Truth of Appeasement in Israel

And Democrats are outraged!

You can usually tell when President Bush hits the bullseye of truth. Democrats erupt into childish fits. They don't like it when the President points out how little they have learned from the lessons of history and how dangerously misguided liberal policies are.

When President Bush told the Israeli Knesset "Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Obama and friends went into attack mode.

Obama made a statement stressing the need for tough diplomacy (talk). Nancy Pelosi (whose visit to Syria a year ago encouraged the current killings by Hezbollah in Lebanon) said that President Bush's remarks were "beneath the dignity of the office." This is the same woman whose sense of dignity permits Code Pink circus freaks to run wild through the halls of Congress.
Senator Joe Biden (D-DE), demonstrating the dignity of his office called President Bush's remarks "bullshit."

Here are President Bush's remarks in context:

Excerpt from:
President Bush Addresses Members of the Knesset
The Knesset
Jerusalem
White House transcript
May 15, 2008

...The fight against terror and extremism is the defining challenge of our time. It is more than a clash of arms. It is a clash of visions, a great ideological struggle. On the one side are those who defend the ideals of justice and dignity with the power of reason and truth. On the other side are those who pursue a narrow vision of cruelty and control by committing murder, inciting fear, and spreading lies.

This struggle is waged with the technology of the 21st century, but at its core it is an ancient battle between good and evil. The killers claim the mantle of Islam, but they are not religious men. No one who prays to the God of Abraham could strap a suicide vest to an innocent child, or blow up guiltless guests at a Passover Seder, or fly planes into office buildings filled with unsuspecting workers. In truth, the men who carry out these savage acts serve no higher goal than their own desire for power. They accept no God before themselves. And they reserve a special hatred for the most ardent defenders of liberty, including Americans and Israelis.

And that is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the "elimination" of Israel. And that is why the followers of Hezbollah chant "Death to Israel, Death to America!" That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that "the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties." And that is why the President of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map.

There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history. (Applause.)

We don't need to go back to the Second World War to find that appeasement fails. The Middle East is littered with examples. Obama criticized Bush, while praising President Reagan's "tough, principled, and direct diplomacy - to pressure countries like Iran and Syria." I'm currently reading former Reagan Secretary of State George Shultz's memoir "Turmoil and Triumph" (it's only 68 cents at Amazon, even Democrats bitter over their economic circumstances can afford it). Again and again Secretary Shultz describes how progress in the Middle East was undermined by attitudes of appeasement and weakness expressed by the usual withdrawal and surrender crowd in the United States.

Shultz makes it clear that our failure in the Middle East resulted from a policy that perverted Teddy Roosevelt's "speak softly and carry a big stick" to "speak softly and tie the big stick behind your back."

Currently in Lebanon, Hezbollah is running rampant at the direction of and with funding, training and arms supplied by Syria and Iran. You might not have heard about the conflict with many many innocents killed because the media which focused almost exclusively on Hezbollah casualties when Israel defended itself two years ago isn't interested when Hezbollah is killing Lebanese.

Since Israel pulled out of Lebanon after being attacked, the United Nations was supposed to step in and address the danger of armed Hezbollah militias. Yet, nothing was done. Nothing but talk. Nothing but appeasement.

Clearly, President Bush's speech in Israel has the ring of truth. We've all seen it with our own eyes for decades. To borrow a Reagansim: Peace does not come without strength and the will to use it. There is no question that Democrats do not understand the benefits of a strong military with the will to use it to advance the cause of peace. The consequence of their appeasement is the very death and war they claim to wish to prevent.

What Will Hillary Do for REVENGE?

Come on! Click this video. You'll be glad you did!

The video is not so far fetched. Bill Clinton DID lose the launch codes, the day the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke! Does Hillary have them?

Obama: Holier than Thou?

If a Republican put this out there would be HELL to pay!

It's one thing when Barack Hussein Obama pulls a flag pin out of his pocket when it's convenient. Now, he's going to use the church backdrop from his March 2008 visit to Selma, Alabama for campaign literature in the Kentucky primary?

All I can say is that it takes some nerve. Since most Obama's most ardent disciples are among the first to screech "separation of church and state" should ANY GOP leader even mention God in a sentence.

It just goes to show you that there is only one liberal value: the pursuit of power. All else is just window dressing.

Full size image of the entire campaign flyer here.

Obama Another Carter?

What do you get when you combine false hopes and inexperience? Jimmy Carter and DISASTER!

Jimmy Carter’s Second Term
By Jeffrey Lord
American Spectator
5/13/2008

You have to admit it takes guts. Audacity, even.

Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive nominee of the Democrats, has in essence just defeated the heiress of the Clinton era by campaigning as the heir-apparent of the Carter era.

The question for the rest of the year is this: Are there enough voting Americans who survived the disastrous odyssey through the late 1970s that was led by blessedly now ex-president Jimmy Carter? While Ronald Reagan is rated in poll after poll by Americans as a great president, (most recently he rated second only to Lincoln), are there enough people who recall that Reagan's election came about because of Carter's...ahhh..."performance" in the Oval Office? And will they be able to make the Obama-Carter connection for younger voters hearing terms like "windfall profits tax" for the first time? More to the point, can Senator John McCain do this?

The greatest charade of the year thus far is the idea that something "new" is being said in this campaign. By anybody. To be bluntly accurate, the only thing new is that one of the final two candidates is black.
...
Since the 1788 election that produced (unopposed) George Washington as the first president, the agenda for presidential elections has been narrowed to one underlying issue: the role of government. Understood in that fashion, the following 220 years of American history can be read as if with Superman's X-ray vision.
...
So too is it more than safe to say that America has seen every kind of candidate there is to be had in these 55 elections. Only the packaging is different in number 56, a truism of every previous election. Black this time for Obama, female for Hillary, there was Catholic for JFK. Short for Martin Van Buren, tall, skinny and hot tempered for Andrew Jackson. A failed haberdasher in Truman, a glossy movie actor in Reagan, a joke-cracking railroad lawyer in Lincoln and a school teacher in LBJ. A peanut farmer with Carter. Yet what each was saying both as candidate and president fell along one side or the other of the role of government argument.
...
And as the string of American presidents and presidential campaigns gets longer, the newest candidates and the latest president have taken to looking backwards to select the presidential policies of admired predecessors

Which makes the audacity of the Obama campaign more than amusing -- and amazing -- to watch. Consciously or not, Obama has selected the philosophical template of the Carter administration, from defunding the military, fighting the "special interests" down to imposing the windfall profits tax on the rich. Well, as Justice Clarence Thomas might say: whoop-dee-damn-do! This is precisely the philosophy of Jimmy Carter, although Carter had the good sense not to campaign as the pacifist he really is in 1976, waiting until the moment his hand came off the bible for that.

IS IT POSSIBLE that America really wants to return to those depressing days of gas lines and leisure suits? Of malaise and shock over the aggressiveness of America's enemies? The days when the policies Obama is advocating raised unemployment rates, interest rates and inflation rates into the double digits? When America's enemies looked the President of the United States in the eye -- and found he really wanted to kiss them on the cheek?
...
Obama's windfall profits tax idea? A Jimmy Carter biggie. "Unless we tax the oil companies, they will reap huge and undeserved windfall profits," fumed Carter on national television in 1980. The New York Times agreed, warning darkly that "legislators who sit by idly while oil profits soar will have to answer to the voters." With Democrats controlling Congress they got their way. As if on cue, oil production -- fell. To the tune of 1.6 billion fewer barrels. America's dependence on foreign oil rose. Eventually even the Times was agreeing the tax had to be repealed, and by 1988 Reagan, who campaigned against it, signed the repeal (by a Democrat Congress no less) into law. And Obama wants to do this all over again? Yes. It's not only not a new idea, it's not a better idea. Yet in terms of Obama, most tellingly it was a Carter idea.
...
BUT OBAMA'S VIEWS are also something else. They are the product of a world view that has been around for centuries -- failing every time it's tried.
...
With all of the sweep of American history to look back on, with virtual libraries of history recording what works and what doesn't when running the American government, Obama has stunningly selected the Carter policies as his role model.

Tax cuts? Not for Obama. Military superiority? No, not for Obama. Do tax cuts work? Yes, as shown by Presidents Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan and Bush 43. Military strength? Yes, decisively too. From Lincoln's Union Army to Teddy Roosevelt's Great White Fleet and his maxim to "talk softly and carry a big stick," from Wilson's Allied Expeditionary Force to FDR's vow to victory "so help us God" to Ronald Reagan's peace through strength, the idea of overwhelming military superiority works -- if the enemy believes you will use it. Or you actually use it.
...
The question for Senator McCain, accused by Obama of wanting to serve George W. Bush's third term, is whether he will hold Obama's feet to the fire on Obama's apparently passionate desire to serve Jimmy Carter's second.

Obama a Muslim Apostate?

So you thought having the middle name "Hussein" would be an advantage in dealing with the Muslim world? Think again.

President Apostate?
By EDWARD N. LUTTWAK
The New York Times
May 12, 2008

...As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference that, as Senator Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion. Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his mother’s Christian background is irrelevant.

Of course, as most Americans understand it, Senator Obama is not a Muslim. He chose to become a Christian, and indeed has written convincingly to explain how he arrived at his choice and how important his Christian faith is to him.

His conversion, however, was a crime in Muslim eyes; it is “irtidad” or “ridda,” usually translated from the Arabic as “apostasy,” but with connotations of rebellion and treason. Indeed, it is the worst of all crimes that a Muslim can commit, worse than murder (which the victim’s family may choose to forgive).

With few exceptions, the jurists of all Sunni and Shiite schools prescribe execution for all adults who leave the faith not under duress; the recommended punishment is beheading at the hands of a cleric, although in recent years there have been both stonings and hangings. (Some may point to cases in which lesser punishments were ordered — as with some Egyptian intellectuals who have been punished for writings that were construed as apostasy — but those were really instances of supposed heresy, not explicitly declared apostasy as in Senator Obama’s case.)

It is true that the criminal codes in most Muslim countries do not mandate execution for apostasy (although a law doing exactly that is pending before Iran’s Parliament and in two Malaysian states). But as a practical matter, in very few Islamic countries do the governments have sufficient authority to resist demands for the punishment of apostates at the hands of religious authorities.

For example, in Iran in 1994 the intervention of Pope John Paul II and others won a Christian convert a last-minute reprieve, but the man was abducted and killed shortly after his release. Likewise, in 2006 in Afghanistan, a Christian convert had to be declared insane to prevent his execution, and he was still forced to flee to Italy.

Because no government is likely to allow the prosecution of a President Obama — not even those of Iran and Saudi Arabia, the only two countries where Islamic religious courts dominate over secular law — another provision of Muslim law is perhaps more relevant: it prohibits punishment for any Muslim who kills any apostate, and effectively prohibits interference with such a killing.

At the very least, that would complicate the security planning of state visits by President Obama to Muslim countries, because the very act of protecting him would be sinful for Islamic security guards. More broadly, most citizens of the Islamic world would be horrified by the fact of Senator Obama’s conversion to Christianity once it became widely known — as it would, no doubt, should he win the White House. This would compromise the ability of governments in Muslim nations to cooperate with the United States in the fight against terrorism, as well as American efforts to export democracy and human rights abroad.

That an Obama presidency would cause such complications in our dealings with the Islamic world is not likely to be a major factor with American voters, and the implication is not that it should be. But of all the well-meaning desires projected on Senator Obama, the hope that he would decisively improve relations with the world’s Muslims is the least realistic.

YIKES!

Flag Pin or No Flag Pin?

It all depends on who Obama is trying to impress.

Earlier in the day of May 13:

Later in Cape Girardeau, Missouri:

Last fall, Obama said that wearing the flag pin was "a substitute for I think true patriotism." Apparently, he currently has no problem with that "substitute" when on the campaign trail, but can't be bothered when visiting the U.S. Capitol.

Caption This Photo

Let's hope he's better at pool than he is at bowling.

SPRINGHILL, WV - MAY 12: Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) plays a game of pool during a stop at Schultzie's Bar & Hot Spot May 12, 2008 in Springhill, West Virginia.

P.S. After saying he thought wearing an American flag pin was akin to a false patriotism, Obama appeared with one in his only campaign stop in West Virginia. Photo here, story at Flopping Aces.

A Bush Family Wedding

Love, Beauty, Dignity and Privacy!

When first daughter Jenna Bush set the date for her wedding to Henry Hager, pundit's thoughts ran to an opulent White House wedding (and the hope they might be invited). But that's not who the Bushes are. Sure, when an occasion like Pope Benedict's historic visit last month called for it, the Bush's proved can put on show like no other (video highlights here).

But when it comes to personal and family matters, the Bush's like it quiet, dignified and private.

President George W. Bush and Jenna Bush pose for a photographer Saturday, May 10, 2008, prior to Jenna's wedding to Henry Hager at Prairie Chapel Ranch in Crawford, Texas. White House photo by Shealah Craighead

Henry Hager and Jenna Bush exchange vows at the altar Saturday, May 10, 2008, during their wedding ceremony at Prairie Chapel Ranch near Crawford, Texas. Presiding over the ceremony is the Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell of Houston's Windsor Village United Methodist Church. White House photo by Shealah Craighead

Mr. and Mrs. Henry Hager pose for photographs along the lake at Prairie Chapel Ranch following their wedding ceremony Saturday, May 10, 2008, in Crawford, Texas. White House photo by Shealah Craighead

More photos, including the cake and the dinner settings here.

Evidence Venezuela's Chavez Responsible for Death and Terror in Colombia

How many innocent lives have been lost while U.S. peaceniks embraced Chavez?

Readers may recall that in March, Venezuela and Colombia were on the brink of war with sabre rattling from crazy man dictator Hugo Chavez leading the charge. It was at that time that Colombia engaged in a cross border raid on FARC terrorists that have been using Ecuador for sanctuary (most likely with the complete approval of that Chavez oriented government).

It was also at that time that we learned that documents captured on the FARC leader killed in that raid indicated a preference among FARC terrorists for the election of Barack Obama. Like similar statements by Hamas terrorists and Iranians, Obama seems to represent the right sort of change to people who use violence, terror and murder to bring change about.

Now, with this article in the Wall Street Journal (top selection)we're finding out just exactly how closely tied Venezuela's Chavez is to the terrorists who have killed hundreds of poor peasants in Colombia.

Chávez Aided Colombia Rebels,
Captured Computer Files Show
By JOSÉ DE CÓRDOBA and JAY SOLOMON
Wall Street Journal
May 9, 2008

BOGOTÁ, Colombia -- A cache of controversial computer files closely tying Venezuela's President Hugo Chávez to communist rebels seeking to topple Colombia's government appear to be authentic, U.S. intelligence officials say.
...
These documents indicate Venezuela appears to be making concrete offers to help arm the rebels, possibly with rocket-propelled grenades and ground-to-air missiles. The files suggest that Venezuela offered the FARC the use of one of its ports to receive arms shipments, and that Venezuela raised the prospect of drawing up a joint security plan with the FARC and sought basic training in guerrilla-warfare techniques.
...
The FARC itself has suggested the files are fake. A FARC statement published on the Web site of Venezuela's Information Ministry ridiculed Colombia's claims about the computer files, saying computers couldn't have survived the Colombian army attack "even if they had been bullet-proof."
...
There have been some recent indications that the computers contain accurate information. Police in Costa Rica staged a successful raid on a home belonging to alleged FARC sympathizers, and recovered $480,000 in cash, guided by information from the documents suggesting the money would be located there.

In addition, Ecuador's interior minister confirmed that he had met with Mr. Reyes, after an email describing the previously secret meeting was found on the laptops and made public by Colombia.

The FARC, which has been fighting for control of Colombia for nearly a half-century, funds itself mostly through drug trafficking and kidnapping for ransom. The U.S. considers it to be one of the world's main cocaine suppliers.
...
The documents suggest Mr. Chávez is personally involved in helping the guerrillas. In a September 2007 message to the FARC's ruling body, a commander wrote: "Chávez is studying our documents and has said that just like Fidel [Castro] has decided to delegate his other responsibilities to concentrate on the Venezuelan situation, he [Chávez] is ready to do the same to dedicate more time to Colombia."
...
One email, apparently sent by a FARC commander known as "Timochenko" to the guerrillas' ruling body in March 2007, describes meetings with Venezuelan naval-intelligence officers who offer the FARC assistance in getting "rockets." The Venezuelans also offer to help a FARC guerrilla travel to the Middle East to learn how to use the rockets.

Colombian military analysts believe the reference is to shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles, a weapon that the guerrillas desperately need if they hope to blunt Colombia's recent gains. "The FARC realizes that its military problem is air power," says Gen. Oscar Naranjo, who heads the country's national police.

In another email dated early 2007, FARC commander Iván Márquez describes meetings with the Venezuelan military's intelligence chief, Gen. Hugo Carvajal, and another Venezuelan officer to talk about "finances, arms and border policy." Mr. Márquez relates that the Venezuelans will provide the guerrillas some 20 "very powerful bazookas," which Colombian military officials believe is a reference to rocket-propelled grenade launchers.
...
Another email describes a November meeting between two FARC commanders and Mr. Chávez. The commanders, Ricardo Granda and Iván Márquez, report back in the email that Mr. Chávez gave orders to create "rest areas" and hospital zones for the guerrillas to use on the Venezuelan side of the border.

Many documents talk about how to fit generous offers of Venezuelan aid to the FARC's long-term "strategic plan" of taking power in Colombia. In one document dated January 2007, one top FARC commander speaks of a "loan" for $250 million to buy arms which the FARC will pay back once it has reached power. "Don't think of it as a loan, think of it as solidarity," says Mr. Rodríguez Chacin, the interior minister, in another document.

One wonders how self loathing leftwing peaceniks feel about embracing a man like Hugo Chavez who is responsible for spreading death and mayhem in Colombia?

The Power of Nature

Pumping out more pollutants than all the cars on the planet, the Chaiten volcano in Chile puts on quite a show!



The ash cloud from the Chaiten volcano casts a shadow across Chile, Argentina and the South Atlantic.

One benefit from the volcano is that it has the capacity to erase any global warming that MIGHT be happening by dispersing sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere which reflects sunlight back into space. The downside is that eventually, the sulfur dioxide will be removed by precipitation in the form of acid rain. More acid rain than every power plant burning high sulfur coal.

It's an amazing testament to the power of nature and the relatively small impact man has on the planet.

More photos here.

Global Warming Celebracrits!

Great find by Cajun Tiger:

More examples here!

Obama's Big Day

Obama bucked the trends Tuesday night with a solid 14 point win in North Carolina and held Hillary Clinton to a two point squeaker in Indiana.

Most pundits, including yours truly, thought the result last night would be stronger in Hillary's favor (though Zogby was nearly right on the mark). When the result became clear, the pundits seemed ready to begin writing that it was all over for Hillary with some suggesting that she might get out soon.

Let's face it: it's been over for Hillary for quite a while. Obama has the money, has the delegates and has the popular vote (though only barely). Obama has been the likely nominee since Super Tuesday.

But Hillary isn't going anywhere. She's recently loaned her campaign $6.4 million from the joint bank account she enjoys as former President Bill Clinton cashes in on his legacy around the world. That's in addition to the $5 million she loaned her campaign earlier this year. It's clear she isn't going anywhere and the primary in West Virginia next Tuesday, the 13th where the Rasmussen Poll shows Hillary with a stronger lead than Obama had in North Carolina.

It's Not Over Until It's Over

As pundits labored to fill the air while waiting for the Indiana result, it gave time to reflect on prior lost causes in the Democrat Party. On Fox News, Brit Hume recalled his reporting from the Democrat convention in 1980 where Senator Ted Kennedy challenged incumbent President Jimmy Carter all the way to the convention floor despite being down by 700 delegates. Kennedy must have known that Carter could not win against Reagan just as Hillary insists Obama cannot win against McCain.

The bottom line: Hillary Clinton isn't going away!

P.S. Obama's team blames their loss in Indiana on Operation Chaos!

Base Where Iran Trains Terrorists to Kill Americans in Iraq Revealed

For over a year, it's been a well established fact that Iran has been conducting another of their proxy wars against the United States. See this report from February 2007 which details Iran's involvment and asked:

At what point do we show Iran that there IS a price to be paid for killing Americans?

Example of damage from Iranian weapons that have killed Americans in Iraq.

More recently, look at the reports of the Multinational Forces Iraq (U.S. and coalition. There has been no letup in the number of attacks Iran has launched using Shias trained and supplied by Iran.

So I ask again: At what point do we show Iran that there IS a price to be paid for killing Americans?

Former U.S. Ambassador John Bolton has had enough!

John Bolton: US should bomb Iranian camps
By Damien McElroy
The Telegraph (U.K.)
May 6,2008

Mr Bolton said that striking Iran would represent a major step towards victory in Iraq. While he acknowledged that the risk of a hostile Iranian response harming American’s overseas interests existed, he said the damage inflicted by Tehran would be “far higher” if Washington took no action.

“This is a case where the use of military force against a training camp to show the Iranians we’re not going to tolerate this is really the most prudent thing to do,” he said. “Then the ball would be in Iran’s court to draw the appropriate lesson to stop harming our troops.”
...
A US military spokesman revealed last week that the elite Quds Force of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards had drafted in personnel from Lebanon’s Hizbollah to train fighters from Iraq’s Shia militias.

Colonel Donald Bacon, a spokesman for the coalition in Baghdad, said captured fighters had told interrogators that thousands of Iraqi fighters were undergoing training in the Islamic Republic.

The main camp is located near the town of Jalil Azad, near Tehran, according to coalition officials.

The capture of Qais Khazali, a major figure in the Shia insurgency alongside Ali Mussa Daqduq, a senior Lebanese Hizbollah guerilla, last year yielded a treasure trove of information on Hizbollah’s activities in Iraq.

“Ali Mussa Daqduq confirmed Lebanese Hizbollah were providing training to Iraqi Special Group members in Iran and that his role was to assess the quality of training and make recommendations on how the training could be improved,” said Col Bacon. “In this role, he travelled to Iraq on four occasions and was captured on his fourth trip.”

Maybe we should take out Hezbollah too!

Southern Sea Ice at Historic Levels

Another hole in the Al Gore "sky is falling" scaremongering over globaloney!

Report: Global Sea Ice at 'Unprecedented' Levels
By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
5/6/2008

...An Aug. 19, 2007 CBS “60 Minutes” segment warned melting sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere was endangering the penguin, another species often trotted out by global warming alarmists.

“Getting manhandled may ruffle their feathers, but it was key to discovering their fate,” “60 Minutes” contributor Scott Pelley said. “These are grown penguin chicks chasing their mothers for food, which she delivers beak to beak. Soon, the chicks will go to sea to hunt for a shrimp-like crustacean called krill. The krill grow beneath the sea ice, but in the warming ocean, the sea ice is melting away.”

“So the penguins have been going to sea and starving to death?” Pelley asked Sue Trivelpiece of NOAA’s Antarctic Ecosystem Research Division.

“The chicks are declining and we think they just can’t find the krill,” Trivelpiece replied.

Penguins Rest Easy Tonight

From NOAA's National Climatic Data Center; 15 April 2008 sea ice report:

After an historic dip in sea ice levels in the Southern Hemisphere in 2006, the 2008 result was a spectacular and historic rebound.

The northern hemisphere is showing a slower rebound, which probably means we will continue to be bombarded with heart wrenching stories of polar bears drowning for at least another year.

Time Running Out for Alarmists

It seems every week, sometimes every day, we get a new story indicating that global warming is NOT the worldwide emergency the envirozealots insist it is. Yesterday, Curt posted that results from a worldwide series of sophisticated ocean sensors anchored on buoys has undermined the zealots claim that the earth is warming. The key phrase in that report is: "Actual observations trump computer models." An extensive array of scientific tools have been deployed in the last few years to provide the hard data which has been missing from this discussion.

Unfortunately for the envirozealots, as it is in the sea ice data, sea buoy data and the new Aqua Satellite, there is no hard evidence to support the conclusion that global warming is a crisis, let alone that anything man has done is making the problem worse, or could make it better!

Tuesday Tiebreaker? For Obama and Hillary

"You know, Sen. Clinton is more favored in Pennsylvania,and I'm right now a little more favored in North Carolina, so Indiana right now may end up being the tiebreaker."

Barack Obama, April 11, 2008

Oh how things change! Obama said those words hours before a firestorm of criticism erupted over his remarks that small town Americans were "bitter" and cling to guns and religion. He said the words above 5 days before he had to answer tough questions in the ABC debate and 11 days before Hillary trounced him handily in the Pennsylvania primary.

And lastly, and perhaps most important, Obama said those words before his former Pastor, Jeremiah Wright once again erupted on the scene and forced Obama to denounce him in ways he insisted he could not in the much heralded speech he gave on race in Philadelphia just weeks before.

Chickens Coming Home to Roost?
NC and IN Primary Predictions

Since the Pennsylvania result, and undeniably enhanced by the recent Rev. Wright firestorm, Obama has taken a slow slide in both Indiana and North Carolina. Obama has stopped referring to the result in Tuesday's Indiana primary as the tiebreaker. While he still has a slight lead according to the latest Zogby poll, the Real Clear Politics averages of Indiana polls shows a different story. In North Carolina polls, his double digit lead has disappeared and Hillary even has a slight chance to win.

Recalling that Hillary has performed better in the actual primaries than her opinion poll results (referred to as the Bradley Factor where white voters don't want the pollster to think they are racist, and tell them they will vote for a black candidate, but then do the opposite) I predict Hillary will win Indiana by at least 3%. She may also lose North Carolina by a mere 3%.

Such a result will confirm Hillary's argument that she is the stronger candidate and will assure that the race will continue into June.

The Unasked Question in the Wright/Obama Scandal

Rasmussen Reports
Survey of 800 Likely Voters
April 30-May 1, 2008

1* How closely have you followed recent news stories about comments made by Barack Obama’s former Pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright?
47% Very closely
34% Somewhat closely
12% Not very closely
7% Not at all
0% Not sure

2* Pastor Wright recently held a press conference and shared many of his controversial views. Barack Obama then publically denounced Wright and said his relationship with the Pastor has changed. Do you believe that Obama was surprised by the views of his former Pastor?
33% Yes
52% No
15% Not sure

3* Generally speaking, do you agree or disagree with Pastor Wright’s view of the United States and its government?
7% Agree
75% Disagree
19% Not sure

4* How likely is it that Barack Obama shares some of Pastor Wright’s controversial views about the United States?
26% Very likely
30% Somewhat likely
24% Not very likely
11% Not at all
8% Not sure

5* Did Barack Obama denounce Pastor Wright’s comments because he was outraged or because it was politically convenient?
30% Outraged
58% Politically convenient
13% Not sure

So, 75% of the respondents disagree with Wright's whacko views and 56% say Obama shares those view and 58% said he only denounced them for political expedience.

The question I would like to ask is how many of the those who were in the majority viewpoint on those questions will vote for the lying America hater anyway?

Barack Stabber

Why Rev. Wright did what he did!

REV-ENGE IS SWEET FOR 'BETRAYED' PASTOR
By FREDRIC U. DICKER
New York Post
April 30, 2008

ALBANY - The Rev. Jeremiah Wright would be happy to see Barack Obama's presidential campaign derailed because the pastor is fuming that his former congregant has "betrayed" their 20-year relationship,

The Post has learned. "After 20 years of loving Barack like he was a member of his own family, for Jeremiah to see Barack saying over and over that he didn't know about Jeremiah's views during those years, that he wasn't familiar with what Jeremiah had said, that he may have missed church on this day or that and didn't hear what Jeremiah said, this is seen by Jeremiah as nonsense and betrayal," said the source, who has deep roots in Wright's Chicago community and is familiar with his thinking on the matter.

"Jeremiah is trying to defend his congregation and the work of his ministry by saying what he is saying now," the source added.

"Jeremiah doesn't care if he derails Obama's candidacy or not . . . He knows what he's doing. Obviously, he's not a dumb man. He knows he's not helping."

The source spoke yesterday about Wright's motivation for thrusting himself back into the news, the day after the pastor appeared at the National Press Club on Monday and embarrassed Obama by accusing the United States of terrorism.

Wright has said the reason he has begun granting interviews and making public appearances now is that he wants to defend black churches.

But the source said the preacher's motivation is much more personal.

The source noted that the roots of Wright's disillusionment with Obama began last year after the Illinois senator unexpectedly yanked him from participating in the public announcement of his presidential campaign.

"That's why Jeremiah revealed . . . that he had actually been at the [announcement] hotel and prayed privately with the Obama family before the official declaration," the source told The Post.

"Rev. Wright, as well as other senior members of his church, believe that Obama has betrayed over 20 years of their supposed friendship."

Obama further angered Wright by trying to distance himself from the pastor ever since videos were made public earlier this year of the preacher alleging that America brought 9/11 upon itself and t