Wednesday, April 30, 2008

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 that people should say "God damn America," not "God bless America."

The source added, "After 20 years of loving Barack like he is one of their own, after he was embraced by this congregation as a brother in Christ, after his pastor was a father figure to him and gave him credibility in a city he had not grown up in and in a black community that was suspect of someone from Hawaii and Harvard, he thanks him by not allowing him to speak publicly at his announcement last year?

"A lot of people in the church believe they were there for this man when no one else was, and a lot of people don't believe it any more when Obama claims he loves the man who did so much for him," the source added.
Meanwhile, political pro Dick Morris penned a new column yesterday exclaiming that Obama's latest denouncement of Wright was a good move politically. Morris said: "Obama moved decisively and well to seize the opportunity that the Rev. Wright’s wrongs pose."

But in doing so, Obama reinforced the image which has taken hold in the flap over Rev. Wright that Obama is just another politician. And one that will disown anyone who stands in his way.

Again, I'm reminded of the words Obama spoke in that much lauded speech in Philadelphia when he first attempted to put the Wright controversy behind him: "I can no more disown him [Rev. Wright] than I can disown the black community."

Has Obama now disowned the black community?

Sorry Dems: Latest Economic News Indicates NO Recession!

But that won't stop Dems from trying to scare everyone anyway!

Economy grows by 0.6 percent in 1st quarter of 2008
By JEANNINE AVERSA
Associated Press
Apr 30, 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) - The bruised economy limped through the first quarter, growing at just a 0.6 percent pace as housing and credit problems forced people and businesses alike to hunker down.

The country's economic growth during January through March was the same as in the final three months of last year, the Commerce Department reported Wednesday. The statistic did not meet what economists consider the classic definition of a recession, which is a retraction of the economy. This means that although the economy is stuck in a rut, it is still managing to grow, even if modestly.

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Obama's Chickens Coming Home to Roost

Obama Saddened by Wright's Latest Rants!

Earlier today I was all set to write a new post describing how Rev. Wright's clownish and hate-filled display at the National Press Club showed that the Left Was Wrong on Wright!

The phony talking points offered by Obama and Wright's defenders were completely exposed for what they are. Those who said that the various clips of Wright were taken out of context, and considered much of what was said as old news that didn't have much relevance for today must have been disappointed to hear Wright repeat some of his most offensive language in one long screed that few would defend.

Later in the day,the issue took another interesting turn with the latest statements by Obama himself. Both Wordsmith writing at Sparks from the Anvil and Curt writing at Flopping Aces have good takes on how Obama is trying to stage manage the problem, which if anything, has grown in intensity with the latest outbursts from Wright.

With nationwide televised coverage of Wright's remarks (C-Span part1)It's impossible for Obama to claim ignorance of his remarks. And Obama admits that he did watch Rev. Wright's performance. He didn't say if it reminded him of the sermons he claims he never heard in church.

But what seemed to bother Obama the most is that Rev. Wright disrespected him and pointed out that Obama was just a politician. The following are a few excerpts from his press conference
Here's the full transcript.

April 29, 2008:

OBAMA: Yesterday we saw a very different vision of America. I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened over the spectacle that we saw yesterday. I have been a member of Trinity United Church of Christ since 1992. I’ve known Reverend Wright for almost 20 years. The person that I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago. His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church.

...[W]hen he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS, when he suggests that Minister Farrakhan somehow represents one of the greatest voices of the 20th and 21st centuries, when he equates the United States wartime efforts with terrorism, then there are no excuses.

They offend me. The rightly offend all Americans. And they should be denounced. And that’s what I’m doing very clearly and unequivocally here today.
...
Upon watching it, what became clear to me was that it was more than just him defending himself. What became clear to me was that he was presenting a worldview that contradicts who I am and what I stand for.

And what I think particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing.
...
Well, I want to use this press conference to make people absolutely clear that, obviously, whatever relationship I had with Reverend Wright has changed, as a consequence of this.

I don’t think that he showed much concern for me.
...
But at a certain point, if what somebody says contradicts what you believe so fundamentally, and then he questions whether or not you believe it in front of the National Press Club, then that’s enough. That’s a show of disrespect to me. It is also, I think, an insult to what we’ve been trying to do in this campaign.
Obama repeatedly attempted to convey the message that he didn't agree or believe what Wright has been saying. Before closing, he offered this:

OBAMA: In some ways what Reverend Wright said yesterday directly contradicts everything that I’ve done during my life. It contradicts how I was raised and the setting in which I was raised.

It contradicts my decisions to pursue a career of public service. It contradicts the issues that I’ve worked on politically. It contradicts what I’ve said in my books.
Which only reminds us to look at the words in Obama's books and compare them to the lessons that Wright taught Obama in church for the last 20 years.

Finally, in the much lauded speech Obama gave in Philadelphia in his first effort to escape political damage for his association with Wright he said: "I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community."

Has Obama now disowned Wright and the black community?

Monday, April 28, 2008

White House Correspondent's Dinner: President Bush at His Best

The man so many of us have come to know and love!

The Marine Band, under the direction of President George W. Bush, entertains Saturday, April 26, 2008, during the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner at the Washington Hilton Hotel. White House photo by Joyce N. Boghosian

Saturday night, President Bush took the stage at the 2008 White House Correspondent's Dinner, his last appearance at this annual event which mixes media bigwigs with celebrities and politicians.

It's an opportunity for the President to crack a few jokes, get some laughs and generally relax in this very public setting.

C-Span Junkie posted most of the program from the dinner on You Tube. The following is the last seven minutes of President Bush's portion of the program:

Included in President Bush's presentation were some snippets from his past performances at the Dinner. You won't want to miss it.

The best joke was when President Bush explained why the two remaining Democrat presidential candidates were not in attendance: "Hillary Clinton couldn't get in because of sniper fire and Senator Obama's at church."

The real highlight for me wasn't the jokes, but when the President took the baton and conducted "The President's Own" United States Marine Band in one of the stirring Sousa marches we all know so well.

After President Bush spoke, Late Night comedian Craig Ferguson, a Scotsman who was recently sworn in as a new citizen of the United States had his turn. If you marveled at how unfunny Stephen Colbert was at this event two years prior, you'll enjoy Ferguson's presentation. Here's part one.

Friday, April 25, 2008

Violent Anti-Bush Protester Attacks Handicapped Girl in Wheelchair

Then has the nerve to claim the girl's father attacked him with the wheelchair!

We've all seen these 9/11 "truthers" in action. They are the left wing equivalent of Nazi fascists. Their delusions of hate and willful self deception about the horror of the September 11th attacks has warped their minds beyond reason.

Earlier this week the NY Post reports that one of that ilk was out doing what they do best: shouting obscenities at Laura and Jenna Bush as they were promoting their book "Read All About It" which introduces children to the joys of reading.

Attending the event with her parent's was Maureen Lovetro - a fan of the first lady since meeting her in 2004 (photo left). Maureen is 18 years old and confined to a wheel chair by Cerebral Palsy.

When Maureen's parents asked the truther to stop with his obscene rant, he responded by hitting the defenseless Maureen.

From the NY Post report:


"I heard my daughter hysterical yelling, 'He's hitting me!' " said Wendy Lovetro.

"He punched her on the shoulder blades, but that wasn't enough," she said.

"My husband pushed the wheelchair away from him and he reached beyond my husband and began pounding my daughter in the thigh."

The two men fought as the president's family drove off. Cops broke them up and busted Talis on charges of assault and resisting arrest.

Maureen was not seriously injured.
You would think that after such an outrage, the truthers would hang their heads in shame and maintain a discrete silence. But then, YOU dear reader (most of you anyway) would think, and that's apparently a skill that people who believe the U.S. government is behind the September 11th attacks have yet to master.

One group of truthers called "We are Change" (who link to a meeting with failed GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul on their web site) insisted that the truther was the victim of an assualt by Maureen's father ramming the truther with his daughters wheel chair.

It's amazing that the truthers, who seem to have a preoccupation with their civil liberties including the freedom to be raving fools, find it so easy to infringe the rights of others, even those most vulnerable.

McCain: Against Negative Campaigning Before He was For It

Not OK to link Rev. Wright with Obama in North Carolina, but OK to link Obama with Hamas terrorists?

I'm confused!


This week GOP presidential candidate John McCain repeatedly condemned the North Carolina GOP ad which shows a short clip of one of the infamous rants of Obama's pastor Reverend Wright and asks if North Carolina Democrat leaders should have endorsed Obama?

We all know that Senator McCain wants to take the high road this election year. But in the same week he denounced the mild ad in North Carolina, he responded to the Hamas terrorist leader who said "Actually, we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will [win] the election" by saying: “I think it is very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States … I think that the people should understand that I will be Hamas’ worst nightmare.”

Asked later if his remarks amounted to a negative attack he responded that they were simply a "statement of fact."

But isn't it also a statement of fact that Democrat leaders in North Carolina have endorsed Obama? Wasn't the NC GOP right in pointing out that Obama's beliefs are too "extreme" for North Carolina?

Some see this as just another example of McCain sticking it to conservatives. His action in this episode reinforces many of the concerns and negative impressions many conservatives still hold for McCain.

“Man Up,” Sen. McCain
By Arnold Ahlert
Political Mavens

On Wednesday, John McCain demanded that the North Carolina Republican Party remove a TV ad featuring Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s “God damn America” sermon which is being used to portray two Democratic gubernatorial candidates who support Barack Obama as “too extreme.” “There is no place for that kind of campaigning,” said the Republican nominee for president. Memo to Sen. McCain: wake up and smell the coffee.

The 20-year relationship between Barack Obama and his anti-American, black separatist “mentor” is fair game. So are his political associations with former Weather Underground terrorists William Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn and his “close friendship” with indicted real estate developer Tony Rezko.

Mr. Obama is not running for college president on some lunatic left-wing campus, Senator. He’s running for the most powerful office in the world, and the public ought to be well acquainted with the company he’s kept and keeping–loud and often.

Incredible as it seems from here, perhaps you’re still naive enough to believe the media which has treated you with kid gloves whenever you tilted left is going to give you even-handed coverage once the slug-fest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama produces a winner. One would think the hit-piece published by the New York Times regarding your ostensible extra-marital affair–a compendium of innuendoes, shoddy reporting and outright lies–would have given you a clue as to what is coming.

Either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will do anything and everything to undermine your candidacy. How do I know? Take a good look at what they’re doing to EACH OTHER, Senator. Multiply by ten.

This is one American who’s damn tired of a Republican candidate for president who thinks going toe-to-toe with two irredeemable socialists is “unseemly.” Better to “disrespect” them than that part of the American electorate–hopefully a majority–which yearns to see a Republican show a little backbone. Nothing is more “hardball” than a presidential election.

“Man up,” Mr. McCain.
To those who had been thinking of sending in a donation to the McCain campaign but were offended by McC's latest move, why not make a donation to the North Carolina GOP instead so they can continue to televise this ad? And let them know why you are contributing to them and not McCain.

Thursday, April 24, 2008

McCain's Running Mate

Who is on YOUR list?

A new web site: Mitt for Veep is just one of the signs that the hunt for John McCain's running mate is heating up. Lots of names are being bandied about. CNN has an interactive display of possible picks here.

I haven't any opinion on the subject other than a desire to see a strong conservative chosen.

GOP Reader Poll (no Dems please): Who is YOUR favorite and why?

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Pennsylvania: The "Keystone" to VICTORY in 2008?

The Pennsylvania primary result illustrates the Civil War raging for the heart and soul of the Democrat Party!

For county by county results, run your mouse over this map.

The Dem primary victory of Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania, the "Keystone State," nails down her argument that she is the only Democrat who can win in November.

Hillary consistently wins primaries in states with large numbers of senior citizens, middle class, blue collar, union households, rural Democrats and churchgoers. Each of these has been a key component to Democrat presidential election victories in the larger states. In Pennsylvania, that reality is illustrated by the map above which shows the breadth of Hillary's appeal and how isolated Obama's strength is to urban areas where large black populations, or those with a higher percentage of uppper income liberals give him the edge.

In addition to winning Democrat primaries in his homestate of Illinois, Obama did very well (above 50%) in Virginia, Alabama, Georgia, Maryland, Wisconsin, South Carolina and the District of Columbia. Other than that, he's limping along with results in the mid 40% range.

Obama also did well in caucuses, but there won't be any caucuses on November, 4, 2008. It's all about getting more votes than the other guy and in Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina, there is little doubt McCain will win. So what would Obama be left with as a foundation for victory as the Dem's nominee? Not much!

More Good News: Hillary Knows Where Bill Is Tonight!

Unlike Hillary's big win in Ohio and Texas six weeks ago where Bill was nowhere to be seen, he took the stage with his wife tonight in Philadelphia.

But as comforting as that news is the best news for Hillary tonight is that her margin of victory in the popular vote in Pennsylvania was over 215,000 votes. And that goes a long way to erase her deficit in the popular vote that was one of Obama's strongest claims to the nomination up to now

It's going to get even MORE interesting!

Earth Day 2008: Americans Not So Concerned about Climate Change "Crisis"

And Al Gore used fake footage in famous film!

Brit Hume's Political Grapevine had a threefer for Earth Day:

Seems Like Old Times

On this Earth Day 2008, a new Gallup Poll finds that only about one-third of Americans say they worry a great deal about global warming — roughly the same percentage as in a similar poll 19 years ago.

In May of 1989, 35 percent of respondents expressed serious concern about global warming. The current figure is 37 percent.

The numbers are similar when asked whether immediate, drastic action is necessary: 35 percent said yes in April of 1995; 34 percent said yes last month.

And global warming is nowhere near the top of the environmental problems people worry a great deal about. No. 1 is drinking water pollution, followed by several other water concerns. The loss of natural habitat for wildlife, air pollution, rain forests and the ozone layer all top global warming, which comes in tied for ninth.

Chill in the Air

Of course a major focus of Earth Day is global warming. But it turns out about 40 people at an Earth Day celebration Sunday in Edmonton, Canada, had to cram themselves into a single tent after a blizzard forced them to abandon their outside locations.

The organizer of the event says, "Obviously we'll have fewer people than we would have liked, but to cancel an Earth Day event because of weather would kind of be the antithesis of what this is all about."

Said one of the vendors, "We're here to raise the awareness of the problem, even though on a day like today you don't necessarily think of global warming."

Inconvenient Untruth

There is new evidence of misleading information in Al Gore's Oscar-winning global warming film "An Inconvenient Truth."

ABC News reports one of the most famous shots in the movie — of Antarctic ice shelves — is a fake. The film's visual effects supervisor says the film took the shot from the fictional movie "The Day After Tomorrow," which created it from Styrofoam and scanned it into a computer.

"Yeah, that's our shot," she says. "That's a fully computer-generated shot. There's nothing real in there."

ABC wanted to ask Gore whether it was wrong for a documentary to use a fabricated shot to make a point, but says he did not return their calls.
The wheels are coming off the globaloney "crisis" bus!

Hillary and Obama Fight It Out for Real?

Don't you wish they would just settle this thing the old fashioned way?

Even if you're not a wrestling fan, you'll want to see this video from WWE Raw Monday night! It's a hoot.

"What are you going to do when Hillary and her superdelegates come for YOU?"

Saturday, April 19, 2008

"Truth, Freedom and Justice"

President Bush and Pope Benedict XVI choose remarkably similar themes in their remarks prepared for the Pope's visit to the White House on April 16, 2008. This is only the second visit by a Pope to the White House.

After the short excerpt of remarks by President Bush and Pope Benedict, the "Battle Hymn of the Republic" sung by the U.S. Army Chorus.

God Bless America!

Thursday, April 17, 2008

The Arrogance of Obama

Last night's debate cemented the fact that he is unqualified for and ill-prepared to be President!

As Curt pointed out earlier, the Obamatons were all whining like spoiled brats today! "Wah! Wah! Wah! the debate was sooo unfair to Obama!" Obama got hit hard last night in the presidential debate in Philadelphia with repeated questions that go to the heart of his character. And Democrats called that "trivial?" You would think after realizing how bamboozled they were by the Clintons, which some of them have only recently discovered, they would be loathe to make the same mistake again.

But then, YOU, dear reader (most of you anyway) would think. That's a skill not yet required by the Obamatons.

The whining that most Obamatons engaged in today seemed to be based on orders from headquarters as the candidate himself engaged in yet another of his now famous variations of "if you dare to question me, you're creating a distraction from the issues."

He said:

"Last night, I think we set a new record because it took us 45 minutes before we even started talking about a single issue that matters to the American people. It took us 45 minutes!"

"Forty-five minutes before we heard about health care. Forty-five minutes before we heard about Iraq," he continued. "Forty-five - 45 - minutes before we heard about jobs. Forty-five minutes before we heard about gas prices."
Obama Doesn't Get It!

What the arrogant and defensive Obama doesn't seem to understand is that Americans won't trust him to address these other issues that he claims to care so passionately about if we can't be certain about his character. And up to now we haven't learned very much about the man except that he gives great speeches (sometimes) and people swoon.

The last time people trusted a man with supreme power who gave great speeches where people swooned we ended up with the Holocaust and nearly 60 million people dead in World War II.

No, I am not saying Obama is Hitler. Heck, he's too left wing for that. Stalin maybe. But we sure can't hand the keys to the White House over to a man who insists that we have no business inquiring into his character.

Especially when what we have learned thus far about his background leads many of us to have deep suspicions.

And here's a counterpoint video which should drive home the matter:

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

TONIGHT: Live Chat During PA Dem Debate

Come onboard and cut up Hillary and Obama during tonight's presidential debate in Pennsylvania (broadcast on ABC starting a 8 PM).

Skye from Midnight Blue blogcasting from the Philadelphia will be our host for the evening, but your's truly will also be on hand with his usual bag of tricks.

Pope Benedict Wows Washington!

The second visit in history of a Pope to the White House! And what a perfect, crstyal clear spring day!

I'm not a Catholic, but I have tremendous respect for the role the modern Papacy has played in making the world a better, more peaceful place for all. Here's a photo sampling of this beautiful and historic day....

President George W. Bush and Mrs. Laura Bush stand with Pope Benedict XVI as he acknowledges the cheers from the crowd from the South Portico balcony Wednesday, April 16, 2008, on the South Lawn of the White House. White House photo by Grant Miller

President George W. Bush and Pope Benedict XVI stand together during the playing of the National Anthem at the Pope’s welcoming ceremony on the South Lawn of the White House Wednesday, April 16, 2008. White House photo by Shealah Craighead

President George W. Bush and Laura Bush applaud as Pope Benedict XVI acknowledges being sung happy birthday by the thousands of guests Wednesday, April 16, 2008, at his welcoming ceremony on the South Lawn of the White House. White House photo by Eric Draper

President Bush Welcomes His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI to White House
South Lawn
White House Transcript
April 16, 2008

PRESIDENT BUSH:...Here in America you'll find a nation of compassion. Americans believe that the measure of a free society is how we treat the weakest and most vulnerable among us. So each day citizens across America answer the universal call to feed the hungry and comfort the sick and care for the infirm. Each day across the world the United States is working to eradicate disease, alleviate poverty, promote peace and bring the light of hope to places still mired in the darkness of tyranny and despair.

Here in America you'll find a nation that welcomes the role of faith in the public square. When our Founders declared our nation's independence, they rested their case on an appeal to the "laws of nature, and of nature's God." We believe in religious liberty. We also believe that a love for freedom and a common moral law are written into every human heart, and that these constitute the firm foundation on which any successful free society must be built.

Here in America, you'll find a nation that is fully modern, yet guided by ancient and eternal truths. The United States is the most innovative, creative and dynamic country on earth -- it is also among the most religious. In our nation, faith and reason coexist in harmony. This is one of our country's greatest strengths, and one of the reasons that our land remains a beacon of hope and opportunity for millions across the world.

Most of all, Holy Father, you will find in America people whose hearts are open to your message of hope. And America and the world need this message. In a world where some invoke the name of God to justify acts of terror and murder and hate, we need your message that "God is love." And embracing this love is the surest way to save men from "falling prey to the teaching of fanaticism and terrorism."

In a world where some treat life as something to be debased and discarded, we need your message that all human life is sacred, and that "each of us is willed, each of us is loved" -- (applause) -- and your message that "each of us is willed, each of us is loved, and each of us is necessary."

In a world where some no longer believe that we can distinguish between simple right and wrong, we need your message to reject this "dictatorship of relativism," and embrace a culture of justice and truth. (Applause.)

In a world where some see freedom as simply the right to do as they wish, we need your message that true liberty requires us to live our freedom not just for ourselves, but "in a spirit of mutual support."

Holy Father, thank you for making this journey to America. Our nation welcomes you. We appreciate the example you set for the world, and we ask that you always keep us in your prayers. (Applause.)

President George W. Bush and Mrs. Laura Bush lead the celebration of the 81st birthday of Pope Benedict XVI as he's presented a cake by White House Pastry Chef Bill Yosses Wednesday, April 16, 2008, at the White House. White House photo by Eric Draper

Pope Benedict XVI acknowledges guests Wednesday, April 16, 2008, during the arrival ceremony for the Pope on the South Lawn of the White House. Said Pope Benedict XVI during the ceremony, "Mr. President, dear friends, as I begin my visit to the United States, I express once more my gratitude for your invitation, my joy to be in your midst, and my fervent prayers that Almighty God will confirm this nation and its people in the ways of justice, prosperity and peace." White House photo by David Bohrer

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Another Scientist Comes Off the Globaloney Bandwagon

This is really going to send the envirozealots into a tizzy!

Hurricane expert reconsiders global warming's impact
By ERIC BERGER
Houston Chronicle
April 12, 2008

One of the most influential scientists behind the theory that global warming has intensified recent hurricane activity says he will reconsider his stand.

The hurricane expert, Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, unveiled a novel technique for predicting future hurricane activity this week. The new work suggests that, even in a dramatically warming world, hurricane frequency and intensity may not substantially rise during the next two centuries.

The research, appearing in the March issue of Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, is all the more remarkable coming from Emanuel, a highly visible leader in his field and long an ardent proponent of a link between global warming and much stronger hurricanes.

His changing views could influence other scientists.

"The results surprised me," Emanuel said of his work, adding that global warming may still play a role in raising the intensity of hurricanes. What that role is, however, remains far from certain.

Emanuel's work uses a new method of computer modeling that did a reasonable job of simulating past hurricane fluctuations. He, therefore, believes the models may have predictive value for future activity.

During and after the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons, which were replete with mega-storms and U.S. landfalls, scientists dived into the question of whether rising ocean temperatures, attributed primarily to global warming, were causing stronger storms.

Among the first to publish was Emanuel, who — just three weeks before Hurricane Katrina's landfall — published a paper in Nature that concluded a key measurement of the power dissipated by a storm during its lifetime had risen dramatically since the mid-1970s.

In the future, he argued, incredibly active hurricane years such as 2005 would become the norm rather than flukes.

Other factors likely

This view, amplified by environmentalists and others concerned about global warming, helped establish in the public's mind that "super" hurricanes were one of climate change's most critical threats. A satellite image of a hurricane emanating from a smokestack featured prominently in promotions for Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.

"Kerry had the good fortune, or maybe the bad fortune, to publish when the world's attention was focused on hurricanes in 2005," Roger Pielke Jr., who studies science and policy at the University of Colorado, said of Emanuel. "Kerry's work was seized upon in the debate."

After the 2005 hurricane season, a series of other papers were published that appeared to show, among other things, that the most intense hurricanes were becoming more frequent.

What has not been as broadly disseminated, say Pielke and some hurricane scientists, is that other research papers have emerged that suggest global warming has yet to leave an imprint on hurricane activity. One of them, published late last year in Nature, found that warming seas may not increase hurricane intensity.

That paper's co-author, Gabriel Vecchi, a research scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said Emanuel's new work highlights the great uncertainty that remains in hurricane science.

"While his results don't rule out the possibility that global warming has contributed to the recent increase in activity in the Atlantic, they suggest that other factors — possibly in addition to global warming — are likely to have been substantial contributors to the observed increase in activity," Vecchi said.

Scientists wrangling with the hurricane-global warming question have faced two primary difficulties. The first is that the hurricane record before 1970 is not entirely reliable, making it nearly impossible to assess with precision whether hurricane activity has increased during the last century.

The second problem comes through the use of computer models to predict hurricane activity. Most climate models, which simulate global atmospheric conditions for centuries to come, cannot detect individual tropical systems.

Emanuel's new research attempts to get around that by inserting "seeds" of tropical systems throughout the climate models and seeing which develop into tropical storms and hurricanes. The "seeds," bits of computer code, tend to develop when simulated atmospheric conditions, such as low wind shear, are ripe for hurricane formation.

'A lot of work to do'

In the new paper, Emanuel and his co-authors project activity nearly two centuries hence, finding an overall drop in the number of hurricanes around the world, while the intensity of storms in some regions does rise.

For example, with Atlantic hurricanes, two of the seven model simulations Emanuel ran suggested that the overall intensity of storms would decline. Five models suggested a modest increase.

"The take-home message is that we've got a lot of work to do," Emanuel said. "There's still a lot of uncertainty in this problem. The bulk of the evidence is that hurricane power will go up, but in some places it will go down."

The issue probably will not be resolved until better computer models are developed, said Judith Curry, of the Georgia Institute of Technology, a leading hurricane and climate scholar.

By publishing his new paper, and by the virtue of his high profile, Emanuel could be a catalyst for further agreement in the field of hurricanes and global warming, Curry said.

The generally emerging view, she said, seems to be that global warming may cause some increase in intensity, that this increase will develop slowly over time, and that it likely will lead to a few more Category 4 and Category 5 storms. How many? When? No one yet knows.

How many scientists have already pointed to the poor quality of computer models, designed by man with imperfect knowledge of climate variables, as the root cause of phony global warming hysteria?

The Unraveling of Barack Obama?

Americans will never elect a condescending liberal/socialist for President!

This is one of the best summations of the Obama problem:
Off-the-Record Obama
The Politics of Meaning on steroids.
By Peter Wehner
National Review
April 14, 2008

Senator Barack Obama finds himself in the midst of a controversy in the aftermath of comments that he made at a private fundraiser in San Francisco on April 6, during which he explained his difficulty appealing to working-class voters in Pennsylvania. He said, “It’s not surprising that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment. . . .”

Senator Obama’s words are significant because they were said off-the-record, meaning they provided a more authentic glimpse into the attitudes of Obama than a carefully scripted event. Nonetheless, his words were not merely careless; his comments were based on a carefully constructed, if deeply condescending, explanation.

Beneath the enormous charm and cool persona of Obama beats the heart of an arrogant man. With increasing frequency, the 46-year-old one-term senator from Illinois orates as though he resides at Olympian Heights. By his presumptuous demeanor, he suggests that he sees what no one else sees, and can do what no other person can do; he is America’s healing balm.

Even his efforts at damage control radiate arrogance. Speaking in Muncie, Indiana, after the story broke, Obama said “Lately, there has been a little, typical sort of political flare-up because I said something that everybody knows is true, which is that there are a whole bunch of folks in small towns in Pennsylvania, in towns right here in Indiana, in my home town in Illinois who are bitter.”

The flare-up, you see, happened because Obama is the Great Truth-Teller amidst the masses, many of whom can’t handle the truth. Once it dawned on Obama’s aides that expediency demanded an apology, the Senator offered a qualified mea culpa: “Obviously, if I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that.”

So if Senator Obama worded things in a way that made people feel offended (rather than worded things in a way that is offensive), well, he regrets that.

And at last night’s “Compassion Forum,” hosted by CNN, Obama accused his critics of “misconstruing . . . [his] words” effectively turning the tables on those who take issue with his comments. In Obama’s construal, he is the offended party, and any criticism directed at him is a mere “distraction” from the real issues of the campaign. This method of damage control, as that displayed in the Reverend Wright controversy, implies that simply by questioning the candidate, one is out of line, unfashionable, and uncouth.

I suspect these comments will be quite damaging to Obama because they reinforce (in spite of his efforts to equivocate during this campaign) his conventional liberalism. In this case, though, it’s not simply a matter of him being liberal on economic or domestic issues; it demonstrates that he is a cultural liberal, which has been a particularly lethal charge in presidential elections. It is another brush stroke on the canvas of a man who burst onto the national scene less than four years ago and about whom we know very little. But with every passing week, it seems, we are learning more about the Man of Hope.

On a deeper level, what we saw in Obama’s comments is a glimpse into a particular worldview, one that animates his political philosophy (contemporary liberalism). Senator Obama seems to view ordinary Americans as bitter, often broken, small-minded objects of pity rather than anger, ostensibly in need of instruction from — you guessed it — Barack Obama. The words of Michelle Obama are worth recalling in this context. She has spoken about her husband pushing us out of our “comfort zones,” saying “Barack knows at some level there is a hole in our souls” and “Barack is the only person in this race who understands that before we can work on the problems as a nation, we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation.”

This is the Politics of Meaning on steroids. If one views Americans as fundamentally needy children rather than competent citizens, one embraces the precepts of the nanny state — the state that (in Margaret Thatcher’s memorable phrase) takes too much from you in order to do too much for you. This provides an enormous opening for Senator McCain, who can frame this election as pitting a candidate who believes in self-government, against a candidate who believes in the nanny state.

Increasingly, Barack Obama appears to be the Candidate of Illusion. He presents himself as post-racial — which is harder to accept than it once was, given his intimate, longtime relationship with a pastor and church that harbor deep and obvious racial anger toward whites. Obama presents himself as post-partisan — even though in his time in the Senate he has done nothing to bridge the partisan divide, which explains why he has been endorsed by the rabidly partisan MoveOn.org. Obama presents himself as post-ideological — even though he was named the Senate’s most liberal member in 2007 by the respected National Journal. Obama is a public critic of free trade — yet his chief economic adviser is quoted by a Canadian official as saying that Obama’s position on NAFTA is politically motivated and insincere. Obama speaks about the importance of religious faith in his life and the life of the nation — yet when speaking to a group of rich liberals, he implicitly denigrates people of faith, pairing them with people who have “antipathy to people who aren’t like them” and who harbor “anti-immigrant sentiment[s].” He paints religious believers as folks clinging to crutches to better deal with their desperate lives — only to insist last night that his words were actually a tribute to people of religious faith. So sayeth Barack Obama, “healer of broken souls.”

Early on in this campaign I was impressed with Barack Obama as a thoughtful, inspiring, and admirable (if far too liberal) political figure. As the months have worn on, it’s become increasingly apparent that the candidate is projecting mere shadows on the wall. Our Republic deserves better.
Another arrogant liberal who thinks the rest of us are stupid for not recognizing how brilliant he is!

Obama's Communist Beliefs

The more we learn about the man the more questions are raised about his judgement, character and beliefs. Presto Pundit adds to our knowledge about Obama by describing the communist/socialist views of his father which Barack used as the cornerstone in developing his own philosophy.

Saturday, April 12, 2008

On the Lighter Side: How Obama Gets Away with It!

Jedi Mind Tricks!

Obama Just a Typical Politican

At a fundraiser in San Francisco Barack Hussein Obama described the voters of small town Pennsylvania thusly:
[I]t’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
Needless to say, that when those remarks leaked out people in small towns all over the nation felt insulted.

Obama responded to the uproar today by insisting that this was a “a typical sort of political flare-up,” and attempted to dismiss his critics.

But the issue goes much deeper than whether he misspoke, or poorly choose his words (considering how eloquent he is reported to be, that would be something in itself). The issue is what he really thinks and believes about the values and traditions of the voters in places like small towns in Pennsylvania. Watch the video below if you'd like to know what Obama really thinks, and in his own words and voice.

One more thing that caught my attention: You notice how Obama attaches the word "typical" to anything that might be damaging to his campaign.

He described his grandmother's views towards black people as that of a "typical white person."
Now, he's trying to downplay the insult to small town folks in Pennsylvania by insisting that the heat over his remarks are just a "typical sort of political flare up."

What I've come to learn as I find out more about Barack Obama is that he is just a typical black politician!

Friday, April 11, 2008

The Real Barack Obama: In His OWN Words!

Rev. Wright's hate filled sermons had a profound impact on his character. Here's the proof in his own words and voice that he not only heard those words in church, he believes them:



Thursday, April 10, 2008

President Bush Endorses Petraeus Recommendations

President George W. Bush meets with General David Petraeus, Commander of the Multi-National Force-Iraq, and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker Thursday, April 10, 2008, at the White House. White House photo by Eric Draper

President Bush Discusses Iraq
Cross Hall, The White House
April 10, 2008

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Fifteen months ago, I announced the surge. And this week, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker gave Congress a detailed report on the results.

The immediate goal of the surge was to bring down the sectarian violence that threatened to overwhelm the government in Baghdad, restore basic security to Iraqi communities, and drive the terrorists out of their safe havens. As General Petraeus told Congress, American and Iraqi forces have made significant progress in all these areas. While there is more to be done, sectarian violence is down dramatically. Civilian deaths and military deaths are also down. Many neighborhoods once controlled by al Qaeda have been liberated. And cooperation from Iraqis is stronger than ever -- more tips from residents, more Iraqis joining their security forces, and a growing movement against al Qaeda called the "Sons of Iraq."

Improvements in security have helped clear the way for political and economic developments described by Ambassador Crocker. These gains receive less media coverage, but they are vital to Iraq's future. At the local level, businesses are re-opening and provincial councils are meeting. At the national level, there's much work ahead, but the Iraqi government has passed a budget and three major "benchmark" laws. The national government is sharing oil revenues with the provinces. And many economic indicators in Iraq -- from oil production to inflation -- are now pointed in the right direction.

Serious and complex challenges remain in Iraq, from the presence of al Qaeda to the destructive influence of Iran, to hard compromises needed for further political progress. Yet with the surge, a major strategic shift has occurred. Fifteen months ago, America and the Iraqi government were on the defensive; today, we have the initiative. Fifteen months ago, extremists were sowing sectarian violence; today, many mainstream Sunni and Shia are actively confronting the extremists. Fifteen months ago, al Qaeda had bases in Iraq that it was using to kill our troops and terrorize the Iraqi people; today, we have put al Qaeda on the defensive in Iraq, and we're now working to deliver a crippling blow. Fifteen months ago, Americans were worried about the prospect of failure in Iraq; today, thanks to the surge, we've renewed and revived the prospect of success.

With this goal in mind, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker have submitted recommendations on the way forward. After detailed discussions with my national security team, including the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I've accepted these recommendations.

The recommendation likely to receive the most attention is on troop levels. General Petraeus has reported that security conditions have improved enough to withdraw all five surge brigades by the end of July. That means that by July 31st, the number of U.S. combat brigades in Iraq will be down by 25 percent from last year.
Beyond that, General Petraeus says he'll need time to consolidate his forces and assess how this reduced American presence will affect conditions on the ground before making measured recommendations on further reductions. And I've told him he'll have all the time he needs.

Some have suggested that this period of evaluation will be a "pause." That's misleading, because none of our operations in Iraq will be on hold. Instead, we will use the months ahead to take advantage of opportunities created by the surge -- and continue operations across the board.

All our efforts are aimed at a clear goal: a free Iraq that can protect its people, support itself economically, and take charge of its own political affairs. No one wants to achieve this goal more than the Iraqis themselves. Those who say that the way to encourage further progress is to back off and force the Iraqis to fend for themselves are simply wrong. The Iraqis are a proud people who understand the enormity of the challenges they face and are anxious to meet them. But they know that they still need our help until they can stand by themselves. Our job in the period ahead is to stand with the Iraqi government as it makes tough choices and makes the transition to responsibility for its own security and its own destiny.

So what will this transition look like? On the security front, thanks to the significant progress General Petraeus reported this week, it is clear that we're on the right track. In the period ahead, we will stay on the offense against the enemy. As we speak, U.S. Special Forces are launching multiple operations every night to capture or kill al Qaeda leaders in Iraq. Coalition and Iraqi forces are also stepping up conventional operations against al Qaeda in northern Iraq, where terrorists have concentrated after being largely pushed from central and western Iraq. And Prime Minister Maliki's government has launched operations in Basra that make clear a free Iraq will no longer tolerate the lawlessness by Iranian-backed militants.

In the period ahead, we'll also continue to train, equip, and support the Iraqi security forces, continue to transfer security responsibilities to them as provinces become ready, and move over time into an overwatch role. The Iraqi army and police are increasingly capable, and leading the fight to secure their country. As Iraqis assume the primary role in providing security, American forces will increasingly focus on targeted raids against the terrorists and extremists, they will continue training Iraqi forces, and they will be available to help Iraq's security forces if required.

On the economic front, Iraq is moving forward. With Iraq's economy growing, oil revenues on the rise, and its capital investment expanding, our economic role in the country is changing. Iraqis in their recent budget would outspend us on reconstruction by more than ten to one. And American funding for large-scale reconstruction projects is approaching zero. Our share of Iraq's security costs will drop, as well, as Iraqis pay for the vast majority of their own army and police. And that's the way it should be. Ultimately, we expect Iraq to shoulder the full burden of these costs. In the period ahead, Iraq's economy will increasingly move away from American assistance, rely on private investment, and stand on its own.

On the political front, Iraq has seen bottom-up progress -- as tribes and other groups in the provinces who fought terror are now turning to rebuilding local political structures and taking charge of their own affairs. Progress in the provinces is leading to progress in Baghdad, as Iraqi leaders increasingly act together and they share power, and they forge compromises on behalf of the nation. Upcoming elections will consolidate this progress. They'll provide a way for Iraqis to settle disputes through the political process instead of through violence. Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year, and these elections will be followed by national elections in 2009.

On the diplomatic front, Iraq will increase its engagement in the world -- and the world must increase its engagement with Iraq. To help in this effort, I'm directing Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus to visit Saudi Arabia on their trip back to Iraq. I'm directing our nation's senior diplomats to meet with the leaders in Jordan, the UAE, and Qatar, and Kuwait and Egypt. In each capital, they will brief them on the situation in Iraq, and encourage these nations to reopen their embassies in Baghdad, and increase their overall support for Iraq. This will be followed by Secretary Rice's trip to the third Expanded Neighbors Conference in Kuwait City and the second International Compact with Iraq meeting in Stockholm.

A stable, successful, independent Iraq is in the strategic interests of Arab nations. And all who want peace in the Middle East should support a stable, democratic Iraq. And we will urge all nations to increase their support this year.

The regime in Tehran also has a choice to make. It can live in peace with its neighbor, enjoy strong economic and cultural and religious ties. Or it can continue to arm and train and fund illegal militant groups, which are terrorizing the Iraqi people and turning them against Iran. If Iran makes the right choice, America will encourage a peaceful relationship between Iran and Iraq. Iran makes the wrong choice, America will act to protect our interests, and our troops, and our Iraqi partners.

On each of these fronts -- security, economic, political, and diplomatic -- Iraqis are stepping forward to assume more responsibility for the welfare of their people and the fate of their country. In all these fronts, America will continue to play an increasingly supporting role.

Our work in Iraq will still demand sacrifices from our whole nation, especially our military, for some time to come. To ease the burden on our troops and their families, I've directed the Secretary of Defense to reduce deployment lengths from 15 months to 12 months for all active Army soldiers deploying to the Central Command area of operations. These changes will be effective for those deploying after August 1st. We'll also ensure that our Army units will have at least a year home for every year in the field. Our nation owes a special thanks to the soldiers and families who've supported this extended deployment. We owe a special thanks to all who serve in the cause of freedom in Iraq.

The stress on our force is real, but the Joint Chiefs have assured me that an all-volunteer force -- our all-volunteer force is strong and resilient enough to fight and win this war on terror. The trends in Iraq are positive. Our troops want to win. Recruiting and retention have remained strong during the surge. And I believe this: I believe the surest way to depress morale and weaken the force would be to lose in Iraq.

One key to ensuring that our military remains ready is to provide the resources they need promptly. Congress will soon consider a vital emergency war funding request. Members of Congress must pass a bill that provides our troops the resources they need -- and does not tie the hands of our commanders or impose artificial timelines for withdrawal. This bill must also be fiscally responsible. It must not exceed the reasonable $108 billion request I sent to Congress months ago. If the bill meets all these requirements, it will be a strong show of support for our troops. If it doesn't, I'll veto it.

Some in Washington argue that the war costs too much money. There's no doubt that the costs of this war have been high. But during other major conflicts in our history, the relative cost has been even higher. Think about the Cold War. During the Truman and Eisenhower administrations, our defense budget rose as high as 13 percent of our total economy. Even during the Reagan administration, when our economy expanded significantly, the defense budget still accounted for about 6 percent of GDP. Our citizens recognized that the imperative of stopping Soviet expansion justified this expense. Today, we face an enemy that is not only expansionist in its aims, but has actually attacked our homeland -- and intends to do so again. Yet our defense budget accounts for just over 4 percent of our economy -- less than our commitment at any point during the four decades of the Cold War. This is still a large amount of money, but it is modest -- a modest fraction of our nation's wealth -- and it pales when compared to the cost of another terrorist attack on our people.

We should be able to agree that this is a burden worth bearing. And we should be able to agree that our national interest require the success of our mission in Iraq.


Iraq is the convergence point for two of the greatest threats to America in this new century -- al Qaeda and Iran. If we fail there, al Qaeda would claim a propaganda victory of colossal proportions, and they could gain safe havens in Iraq from which to attack the United States, our friends and our allies. Iran would work to fill the vacuum in Iraq, and our failure would embolden its radical leaders and fuel their ambitions to dominate the region. The Taliban in Afghanistan and al Qaeda in Pakistan would grow in confidence and boldness. And violent extremists around the world would draw the same dangerous lesson that they did from our retreats in Somalia and Vietnam. This would diminish our nation's standing in the world, and lead to massive humanitarian casualties, and increase the threat of another terrorist attack on our homeland.

On the other hand, if we succeed in Iraq after all that al Qaeda and Iran have invested there, it would be a historic blow to the global terrorist movement and a severe setback for Iran. It would demonstrate to a watching world that mainstream Arabs reject the ideology of al Qaeda, and mainstream Shia reject the ideology of Iran's radical regime. It would give America a new partner with a growing economy and a democratic political system in which Sunnis and Shia and Kurds all work together for the good of their country. And in all these ways, it would bring us closer to our most important goal -- making the American people safer here at home.

I want to say a word to our troops and civilians in Iraq. You've performed with incredible skill under demanding circumstances. The turnaround you have made possible in Iraq is a brilliant achievement in American history. And while this war is difficult, it is not endless. And we expect that, as conditions on the ground continue to improve, they will permit us to continue the policy of return on success. The day will come when Iraq is a capable partner of the United States. The day will come when Iraq is a stable democracy that helps fight our common enemies and promote our common interests in the Middle East. And when that day arrives, you'll come home with pride in your success, and the gratitude of your whole nation. God bless you. (Applause.)

Tuesday, April 08, 2008

How the Left Cooks the Reporting on Global Warming

Envirozealots aren't very subtle about their attempt to influence the ongoing debate!

When the BBC reported that the UN's World Meteorological Organization confirmed that global temperature increases have been stalled since 1998, the envirozealots had a cow!

How dare the BBC report the news accurately without spinning it to insist that even though this information is true, global warming is real and man is to blame!

One envirozealot took it upon herself to educate the reporter and via email, repeatedly "demanded" a change in the story. And guess what? After first insisting they wouldn't change the story, the BBC folded and made the changes demanded by the envirozealot.

Jennifer Marohasy, the global warming skeptic whose views we featured in a post two weeks ago got ahold of the email exchange between the BBC reporter and the envirozealot.

In it, the envirozealot used the full set of big lie talking points on manmade global warming which included:

  • The big lie that the scientists who fail to agree with the envirozealots "sky is falling" scaremongering are not credible scientists in the field. It doesn't seem to matter to these liars that this lie has been exposed time and time again.
  • When the reporter first refused to change his article the envirozealot responded that it was "highly irresponsible to play into the hands of the sceptics/skeptics" and threatened to post the reporters email so that others could "add to" the reporters knowledge.
  • After another refusal the envirozealot responded that "This is not an issue of "debate". This is an issue of emerging truth." Then, "It would be better if you did not quote the sceptics."

Finally, the envirozealot said that if the reporter refused to change the story in the way demanded, the e.z. would:

"have to conclude that you are insufficiently educated to be able to know when you have been psychologically manipulated. And that would make you an unreliable reporter."

Pretty transparent who is doing the manipulation here isn't it? After that last screed the reporter gave in and changed the story to spin it in favor of the envirozealots scaremongering viewpoint.

Funny thing is that the e.z. (envirozealot) admitted that climate science is in it's infancy. And yet she makes absolute statements of fact which are NOT founded on hard science based on observation. The only "emerging truth" here is that the e.v.'s are the real deniers of a sound scientific process. And they are expecting all of us to accept their flawed conclusions at face value without debate.

Duke University Hires Strippers for Campus Event

The "New Whore Order" is just another example of how parent's tuition money is being misspent!

2008 Campus Outrage Awards
The Collegiate Network

Proving that crazy and absurd antics of college life are no longer confined to fraternities and sororities but have now expanded into the classroom and administration buildings, the Collegiate Network announces the annual “Campus Outrage Awards.”

This year’s winners:

1. Duke University

At Duke, strippers at a private off-campus party are cause for scandal—and accusations of rape—but strippers on a public, on-campus stage are a source of academic appreciation.

During the Duke lacrosse “rape” scandal, the university administration criticized the lacrosse team for inviting a stripper to an off-campus party. The infamous “Group of 88” faculty members took out a full-page ad in the campus daily asserting that “regardless of the outcome of the police investigation,” the lacrosse players were guilty of something very bad because they paid a young woman to perform for them. Yet last February, the school hosted the Sex Workers Art Show Tour, which features strippers, prostitutes, and phone-sex operators in a “cabaret-style” performance. While some of the performers read poetry, others stripped to near-nudity and donned artificial sex organs (while mocking President George W. Bush). The show’s motto is “new whore order.”

In 2006, associate dean of students Stephen Bryan, criticizing the lacrosse team, said “It’s a moral choice. … We made a decision that a stripper at a campus event is something that we don’t want to support.” Vice President of Student Affairs Larry Moneta said that the event is “evidence that Duke continues to be a community filled with diverse people and opinions, and one committed to academic freedom and free speech.” In fact, the Sex Workers Art Show “is a hallmark of the intellectual environment [students] will experience at Duke.”

Duke is not alone in welcoming the Sex Workers Art Show, which is built on the in-your-face promotional model of the Vagina Monologues. Schools from UC Davis and Northern Arizona University to Harvard and the University of Michigan have featured this fine arts program. Yale isn’t yet on the roster, but its ivy-clad halls feature “Sex Week” every year. While the event was ostensibly academic in nature when it began in 2003, it has degenerated into a week-long fraternity party, with pornographic film screenings, lectures by sex industry workers, and free goody bags filled with contraceptives and sex toys, courtesy of the University Health Services center.

As the Sex Workers Art Show and similar movements tour campuses, students and parents may wonder for what exactly are they paying tuition: Why not just spend your college years attending frat parties with strippers? Just remember, if you want to go to a strip show, be sure it’s a school-sanctioned one.
One wonders if the same bunch of professional protesters that demanded the Duke Lacrosse players be castrated for hiring strippers for their off campus party where false rape allegations were raised were among those enjoying the show of sex workers in the "New Whore Order?"

Make sure to read the rest of the 2008 Outrage awards. You won't want to miss the number two recipient, the University of Delaware, which used tuition money for a program that would "leave a mental footprint" on the "consciousness" of students. Just what kind of brainwashing did they have in mind? Here's a slice:

“A RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination. (This does not deny the existence of such prejudices, hostilities, acts of rage or discrimination.)”

Monday, April 07, 2008

Iraqis Step Up And Do the Job in Basra

Democrats complain that it's still not good enough!

General Petraeus will be testifying before the defeatists in the House and Senate this week. As usual, we can expect Democrats to poo-poo the good news and focus only on the bad (of which there has been less and less).

Ralph Peters has some insight on recent events in Iraq that are worth sharing. Here are some excerpts:

THE IRAQIS STEP UP
WHY PETRAEUS SEES GAINS
By Ralph Peters
New York Post
April 7, 2008

...But what about the recent fighting in Basra, portrayed as a disaster by the media? "The Iraqi Security Forces conducted a number of targeted operations, took over the ports [key prizes that had been funding the militias] and are in the process of reestablishing checkpoints and security positions in the city.

"The Iraqi operation did reflect a willingness to take tough decisions about tough problems. It also displayed the Iraqi capability to deploy two brigades' worth of conventional and special-operations forces on less than 48-hours' notice, with another brigade following. That would not have been possible a year ago."

My source acknowledged that "the planning for Basra was incomplete and some of the local forces were incapable of standing up to the Iranian-supported rogue-militia elements." The quality of Iraq's security forces remains uneven - but he sees them as remarkably improved, in general. Their performance in Basra was more impressive than feature-the-bad-news reporting implied.

This officer doesn't paint over the cracks in the Iraqi house, but he's convinced that the Basra operation did "reflect a determination of a Shia-led government to deal with Shia extremist challenges."
...
Unlike the Brits, who faked it, the Iraqis went into the city and fought. Was their performance perfect? Of course not. But this is where the punditry got really interesting.

Many of the critics had previously lavished praise on the counterinsurgency manual that Petraeus midwifed. One of the most-quoted maxims from that document was T.E. Lawrence's admonition that it's better for our local allies to do something imperfectly themselves than for us to do it perfectly for them.

Well, the Iraqis stepped up to the plate. A few units folded. Others fought ferociously. They did what we said we wanted - and the critics raised the bar again. (Unfair criteria for success now may pose a greater obstacle in Iraq and Afghanistan than do al Qaeda or the Taliban.)

And, by the way, it was Moqtada al Sadr, not the Iraqi government, who requested a cease-fire - after being urged by the Iranians to opt to let those militias live to fight another day.

Partisan critics refuse to accept that war is tough and results are never perfect. They want it all wrapped up neatly at the end of the two-hour movie so we can all walk out of the theater feeling good.
...
The general will also be needled about the recent mortar attacks on the Green Zone and on Iran's role in the Iraqi muddle. We'll have to wait and see how he responds tomorrow - but my contact had this to say, after I mentioned that the real target of those mortar rounds seemed to be media headlines:

"The attacks on the Green Zone were carried out by the Iranian-trained, Iranian-equipped, Iranian-funded and Iranian-directed Special Groups . . . They prompted many Iraqi leaders to take a hard new look at their neighbor to the east, especially in light of promises by President [Mahmoud] Ahmedinejad to stop the flow of lethal accelerants into Iraq."

Iraqi legislators, who also inhabit the Green Zone, were incensed that many of the "rockets and mortars fell short or wide and killed or wounded innocent civilians."

That last point is a good note on which to end as we await the congressional circus. Anyone who's served in the Army or Marines knows that, while mortars require skilled operators to deliver accurate fire, they're among the easiest weapons to use if all you want to do is make a noise and get attention.

In other words, those mortar attacks on the Green Zone were the equivalent of the questions Gen. Petraeus is going to face: Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Long ago, President Bush defined victory in Iraq as a nation which could govern itself, defend itself and be an ally in the war on terror. It seems we have come a long way towards meeting those goals.

And for those who say that Iraq still hasn't made any political progress, perhaps they missed this story in the tsunami of media attention on the Hillary and Obama sideshow.

Sunday, April 06, 2008

Bush Visits Russia's Putin, Meets New President

And a crowd of thousands welcomes him to Croatia!

President George W. Bush and Russia's President Vladimir Putin take a sunset walk on a pier along the Black Sea during a visit by President and Mrs. Bush Saturday, April 5, 2008, to President Putin's summer retreat, Bocharov Ruchey, in Sochi, Russia. White House photo by Eric Draper


President George W. Bush shakes hands with President-elect Dmitry Medvedev at the top of their meeting Sunday, April 6, 2008, at the State Residence of the President of Russia, Bocharov Ruchey in Sochi, Russia. President Bush thanked the President-elect, saying, "I'm looking forward to getting to know you, so we'll be able to work through common problems and find common opportunities." White House photo by Chris Greenberg


Thousands jam St. Marks's Square in Zagreb to see and hear President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Ivo Sanader of Croatia Saturday, April 5, 2008. White House photo by Chris Greenberg

President George W. Bush reaches out to the crowd Saturday during his visit to St. Mark's Square in Zagreb. More than 3,000 people were on hand to welcome the President during his visit. White House photo by Eric Draper

Air Force One, with President George W. Bush and Mrs. Laura Bush aboard, departs Sochi Airport in Sochi, Russia Sunday, April 6, 2008, for Washington, D.C. White House photo by Chris Greenberg

Saturday, April 05, 2008

ABSOLUTly NOT!

Absolut vodka drinkers may wish to switch brands!

The following is from an advertising campaign for Absolut Vodka in Mexico:


Hey Mexico: Remember the war of 1848? YOU LOST! Get over it before we send your illegals back for YOU to feed!

Want to email Absolut's North American representative?

jeffrey.moran@absolut.com

Thursday, April 03, 2008

Bush & NATO Allies Enshrine Reagan's Missile Defense Legacy

Allies Agree to U.S. Missile Defense Plan!

President George W. Bush stands with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Thursday, April 3, 2008, during the North Atlantic Council Summit in Bucharest. More photos and the full story here. White House photo by Eric Draper

Excerpt from:
Bucharest Summit Declaration
Issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Bucharest on 3 April 2008
full communique

Ballistic missile proliferation poses an increasing threat to Allies’ forces, territory and populations. Missile defence forms part of a broader response to counter this threat. We therefore recognise the substantial contribution to the protection of Allies from long range ballistic missiles to be provided by the planned deployment of European based United States missile defence assets.

This is the culmination of the vision that President Reagan laid down 25 years ago last March:

Excerpt from:
Address to the Nation on National Security
President Ronald Reagan
White House Oval Office
Full text and audio
March 23, 1983

Let me share with you a vision of the future which offers hope. It is that we embark on a program to counter the awesome Soviet missile threat with measures that are defensive. Let us turn to the very strengths in technology that spawned our great industrial base and that have given us the quality of life we enjoy today.

What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that their security did not rest upon the threat of instant U.S. retaliation to deter a Soviet attack, that we could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies?

I know this is a formidable, technical task, one that may not be accomplished before the end of this century. Yet, current technology has attained a level of sophistication where it's reasonable for us to begin this effort. It will take years, probably decades of effort on many fronts. There will be failures and setbacks, just as there will be successes and breakthroughs. And as we proceed, we must remain constant in preserving the nuclear deterrent and maintaining a solid capability for flexible response. But isn't it worth every investment necessary to free the world from the threat of nuclear war? We know it is.
...
I am directing a comprehensive and intensive effort to define a long-term research and development program to begin to achieve our ultimate goal of eliminating the threat posed by strategic nuclear missiles. This could pave the way for arms control measures to eliminate the weapons themselves. We seek neither military superiority nor political advantage. Our only purpose–one all people share–is to search for ways to reduce the danger of nuclear war.

My fellow Americans, tonight we're launching an effort which holds the promise of changing the course of human history. There will be risks, and results take time. But I believe we can do it. As we cross this threshold, I ask for your prayers and your support.

And it was an effort that changed the course of human history. First by causing the implosion of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact that held the nations of Eastern Europe captive throughout the Cold War.

Now, nearly all of those nations are clamoring to be admitted to NATO and actively embrace a close alliance with the United States. Many NATO nations and neighboring countries desiring to join have also been partners in our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

NATO has changed the map of Europe and the world for the better!


full size image here.

Oh, and did I mention that the missile defense system Reagan envisioned actually works?

Wednesday, April 02, 2008

Hillary Fired From Watergate Legal Job

She wanted to deny to President Nixon the same legal protections her husband used to the fullest. And she lied to do it!

Watergate-Era Judiciary Chief of Staff: Hillary Clinton Fired For Lies, Unethical Behavior
By Dan Calabrese
North Star Writer's Group
March 31, 2008

As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged in a pattern of lying.

The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

Why?

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

How could a 27-year-old House staff member do all that? She couldn’t do it by herself, but Zeifman said she was one of several individuals – including Marshall, special counsel John Doar and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum – who engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation.

Why would they want to do that? Because, according to Zeifman, they feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be cross-examined by counsel to the president. Hunt, Zeifman said, had the goods on nefarious activities in the Kennedy Administration that would have made Watergate look like a day at the beach – including Kennedy’s purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro.

The actions of Hillary and her cohorts went directly against the judgment of top Democrats, up to and including then-House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill, that Nixon clearly had the right to counsel. Zeifman says that Hillary, along with Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar, was determined to gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon. And in order to pull this off, Zeifman says Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception.

The brief involved precedent for representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding. When Hillary endeavored to write a legal brief arguing there is no right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding, Zeifman says, he told Hillary about the case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who faced an impeachment attempt in 1970.

“As soon as the impeachment resolutions were introduced by (then-House Minority Leader Gerald) Ford, and they were referred to the House Judiciary Committee, the first thing Douglas did was hire himself a lawyer,” Zeifman said.

The Judiciary Committee allowed Douglas to keep counsel, thus establishing the precedent. Zeifman says he told Hillary that all the documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary Committee’s public files. So what did Hillary do?

“Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public,” Zeifman said. Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding – as if the Douglas case had never occurred.

The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.

Zeifman says that if Hillary, Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar had succeeded, members of the House Judiciary Committee would have also been denied the right to cross-examine witnesses, and denied the opportunity to even participate in the drafting of articles of impeachment against Nixon.

Of course, Nixon’s resignation rendered the entire issue moot, ending Hillary’s career on the Judiciary Committee staff in a most undistinguished manner. Zeifman says he was urged by top committee members to keep a diary of everything that was happening. He did so, and still has the diary if anyone wants to check the veracity of his story. Certainly, he could not have known in 1974 that diary entries about a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham would be of interest to anyone 34 years later.

But they show that the pattern of lies, deceit, fabrications and unethical behavior was established long ago – long before the Bosnia lie, and indeed, even before cattle futures, Travelgate and Whitewater – for the woman who is still asking us to make her president of the United States.
Hillary and Obama: Two peas in the same pod. Both liars!

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

What Does Obama Believe?

"black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy."

Obama's church founded on radical creed
By S.A. Miller
Washington Times
April 1, 2008

The church where Sen. Barack Obama has worshipped for two decades publicly declares that its ministry is founded on a 1960s book that espouses "the destruction of the white enemy."

Trinity United Church of Christ's Web site says its teachings are based on the black liberation theology of James H. Cone and his 1969 book "Black Theology and Black Power."

"What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love," Mr. Cone wrote in the book.

Mr. Cone, a professor at the Union Theological Seminary in New York, added that "black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy."

Mr. Obama's campaign, which for weeks has weathered criticism about inflammatory racial language by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. at Trinity, said the candidate "vehemently disagrees" with those tenets.

"It's absurd to suggest that he or anyone should be held responsible for every quote in every book read by a member of their church," said Obama spokesman Reid Cherlin.

"Barack Obama is not a theologian, and what he learned in church is to love Jesus Christ and work on behalf of his fellow man, regardless of race, class or circumstance. This is a faulty and disingenuous approach to a church, and a flawed way to judge a candidate," he said.

Mr. Obama has been a member of Trinity, on Chicago's South Side, since finding religion there 20 years ago under Mr. Wright's mentorship. Mr. Wright married the Obamas and baptized their children, and a sermon of his inspired Mr. Obama to title his book "The Audacity of Hope."

There is no evidence to date in any of Mr. Obama's public comments or speeches that he espouses the radical features of the black liberation theology practiced at his church.

Critics say Trinity's message verges on separatist philosophy and at the very least advocates exclusively for blacks.

"The liberation theology and the black-values system to which his membership ascribe is a clear commitment to the social and spiritual enhancement of only the black race," the Rev. Corey J. Hodges, who is black, wrote last year in the Salt Lake Tribune. "Even more troubling is Wright's use of the pulpit to perpetuate racial division."

For years, Mr. Wright delivered sermons and endorsed articles in the church bulletin that called the United States and Israel racist regimes.

The bulletin's "pastor's page" included essays that said Israel and South Africa "worked on an ethnic bomb that kills blacks and Arabs," compared Israel to Nazi Germany and quoted leaders of the terrorist group Hamas calling Israel a "deformed modern apartheid state."

In a bulletin last year, Mr. Wright lashed out at the news media for scrutinizing the church, blaming "racist United States of America" and "white arrogance" for distracting the country from more important issues, such as the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina victims.

The church declined to comment for this article, but the Rev. Otis Moss III, the church's junior pastor, who took over for Mr. Wright, wrote in the bulletin in October that media conglomerates "operate with contempt and disdain for the black community, women, and people of the African Diaspora."

Conrad Worrill, a leader of the Chicago-based National Black United Front, said attention directed at Trinity United demonstrates that racist attitudes persist in the United States.

"Even if [Mr. Obama] did support some of the tenets of some of the ideas embedded in that theology, I still don't think it has anything to do with his vision and his candidacy," said Mr. Worrill, whose organization promotes black political and cultural education and activism.

"I think most black people would agree that what Jeremiah Wright said is the truth. ... What we see playing out on the public stage is how black people still see America and the world and how white people cannot see the truth. It has nothing to do with Barack Obama."

Mr. Wright, who recently retired as the church's pastor after 36 years, defended Trinity's religious views in "talking points" posted on the church's Web site (www.tucc.org).

"To have a church whose theological perspective starts from the vantage point of Black liberation theology being its center, is not to say that African or African-American people are superior to anyone else," he said.

Mr. Cone recently told Forbes magazine that he doesn't know how much Mr. Obama knows about black-liberation theology.

"I've read both of Barack Obama's books, and I heard the speech [on race]. I don't see anything in the books or in the speech that contradicts black liberation theology. If he had it explained to him, I think he would [understand it]," he said.

Mr. Cone calls his own teachings a fusion of teachings of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King.

In a debate last month with his rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Mr. Obama rejected the church's decision last year to honor Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who is known for anti-Semitic remarks.

The senator also disavowed some of Mr. Wright's racist sermons after they were publicized in video clips on television and the Internet and on talk radio.

But in a March 18 speech on race, Mr. Obama said he could not sever ties with the pastor. He said Mr. Wright is like family and that the pastor's outlook is scarred by civil rights struggles of the 1960s.

Mr. Obama said he was unaware until last month that his longtime spiritual mentor and friend used incendiary racist rhetoric in his sermons, such as denouncing the "U.S. of KKKA" and proclaiming, "God damn America."

Mr. Obama said rants against whites were never part of the Sunday services he attended.

"I don't purchase all the DVDs [of Mr. Wright's sermons], and I didn't read all the church bulletins," Mr. Obama said Friday on ABC's "The View." "It's not to excuse it."

Mr. Obama said his mixed-race heritage — his mother was white and his father black — gives him a unique vantage point from which to help bridge the nation's racial divides.

"The church itself, though, is a wonderful, welcoming church. And if you guys went there on a Sunday, you would feel right at home," he told the panelists on TV's "The View," most of them white. "You would see people talking about Jesus, and mercy, and sin, and family ... and forgiveness."

"That doesn't excuse what [Mr. Wright] said, but I do think it's important just to put it in context."

The Rev. Jane Fisler Hoffman, a member of Trinity who serves as a pastor in Southern California, said the Chicago church does not follow a radical doctrine, despite the angry words of Mr. Cone's treatise.

"It may have had some influence on what unfolded, but [Trinity] is a wonderful church, not a separatist church," said Mrs. Hoffman, who is white. "Anyone who tries to paint the church as hateful would be missing the mark.

OBAMA"S CHURCH

The following is doctrine of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, where Democratic presidential front-runner Sen. Barack Obama has been a member since finding religion there 20 years ago.

Motto: Unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian.

Official statement: Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.

First tenet of the black values system: Commitment to God.

" 'The God of our weary years' will give us the strength to give up prayerful passivism and become Black Christian Activists, soldiers for Black freedom and the dignity of all humankind."
Can Obama really say he is totally ignorant of the deeply troubling foundations upon which his church is based and still claim to be smart enough to be President?
fsg053d4.txt Free xml sitemap generator