Wednesday, February 28, 2007

"Do as I say, not as I do" Royal Command

Did you hear about this?

The Royal pasty that's unhealthier than a Big Mac
This is London

He's a tireless champion of organic farming and healthy eating.

So it was perhaps no surprise when Prince Charles launched an attack on the fast-food industry.

Charles met nutritionist Nadine Tayara at a new centre to combat diabetes in Abu Dhabi set up by Imperial College London.

Miss Tayara was showing him how local schoolchildren were being encouraged to put fresh fruit and salads in their lunch-boxes each day instead of eating fast food, when he remarked: "Have you got anywhere with McDonald's? Have you tried getting it banned? That is the key."

But when he went as far as suggesting that McDonald's should be banned, it seemed that the prince had bitten off far more than he could chew.

He immediately laid himself open to charges of hypocrisy after it was pointed out that the company's signature Big Mac contains fewer calories, fats and salt than some products in his own organic Duchy Originals food range.

Eat healthy! Gas up the SUV and head to the nearest McDonalds!

Better yet, head off to Clearfield Pennsylvania and Denny's Beer Barrel Pub for the World Record burger Weighing in at 123 pounds.


Global Baloney: What's the Underlying Motivation for Hysteria?

"Kyoto represents the first component of an authentic global governance."
French President Jacques Chirac
The Hague, November 2000

If you want to understand the motivation behind the media hysteria surrounding global warming, the above quote from Chirac goes right to the point.

And just to underscore that point, A group of 18 scientists from 11 countries funded by the United Nations Foundation released a report to the U.N. recommending measures to combat global warming which include a global tax on greenhouse gas emissions.

In describing the need for action, Panel member John Holdren of Harvard University sprinkled the following scare words into his statement: "catastrophe... harm...danger...intolerable...unmanageable."

Consider the Source

Well, when the U.N. speaks we MUST listen? What a minute. Who is this "U.N. Foundation?" Turns out it's totally funded by CNN media mogul and certified whacko Ted Turner. So Ted Turner goes out and buys a panel of scientists to support his one world government view and we're all supposed to swallow it in the name of science?

Talk about perverted!

And does anyone think that the United Nations, who has failed miserably in it's primary peace mission, not to mention totally corrupt where money is concerned, should be handed the tool to rape the U.S. economy by imposing a "global tax" which we all know would end up being paid primarily by us?

The mask has fallen away folks! Global baloney hysteria is not, and never has been, out of concern for the environment. No "tax" collected by the U.N. would do anything to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The hysteria is all about scaring U.S. citizens to the point they will willingly hand over a portion of our sovereignty to a corrupt, unaccountable, totally worthless international body.

No thanks! Better luck next time Ted Turner!

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Iran Targeting New York City?

Iran's not a threat....All we have to do is talk to them....Bush is lying about Iran.

By now we've heard it all. Liberals in denial about the threat of terrorism and Iran's role in it.

But since this story is reported in Newsweek, maybe they'll listen? Nah! We know better.
New York: Targeted By Tehran?
March 5, 2007 issue

...NYPD officials have worried about possible Iranian-sponsored attacks since a series of incidents involving officials of the Iranian Mission to the United Nations. In November 2003, Ahmad Safari and Alireaza Safi, described as Iranian Mission "security" personnel, were detained by transit cops when they were seen videotaping subway tracks from Queens to Manhattan at 1:10 in the morning. The men later left New York. "We're concerned that Iranian agents were engaged in reconnaissance that might be used in an attack against New York City at some future date," Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly told NEWSWEEK.
Since U.N. diplomats don't use mass transit or live in Queens, I doubt they'll be alarmed enough by this report to actually DO something about Iran.

P.S. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, newly installed U.S. intelligence chief Mike McConnell said it was "probable" that Iranian leaders including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei were aware that weapons known as explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs, had been supplied to Iraqi Shi'ites.

Hate Filled Left Wishes For Assasination of Vice President

Readers will have heard the story of an attack at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan which occurred while Vice President Cheney was visiting.

You might also have heard how hate-filled Democrats spewed their bile all over one of their favorite nesting sites, the Huffington Post, wishing that Cheney had been killed.

Comments like "Jesus Christ and General Jackson too, can't the Taliban do anything right? They must know we would be so gratefull (sic) to them for such a remarkable achievement" were among the milder remarks.

The comment: "You can never find a competent suicide bomber when you need one" might not be so funny to the families of September 11th victims, or those in Israel living with the wounds of attacks.

The entire comment thread has been saved in case anyone disputes the volume and vile nature of the comments.

And right on schedule the Democrat talking heads are all over the media insisting that these comments are not part of the legitimate debate on issues that they wish to present in Democrat blogs and online forums.

Oh really? Here's another example from the Huffington Post. This one, a posted article by
Tony Hendra, an approved Huffington Post columnist:
A Thanksgiving Prayer for Dick Cheney's Heart -- and a Few Other Favorite Things

I give thanks O Lord for Dick Cheney's Heart, that brave organ which has done its darn-tootin' best on four separate occasions to do what we can only dream about.

O Lord, give Dick Cheney's Heart, Our Sacred Secret Weapon, the strength to try one more time! For greater love hath no heart than that it lay down its life to rid the planet of its Number One Human Tumor.....

And you wonder where the nuts who left those comments got their ideas?

One last question: Whose side are these people on? Are they really rooting for the enemies of our nation to assasinate an elected leader?

Quickie Quiz

Please post your answers in the comments section. Any liberals caught cheating will be expelled.

1. In 2005, the U.S. federal government spent $581 billion on Health and Human Services and $560 billion on Social Security Administration, for a combined total over $1.1 trillion. How much did the United States spend on Defense-Military?
(a) $2.744 trillion
(b) $1.474 trillion
(c) $744 billion
(d) $474 billion

2. In 2001, public spending per capita on health in the United Kingdom, Canada and France was $1,518, $1,531 and $1,599, respectively. How much was public spending per capita on health in the United States?
(a) $168
(b) $682
(c) $1,286
(d) $2,168

4. While 140 countries have signed the Kyoto Treaty to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the U.S. refuses to do so. From 1994 to 2004, carbon dioxide emissions from consumption of fossil fuels increased by 19.4% in Canada, 26.4% in Greece, 42.9% in Norway, and 68.4% in China. How much did carbon dioxide emissions from consumption of fossil fuels increase in the U.S. from 1994 to 2004?
(a) 129%
(b) 92.1%
(c) 29.1%
(d) 12.9%

5. In 2004 in the U.S., just three years after the 911 attacks, there were 1,013 anti-Jewish hate crime offenses. How many anti-Islamic hate crime offenses were there?
(a) 100,094
(b) 10,094
(c) 1,094
(d) 194

10. The intelligence of President George W. Bush is often ridiculed, especially on late-night comedy shows. What fraction of the general population is less intelligent than President Bush?
(a) 25%
(b) 50%
(c) 75%
(d) 95%

The rest of the questions, as well as the answers are at Further Adventures of Indigo Red, who got them from the American Thinker.

Monday, February 26, 2007

Bush Lives the Green Life Gore Only Talks About

Found this at Flopping Aces. Drop on over there and you'll learn that President Bush's Prairie Chapel Ranch in Crawford, Texas is a modest 4,000 square foot dwelling built with the latest environmentally friendly technology.

Waste water is recycled for irrigation, geothermal energy is used for heating and cooling. It's a model for modern living as described by one of the same left wing web sites that hates President Bush and insists he wants to poison the water and the air.

If the need for radical change in our lifestyle to protect the environment is a "moral issue" as Al Bore said at the Oscares, why is it that Democrats like Bore and John Edwards live in huge palaces spewing poisons into the air?

Class Versus Ass

The Choice on Iraq
"I appeal to my colleagues in Congress to step back and think carefully about what to do next."

Opinion Journal
Monday, February 26, 2007

...the fact is that we are in a different place in Iraq today from even just a month ago--with a new strategy, a new commander, and more troops on the ground. We are now in a stronger position to ensure basic security--and with that, we are in a stronger position to marginalize the extremists and strengthen the moderates; a stronger position to foster the economic activity that will drain the insurgency and militias of public support; and a stronger position to press the Iraqi government to make the tough decisions that everyone acknowledges are necessary for progress.

Unfortunately, for many congressional opponents of the war, none of this seems to matter. As the battle of Baghdad just gets underway, they have already made up their minds about America's cause in Iraq, declaring their intention to put an end to the mission before we have had the time to see whether our new plan will work.
Gen. Petraeus says he will be able to see whether progress is occurring by the end of the summer, so let us declare a truce in the Washington political war over Iraq until then. Let us come together around a constructive legislative agenda for our security: authorizing an increase in the size of the Army and Marines, funding the equipment and protection our troops need, monitoring progress on the ground in Iraq with oversight hearings, investigating contract procedures, and guaranteeing Iraq war veterans the first-class treatment and care they deserve when they come home.
We are at a critical moment in Iraq--at the beginning of a key battle, in the midst of a war that is irretrievably bound up in an even bigger, global struggle against the totalitarian ideology of radical Islamism. However tired, however frustrated, however angry we may feel, we must remember that our forces in Iraq carry America's cause--the cause of freedom--which we abandon at our peril.

Senator Carl Levin (D-MI)
Meet the PressFebruary 25, 2007

SEN. LEVIN: ...Most of us do not want to cut funding for our troops ....because that resolution would lose, the president would then use the defeat of a cut-the-funding resolution as a way of supporting his policy. So we would be playing right into the hands of the president and his policy makers by having a losing vote on funding. So it’s the wrong thing to do, and it also would strengthen the president’s hand when we don’t want to do that. We want to change the president’s course. He is on a course that is leading to defeat. The president’s course is getting us in deeper and deeper militarily. It is not working. We want to change that course. We don’t, don’t want to do anything which would strengthen that course.
MR. RUSSERT: Aren’t you tying the hands of the commander in chief?

SEN. LEVIN: ... But, of course, we’re trying to tie the hands of the president and his policy. We’re trying to change the policy. And if someone wants to call that tying the hands instead of changing the policy, yeah,

Levin insists that the President's policy will lead us to a "defeat." Are we back to defining the meaning of words like "is" or "defeat?" Can he really believe the American people would be so stupid as to see a chaotic withdrawal forced by Democrats as anything other than a defeat?

What an ASS!

Al Gore: Not Going Green

Another lefty who wants to tell the rest of us how to live:
Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth” Gore’s home uses more than 20 times the national average
Tennessee Center for Policy Research
February 26, 2007

Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.
Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.
And that's just his home in Nashville. Gore owns THREE homes, not to mention he owned stock in Occidental Petroleum, received royalties from a zinc mine on his property, does not participate in the green-power option his utility offers in Nashville, and lets Paramount pay for his carbon offsets.

Like so many lefties, Al Bore is just another "Do as I say, not as I do" liberal.

At the Oscares, Al Bore insisted that global warming: “It’s not a political issue it’s a moral issue.”

Does this mean Al Bore is immoral?

Bush Iraq Surge Working?

Flopping Aces has the lastest report on all the good news from Iraq. What's that? Good news from Iraq? No surprise if you haven't heard much about Iraq this week. Things are going pretty well. And when the "news" media does report on the subject, as they did with the British draw down of forces in peaceful Basra, they misrepresent the true facts.

One thing you can count on: If things continue to improve, Democrats will take credit and insist their threat to defund U.S. forces is what did the trick.

What Scientists Have Said About Gore's "Documentary"


Tom Harris reminds us that Albert Einstein once said, “Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." The gods must have laughed their butts off last night watching the Oscars. Perhaps we should rename the award Oscares?

Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Canada Free Press
Monday, June 12, 2006

"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth"...

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.

So we have a smaller fraction.

But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.

Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."

But Karlen clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," KarlÈn concludes.

The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."

Karlen explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says KarlÈn

Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."

Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."

Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.

Scientist Comments on Gore "Documentary: "

Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, University of Auckland, New Zealand: ”I can assure Mr. Gore that no one from the South Pacific islands have fled to New Zealand because of rising seas. In fact, if Gore consults the data, he will see it shows sea level falling in some parts of the Pacific.”

Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden: “We find no alarming sea level rise going on, in the Maldives, Tovalu, Venice, the Persian Gulf and even satellite altimetry if applied properly.”

Dr. Paul Reiter, Professor - Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France, comments on Gore’s belief that Nairobi and Harare were founded just above the mosquito line to avoid malaria and how the mosquitoes are now moving to higher altitudes: “Gore is completely wrong here - malaria has been documented at an altitude 2500 m - Nairobi and Harare are at altitudes of about 1500 m. The new altitudes of malaria are lower than those recorded 100 years ago. None of the “30 so called new diseases” Gore references are attributable to global warming, none.”

Dr. Mitchell Taylor, Manager, Wildlife Research Section, Department of Environment, Igloolik, Nunavut, Canada: “Our information is that 7 of 13 populations of polar bears in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago (more than half the world’s estimated total) are either stable, or increasing …. Of the three that appear to be declining, only one has been shown to be affected by climate change. No one can say with certainty that climate change has not affected these other populations, but it is also true that we have no information to suggest that it has.”

Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: “Mr. Gore suggests that Greenland melt area increased considerably between 1992 and 2005. But 1992 was exceptionally cold in Greenland and the melt area of ice sheet was exceptionally low due to the cooling caused by volcanic dust emitted from Mt. Pinatubo. If, instead of 1992, Gore had chosen for comparison the year 1991, one in which the melt area was 1% higher than in 2005, he would have to conclude that the ice sheet melt area is shrinking and that perhaps a new ice age is just around the corner.”

Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, California: “The oceans are now heading into one of their periodic phases of cooling. … Modest changes in temperature are not about to wipe them [coral] out. Neither will increased carbon dioxide, which is a fundamental chemical building block that allows coral reefs to exist at all.”

Dr. R. M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia: “Both the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps are thickening. The temperature at the South Pole has declined by more than 1 degree C since 1950. And the area of sea-ice around the continent has increased over the last 20 years.”

Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, formerly advisor to the World Meteorological Organization/climatology research scientist at University of Exeter, U.K.: “From data published by the Canadian Ice Service there has been no precipitous drop off in the amount or thickness of the ice cap since 1970 when reliable over-all coverage became available for the Canadian Arctic.”

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, British Colombia, Canada comments on Gore’s belief that the Mountain Pine Beetle (MPB) is an “invasive exotic species” that has become a plague due to fewer days of frost: “The MPB is a species native to this part of North America and is always present. The MPB epidemic started as comparatively small outbreaks and through forest management inaction got completely out of hand.”

Institut Pasteur (Paris) Professor Paul Reiter seemed to sum up the sentiments of many experts when he labeled the film “pure, mind-bending propaganda.”

Sunday, February 25, 2007

Gore Oscar for Documentary or Propaganda?

Update: Al Gore wins an Oscar for his "documentary" that has all the intellectual integrity of a Michael Moore documentary.

We all know how complicated the global warming issue is. Just try and write an article about it that is not either overly simplistic or mired down in too much scientific lingo.

So, when I read this, I realized we had a scientist who could also write:
Inconvenient Truths
Novel science fiction on global warming.
By Patrick J. Michaels
National Review Online
February 23, 2007

This Sunday, Al Gore will probably win an Academy Award for his global-warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth, a riveting work of science fiction.

The main point of the movie is that, unless we do something very serious, very soon about carbon dioxide emissions, much of Greenland’s 630,000 cubic miles of ice is going to fall into the ocean, raising sea levels over twenty feet by the year 2100.

Where’s the scientific support for this claim? Certainly not in the recent Policymaker’s Summary from the United Nations’ much anticipated compendium on climate change. Under the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s medium-range emission scenario for greenhouse gases, a rise in sea level of between 8 and 17 inches is predicted by 2100. Gore’s film exaggerates the rise by about 2,000 percent.

Even 17 inches is likely to be high, because it assumes that the concentration of methane, an important greenhouse gas, is growing rapidly. Atmospheric methane concentration hasn’t changed appreciably for seven years, and Nobel Laureate Sherwood Rowland recently pronounced the IPCC’s methane emissions scenarios as “quite unlikely.”

Nonetheless, the top end of the U.N.’s new projection is about 30-percent lower than it was in its last report in 2001. “The projections include a contribution due to increased ice flow from Greenland and Antarctica for the rates observed since 1993,” according to the IPCC, “but these flow rates could increase or decrease in the future.”

According to satellite data published in Science in November 2005, Greenland was losing about 25 cubic miles of ice per year. Dividing that by 630,000 yields the annual percentage of ice loss, which, when multiplied by 100, shows that Greenland was shedding ice at 0.4 percent per century.

“Was” is the operative word. In early February, Science published another paper showing that the recent acceleration of Greenland’s ice loss from its huge glaciers has suddenly reversed.

Nowhere in the traditionally refereed scientific literature do we find any support for Gore’s hypothesis. Instead, there’s an unrefereed editorial by NASA climate firebrand James E. Hansen, in the journal Climate Change — edited by Steven Schneider, of Stanford University, who said in 1989 that scientists had to choose “the right balance between being effective and honest” about global warming — and a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that was only reviewed by one person, chosen by the author, again Dr. Hansen.

These are the sources for the notion that we have only ten years to “do” something immediately to prevent an institutionalized tsunami. And given that Gore only conceived of his movie about two years ago, the real clock must be down to eight years!

It would be nice if my colleagues would actually level with politicians about various “solutions” for climate change. The Kyoto Protocol, if fulfilled by every signatory, would reduce global warming by 0.07 degrees Celsius per half-century. That’s too small to measure, because the earth’s temperature varies by more than that from year to year.

The Bingaman-Domenici bill in the Senate does less than Kyoto — i.e., less than nothing — for decades, before mandating larger cuts, which themselves will have only a minor effect out past somewhere around 2075. (Imagine, as a thought experiment, if the Senate of 1925 were to dictate our energy policy for today).

Mendacity on global warming is bipartisan. President Bush proposes that we replace 20 percent of our current gasoline consumption with ethanol over the next decade. But it’s well-known that even if we turned every kernel of American corn into ethanol, it would displace only 12 percent of our annual gasoline consumption. The effect on global warming, like Kyoto, would be too small to measure, though the U.S. would become the first nation in history to burn up its food supply to please a political mob.

And even if we figured out how to process cellulose into ethanol efficiently, only one-third of our greenhouse gas emissions come from transportation. Even the Pollyannish 20-percent displacement of gasoline would only reduce our total emissions by 7-percent below present levels — resulting in emissions about 20-percent higher than Kyoto allows.

And there’s other legislation out there, mandating, variously, emissions reductions of 50, 66, and 80 percent by 2050. How do we get there if we can’t even do Kyoto?

When it comes to global warming, apparently the truth is inconvenient. And it’s not just Gore’s movie that’s fiction. It’s the rhetoric of the Congress and the chief executive, too.
The first question I asked myself after reading this was "who is Patrick Michaels?" It turns out he knows what he is talking about. Here's a few highlights from his bio:
  • Research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.
  • He is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists/
  • Program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society.
  • Michaels is a contributing author and reviewer of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
  • He was an author of the 2003 climate science "Paper of the Year" awarded by the Association of American Geographers.
  • His writing has been published in the major scientific journals, including Climate Research, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, Nature, and Science.
  • His articles have appeared also in the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Houston Chronicle, and the Journal of Commerce.
  • He has appeared on ABC, NPR's All Things Considered, PBS, Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, BBC and Voice of America.

So naturally he must be attacked and diminished by the zealots who insist that if we do not enact their radical environmental program NOW, TODAY, IMMEDIATELY, we are all doomed. Right on cue comes Media Matters, a left wing master of sowing confusion and undermining truth. They trot out the usual "he's being paid by 'big oil'" lie calling Michaels an "industry lackey" citing other left wing sources for proof.

This idea that think tanks who accept corporate donations from energy companies as a small fraction of their operating costs would phony their work is preposterous.

Who Is Funding Radical Environmental Attack Dogs?

But if we are to accept the leftwing preposition that funding affects reporting, should it not also be fair to look into who is funding the zealots? Media Matters is the media watchdog" (translated: attack dog) started by former conservative writer David Brock and funded with help from Moveon.org and George Soros. And if you click on "view list" under Foundation Grants in this report from the Capital Research Center, you'll find a virtual Who's Who of environmental left wing organizations from the infamous Tides Foundation (of Teresa Heinz Kerry fame) to Barbara Streisand.

Rather than deal with the obvious and growing calls from scientists who dispute the emergency, let alone the "science" behind the conclusions of the global warming zealots the left attacks anyone who dares to dissent.

Additional Resources:

The very idea that the polar regions are melting and that coastal regions will flood is a lie. Yet, this really is just the "tip of the iceberg" where global baloney is concerned.

Saturday, February 24, 2007

World's Most Expensive Homes

Forbes 2007 tally of the world's most expensive homes is out for you house shoppers. Take the photo tour here. If that's not enough variety, Christies has more here.

I can't decide whether to put a bid on the penthouse in New York, or the Chateau in France.

Friday, February 23, 2007

Aussies Love Cheney!

And so do we!

Vice President Cheney is on a three day trip to Australia. Here are some highlights:

The Australians have been among our best allies in the war on terror. But our alliance goes back much further. Students of history will recall U.S. efforts to save Austraila from the Japanese threat during World War II. The battles at Guadalcanal and Coral Sea where U.S. forces blocked the Japanese advance close to the shores of our English speaking friends.

And unlike some of their European cousins, the Aussies haven't forgotten that sacrfice.

Global Warming Scaremongers Causing Children to Lose Sleep.
PLUS: South Carolina GOPrs Falling for Global Baloney?
Consider the Source

Older readers will recall this shopworn technique of the left:
Global warming concerns are keeping children awake at night
February 22, 2007

Half of young children are anxious about the effects of global warming, often losing sleep because of their concern, according to a new report today.

A survey of 1,150 youngsters aged between seven and 11 found that one in four blamed politicians for the problems of climate change.

Are you doing enough?

One in seven of those questioned by supermarket giant Somerfield said their own parents were not doing enough to improve the environment.

The most feared consequences of global warming included poor health, the possible submergence of entire countries and the welfare of animals.

Most of those polled understood the benefits of recycling, although one in 10 thought the issue was linked to riding a bike.

Pete Williams, of Somerfield, said: "Concerns over our environment dominate the media at present and kids are exposed to the hard facts as much as anybody.

"While many adults may look the other way, this study should show that global warming is not only hurting the children of the future, it's affecting the welfare of kids now.
That's right. Scare the little rugrats so bad they can't sleep and they'll bug their parents into supporting socialist solutions to a problem that may not exist.

Well why not? The left used the same technique during the Cold War when they screeched that President Reagan would start a nuclear war. Stories in the "news" media frequently worried about the impact on children, some of whom were reported to be having nightmares about the danger.

The left was tragically misguided in opposition to President Reagan's policies which eventually led to an end of the Cold War and the threat of nuclear war. They are wrong now about the doom and gloom scenario being put forward now to justify the massive, unnecessary restructuring of ONLY the American economy to solve some mythical problem.

South Carolina Republicans Falling for Global Baloney?

Earlier this month a poll was released showing that South Carolina Republican voters believe that global warming is occurring and that man can take actions to make things better.

Today, South Carolina Governor, the former Congressman, Mark Sanford (R) wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post suggesting that conservatives need to get on board the global baloney bandwagon.

Sorry Governor. Conservation is fine. Socialism in the guise of solutions to questionable environmental issues is not.

No doubt Sanford and other politicians saw the poll reported in the most widely circulated newspaper, The State. I'm wondering if they missed the sentence where we learn that the poll was paid for by a group called "Environmental Defense." This is the old lefty group Environmental Defense Fund and they've been running ads in South Carolina showing a speeding freight train heading down the tracks right for a young child. If you haven't seen the ads, here they are.

Fight Global Warming
No wonder children are having nightmares. What child wouldn't be frightened if they saw this ad?

And of course when Environmental Defense buys a poll, they get the results they want. If you don't believe that, drop your phone number in the comments section, I've got a great deal on real estate YOU need to know about.

As more and more scientists come forward with studies to question the fundamental assumptions in the political agenda that global baloney activists represent, the more these activists try to scare the general public and especially the children.

Beware environmental groups that attempt to frighten children to advance a political agenda.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Democrat Cat Fight Between Obama and the Hill Woman

Dick Morris wraps it:



February 21, 2007 -- There’s a new mortal sin in American politics: criticizing Hillary Clinton.

Nobody’s allowed to do it.

Certainly none of her opponents. If they dare to, Hillary sends in one of her boys, who practically accuses them of being un-American.

In January, without ever mentioning Hillary’s name and before she was even a candidate, John Edwards dared to express the view that silence on the Iraq War was “betrayal.” Ignoring the substance of Edwards’ speech, Clinton gun slinger Howard Wolfson immediately shot from the hip, attacking him for waging a negative campaign:

“In 2004, John Edwards used to constantly brag
about running a positive campaign. Today, he
has unfortunately chosen to operate his campaign
with political attacks on Democrats who are fighting
the Bush administration’s Iraq policy.”

If you like the idea of censorship of critical political speech, you’ll love Hillary Clinton as President.

To Hilary, open political discourse apparently means that her opponents and their surrogates are free to compliment her. If they do otherwise, it’s off with their heads.

Not even supporters of Hillary’s opponents are allowed to disparage her. If they do, the wrath of Hillary surfaces and it is not a pretty sight.

The latest sinner is Hollywood superstar David Geffen. Geffen used to be an avid supporter of the Clintons – he raised over $18 million for them in the past. But no more. Now the Dreamworld founder is backing Obama – and he’s not afraid to say so.

That’s why Hillary wants him banished to political Siberia.

Geffen gave an interview to New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd. Here’s a few tidbits from him that apparently rankled Hillary:

“… I don’t think that another incredibly polarizing figure, no matter how smart she is and no matter how ambitious she is — and God knows, is there anybody more ambitious than Hillary Clinton? — can bring the country together.”

“Obama is inspirational, and he’s not from the Bush royal family or the Clinton royal family. “

“It’s not a very big thing to say, ‘I made a mistake’ on the war, and typical of Hillary Clinton that she can’t,”

Geffen also call Bill Clinton “a reckless guy” who “gave his enemies a lot of ammunition to hurt him and to distract the country.”

Hillary was outraged at what she called these ‘vicious’ and ‘personal’ attacks against her and her husband by Geffen.

Vicious? Those comments were vicious?

Yes, to Hillary, they were. So, the Clinton camp wasted no time in trotting out Howard Wolfson to once again defend the honor of the heiress apparent and call for Geffen’s head. This time even an apology wouldn’t be enough: Hillary demanded that Obama dump Geffen and return the $1.3 million that he raised for Obama because of Geffen’s negative comments about the frontrunner and her husband.

That would make things a lot easier for Hillary, wouldn’t it? In the world according to Hillary, there’s no place in politics for anyone who doesn’t love her and Bill.

Unfortunately for Hillary, Obama doesn’t seem to be shaking in his boots. In response to Hillary’s tirade, his campaign pointed out her hypocrisy and ignored her ridiculous demands. Obama’s spokesman pointedly refused to get in the middle of a Clinton- Geffen war.

“It is ironic that the Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when he was raising the $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln bedroom.
…It is also ironic that Senator Clinton lavished praise on Monday and is fully willing to accept today the support of South Carolina Senator Robert Ford who said if Barack Obama were to win the nomination, he would drag down the rest of the Democratic Party because he’s black.”

(Remember Ford: he’s the guy that signed a $200,000 contract with the Clinton campaign right before he endorsed Hillary)

Hillary has never been tolerant of open political debate if that means people can legitimately criticize or publicly disagree with her. Now she’s become even more dogmatic, arrogantly believing that her frontrunner status is tantamount to a coronation. She seems to believe that it is an act of war for a fellow democrat to even challenge her for the nomination. If they disagree with her, they need to be punished and sent to their room.

Watch for more of this imperial behavior. It’s her trademark and it will be the signature of a Hillary Clinton presidency. She learned a thing or two from Richard Nixon.
And Morris left out the most stinging Geffen quote: "Everybody in politics lies, but they [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it’s troubling.”

You know the catfight I'd really like to see? Hillary vs. the Harpy Pelosi!


Pelosi Throws Hissy Fit Over Cheney Remarks

In October 2006, Nancy Pelosi told CBS's Leslie Stahl that she didn't mind Republican comments about her: "I have very thick skin, I don’t care what they say about me."

Like with so many Democrats, that was then, this is now.

Now, Ole Nance is complaining that Vice President Cheney's comment that Pelosi and Murtha's plans to defund the war in Iraq "validate[s] the Al Queda strategy" is the same as calling her unpatriotic.

Pelosi was incensed, and said at a news conference: "And you know what I'm going to do? I'm going to call the president and tell him I disapprove of what the vice president said."

Apparently, President Bush was unavailable to take the call! The duty to listen to this shrew fell to White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten.

At the same news conference Pelosi, said Cheney's criticism of Democrats was "beneath the dignity of the debate we're engaged in and a disservice to our men and women in uniform, whom we all support."

Oh yeah! Right! What a laugh!

This is the same woman who once hissed that Iraq is not a "war to win" And has attacked our Commander in Chief in the most vicious, personal terms for years. She's said that the President is “oblivious, in denial, (and) dangerous.” "He's "incompetent", "In fact, he's not a leader. He's a person who has no judgment."

And Pelosi has called her Republican colleagues “immoral" and "corrupt,” and has said they're running a criminal enterprise.

When Leslie Stahl asked Pelosi about her acid remarks towards President Bush she replied: "Well, I'm sorry, that's his problem."

This harpy dares to say that Vice President Cheney's remark is "beneath the dignity of the debate???"

Is it possible that this is all part of the Democrat's plan to make Hillary Clinton look lovable by comparison?

Monday, February 19, 2007

Happy President's Day!

It's a day to recall the leadership and character which keeps this nation great and free. And I'm sure readers will forgive me for remembering my all time favorite President.

From our tribute during the 25th Anniversary of President Reagan's first inauguration:

Top two photos by Mike's America

The President spoke (above) from the rear platform of U.S. Car One of the "Heartland Special" during a Whistlestop train tour of Ohio, October 12, 1984. The speech (sixth item here) was one of those great "take off the gloves" and tell it like it is speeches. I was lucky to get a front row seat and snap the following scene dramatically lit by torch bearers.

Photo at right is from Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's last state visit to the White House on November 16, 1988.
Full story and links to Reagan celebration is here.

Happy President's Day!

Another Mike's America photo (above). President Reagan revisits Mike's hometown in Ohio. He had so much fun the first time Mike brought him there in 1984.


Sunday, February 18, 2007

Senate Republicans Vote to Continue Debate on Iraq Resolution

On Saturday, Harry Reid, leader of Democrats in the Senate attempted once again to shut off debate on the flawed resolution undermining support for our troops in Iraq.

In yet another rebuke to his strong arm tactics in disallowing any other resolutions to be brought to a vote Reid's second attempt to end debate failed. The Washington Times reports that "Republicans in the Senate have not prevented any debate over the war in Iraq," said Sen. Jim Bunning, Kentucky Republican, at the beginning of the nearly two-hour debate preceding yesterday's vote. "What we have prevented is the majority leader dictating to the minority exactly which resolutions we will vote on."

Meanwhile, Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, vowed that Democrats would "be relentless" in their campaign to end the war in Iraq.

Still, the vote in favor of terminating debate included 7 Republicans:

Coleman, Norm- (R - MN)
Class II
(202) 224-5641
Web Form: coleman.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm

Collins, Susan M.- (R - ME)
Class II
(202) 224-2523
Web Form: collins.senate.gov/public/continue.cfm?FuseAction=Contact...

Hagel, Chuck- (R - NE)
Class II
(202) 224-4224
Web Form: hagel.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home

Smith, Gordon H.- (R - OR)
Class II
(202) 224-3753
Web Form: gsmith.senate.gov/webform.htm

Snowe, Olympia J.- (R - ME)
Class I
(202) 224-5344
Web Form: snowe.senate.gov/contact.htm

Specter, Arlen- (R - PA)
Class III
(202) 224-4254
Web Form: specter.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactInfo.Home

Warner, John- (R - VA)
Class II
(202) 224-2023
Web Form: warner.senate.gov/contact/contactme.cfm

All but Snowe and Specter are up for re-election in 2008. Something tells me that signing on with the defeatists will lose them more support from their Republican constituents than they will gain from rabid Bush-hating Democrats. Can we say PRIMARY CHALLENGE?

Furthermore, Warner, Snowe and Collins were part of the "Gang of 14" which enshrined rights for the minority when Democrats held that role. Isn't it odd that they would not justly demand the same consideration when the shoe is on the other foot?

Democrats have vowed to bring up the resolution again and again until it passes. Now isn't the time for Senate Republicans to "go wobbly."

I urge readers to use the contact links above and demand these seven reconsider their reconsideration of the earlier vote where they voted to continue debate. A quick note will due. Also , you are urged to write a brief note to each of your Senators (if not above) and request they continue to stand strong on this issue.

Here's a sample letter which I am sending and you are free to adapt:
Dear Senator Warner:

I urge you to reconsider your recent reconsideration and vote NO next time on cloture for S. 574.

As Margaret Thatcher once told President George H. W. Bush, now is not the time to "go wobbly."

As a member of the "Gang of 14" You stood up for minority rights. I find it difficult to understand why you should abandon that principle at such a key moment in our nation's history.

Even if you cannot bring yourself to support one of the resolutions more supportive of the President's plans for victory, I beseech you to stand with your Republican colleagues on principle.

If not now, when?

Our party is in much disarray following the debacle in November. Further undermining of our unity and strength does not bode well for our chances in 2008.

We're all in this together. Please reconsider your vote.

For Mark Steyn Fans ONLY

Read the whole thing...

Why the Iraq war is turning into America's defeat
February 18, 2007
Chicago Sun-Times

The week's news from Iraq: According to the state television network, the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, was wounded in a clash with security forces just north of Baghdad. A senior deputy was killed.

Meanwhile, the punk cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has decided that discretion is the better part of mullahs and has temporarily relocated to Iran. That's right: The biggest troublemaker in Iraq is no longer in Iraq. It may be that his Persian vacation is only to marry a cousin or two and consult with the A-list ayatollahs, but the Mookster has always had highly sensitive antennae when it comes to his own physical security -- he likes being the guy who urges martyrdom on others rather than being just another schmuck who takes one for the team. So the fact that urgent business requires him to be out of town for the Big Surge is revealing at the very least
Reporting the sudden relocation, the New York Times decided -- in nothing flat -- that it was yet another disastrous setback. In Iraq, no news is good news, and Sadr news is badder news:
''If Mr. Sadr had indeed fled, his absence would create a vacuum that could allow even more radical elements of the Shiite group to take power.''

As my National Review colleague Rich Lowry marveled: ''So now we need to keep Sadr in Iraq because he's such a stabilizing influence!'' Of course! As Hillaire Belloc wrote, ''Always keep a hold of Nurse/For fear of finding something worse'' -- and, even when Nurse Sadr is blowing up the kids in the nursery every day, it's best to cling to her blood-drenched apron strings because the next nurse will be an even bigger psycho.
According to a report by the New York Sun's Eli Lake last month, Iran is supporting Shia insurgents in Iraq and Sunni insurgents in Iraq. In other words, it's on both sides in the so-called civil war. How can this be? After all, as the other wise old foreign-policy "realists" of the Iraq Study Group assured us only in December, Iran has "an interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq.''

Au contraire, the ayatollahs have concluded they have a very clear interest in fomenting chaos in Iraq. They're in favor of Sunni killing Shia, and Shia killing Sunni, and if some vacationing Basque terrorists wanted to blow up the Spanish Cultural Center in Mosul, they'd be in favor of that, too. The Iranians don't care who kills whom as long as every night when Americans turn on the evening news there's smoke over Baghdad. As I say in my book, if you happen to live in Ramadi or Basra, Iraq is about Iraq; if you live in Tehran, or Cairo, or Bei-jing, Moscow, Pyongyang or Brussels, Iraq is about America. American will. American purpose. American credibility.
Iraq is so culturally alien that not a single Sunni, Shia or Kurd has come forward claiming to be the father of Anna Nicole's baby!
Get a grip, chaps! In Iraq, everyone's a tourist. This al-Qaida honcho, al-Masri, is an Egyptian. His predecessor, Zarqawi, was a Jordanian. Al-Sadr is a Persian stooge. For four decades, the country was a British client. Before that, it was a Turkish province. The Middle East is a crazy place and a tough nut to crack, but the myth of the unbeatable Islamist insurgent is merely a lazy and more neurotic update of the myth of the unbeatable communist guerrilla, which delusion led to so much pre-emptive surrender in the '70s. Nevertheless, in the capital city of the most powerful nation on the planet, the political class spent last week trying to craft a bipartisan defeat strategy, and they might yet pull it off.
So "the Murtha plan" is to deny the president the possibility of victory while making sure Democrats don't have to share the blame for the defeat. But of course he's a great American! He's a patriot! He supports the troops! He doesn't support them in the mission, but he'd like them to continue failing at it for a couple more years. As John Kerry wondered during Vietnam, how do you ask a soldier to be the last man to die for a mistake? By nominally "fully funding" a war you don't believe in but "limiting his ability to use the money." Or as the endearingly honest anti-war group MoveCongress.org put it, in an e-mail preview of an exclusive interview with the wise old Murtha:

"Chairman Murtha will describe his strategy for not only limiting the deployment of troops to Iraq but undermining other aspects of the president's foreign and national security policy."

"Undermining"? Why not? To the Slow-Bleed Democrats, it's the Republicans' war. To an increasing number of what my radio pal Hugh Hewitt calls the White-Flag Republicans, it's Bush's war. To everyone else on the planet, it's America's war. And it will be America's defeat.

Welcome Home Heroes

These people really do support the troops:

Learn more about the Dallas Fort Worth Welcome Home a Hero program and start one in your community.

Until they all come home, remember their service, honor their sacrfice. Need a reminder, here's the classic video "Until Then." Make sure you have your computer sound turned on:

Music from "The Road Home" by the choir of Brigham Young University.

Saturday, February 17, 2007

University Punishes Professor Who Dares Buck P.C. Dictate

As we pointed out in this earlier post, it's ok to use taxpayer dollars to brainwash young minds to blame all the world's problems on their own country.

But don't a professor at an institution of higher learning dare buck the P.C. trend.

This story dates back a few years, but drew particular attention from me as I grew up in Bowling Green (though I had the good sense to attend college elsewhere):
The Politically Incorrect Professor
by Larry Elder

...Consider the case of Dr. Richard Zeller, formerly a professor of sociology at Bowling Green State University in Bowling Green, Ohio. After 25 years of teaching at the school, Dr. Zeller retired in protest. Why? He wanted to teach a course on political correctness. From talking to students, Zeller learned that many felt pressured to adopt politically correct views in order to get a passing grade. One student told Zeller that, in order to get a good grade, a professor virtually forced the student to agree that all whites are racist. Another student said that he felt pressured to adopt a "pro-choice" position on abortion, even though he considered himself staunchly pro-life.

Professor Zeller got an idea. What about a course on political correctness, on the tyranny within academia that forces students to conform to a prescribed set of views?

Zeller put together a proposed course curriculum. He included books like "Illiberal Education" by Dinesh D'Souza; "The Bell Curve" by R. Herrnstein and C. Murray; "Two Steps Ahead of the Thought Police" by J. Leo; "Inside American Education" by Thomas Sowell; "A Nation of Victims" by C. Sykes; and "Civil Wrongs: What Went Wrong With Affirmative Action" by S. Yates.

But Zeller's sociology colleagues said "no" to the course. Zeller protested, and ultimately the sociology department voted on whether or not he could teach the course. Zeller lost 9-5.

Zeller then attempted to teach the course in other departments, but no other department granted approval for the course. So much for academic freedom, for diversity of thought. Not only that, Zeller found friends few and far between.

For example, one newspaper quoted BGSU's Dr. Kathleen Dixon, the Director of Women's Studies, who said of Zeller's attempted course, "We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech!" We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech?!

A BGSU ethnic studies professor said that Zeller's attitude would help students " ... feel good about the ruling paradigm, which since the inception of the United States, has said that genocide is good, racism is better, and exploitation of the women and poor is the best way to go." Gee, poor Zeller thought he was simply teaching a course on political correctness.

How about professor Gary Lee, the BGSU Sociology Department Chairman, who said, "Unfortunately, tenure protects the incompetent and malicious; Rich has tenure, so he cannot be fired without cause." Fired? For wanting to teach a course in political correctness? For good measure, Zeller also received death threats, and someone wrote "Zeller you die" on sanitary napkins left on the professor's front porch at home.

Weary of the battle, Dr. Zeller offered his resignation. In a letter to the school, Zeller expressed his frustration and anger. He directs his concern, said the professor, not at himself, but at the students deprived of an education that challenges assumptions and questions the status quo.

Zeller said, "But don't cry for me. I'm doing just fine, thank you. Cry out, instead, for the students who regularly get intellectually mugged on the BGSU campus"; "the traditionalist who believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, but can't say so for fear of failing"; "the conservative who believes in minimizing government interference in our lives and says so in a sociology class"; "the woman who believes that abortion is murder, but must write a pro-choice essay to pass English 111"; and "all of those who have 'adjusted' and 'self-censored' their ideas so that they can pass their classes."

Zeller also said, "BGSU has sold its soul to the thought police of political correctness. There was a time that ... honorable people could disagree honorably; now, any challenge to the campus sacred cows (feminism, affirmative action, and multiculturalism) is denounced as evil."

About Zeller's travails, the Christian Science Monitor's Sanford Pinsker said, "Amid all the self-congratulatory talk about diversity one hears on American campuses, it is not at all clear that intellectual diversity is alive and well. If the result of Zeller's pressing for a course that might expose students to controversial thinkers and books had been an honest debate -- rather than an exercise in character assassination -- all of us might well have benefited. As it stands, however, everyone at BGSU has lost."

Or, as BGSU's Women's Studies Director might have put it, BGSU prevents any discussion about any topic that suggests we prevent any discussion about any topic. Got that?

Friday, February 16, 2007

Democrats To Provide Health Care Like Canada?

You've probably heard a lefty at some point whine about how rotten the U.S. healthcare system is and wish with all their might that we would adopt the socialist model that the oh-so-much-more civilized world has.

No doubt, Congressional Democrats flush with success in undermining victory in Iraq will turn to destroying other components of American life.

Here's some food for thought:

Socialized medicine anyone?
By Walter E. Williams
The Washington Times
February 14, 2007

Problems with our health-care system are leading some to fall prey to proposals calling for a nationalized single-payer health care system like Canada's or Britain's. There are a few things we might consider before falling for these proposals.

London's Observer on March 3, 2002, carried a story saying an "unpublished report shows some patients are now having to wait more than eight months for treatment, during which time many of their cancers become incurable." Another story said, "According to a World Health Organization report to be published later this year, around 10,000 British people die unnecessarily from cancer each year -- 3 times as many as are killed on our roads."

The Observer on Dec. 16, 2001, also reported: "A recent academic study showed National Health Service delays in bowel cancer treatment were so great that, in one in five cases, cancer which was curable at the time of diagnosis had become incurable by the time of treatment."

The story is no better in Canada's national health care system. The Vancouver, B.C., Fraser Institute has a yearly publication titled, "Waiting Your Turn." Its 2006 edition gives waiting times, by treatments, from a person's referral by a general practitioner to treatment by a specialist. The shortest waiting time was for oncology (4.9 weeks). The longest was for orthopedic surgery (40.3 weeks), followed by plastic surgery (35.4 weeks) and neurosurgery (31.7 weeks).

Canadians face significant waits for various diagnostics such as computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound scans. The median wait for a CT scan across Canada was 4.3 weeks, but in Prince Edward Island, it's nine weeks. A Canadian's median wait for an MRI was 10.3 weeks, but in Newfoundland, patients waited 28 weeks. Finally, the median wait for an ultrasound was 3.8 weeks across Canada, but in Manitoba and Prince Edward Island it was eight weeks.

Despite the long waits Canadians suffer, sometimes resulting in death, under federal law, private clinics are not legally allowed to provide services covered by the Canada Health Act. A few black-market clinics still service patients willing to break the law to get treatment. In British Columbia, for example, Bill 82 provides a physician can be fined up to $20,000 for accepting fees for surgery. According to a Canada News article, "Shortage of Doctors and Nurses Could Hurt Medicare Reforms," March 5, 2003, about 10,000 doctors left Canada during the 1990s.

There's help for some Canadian patients. According to a Canadian Medical Association Journal article, "U.S. Hospitals Use Waiting-List Woes to Woo Canadians" Feb. 22, 2000, "British Columbia patients fed up with sojourns on waiting lists as they await tests or treatment are being wooed by a hospital in Washington state that has begun offering package deals. A second U.S. hospital is also considering marketing its services." One of the attractions is that an MRI, which can take from 10 to 28 weeks in Canada, can be had in two days at Olympic Memorial Hospital in Port Angeles, Wash. Already, Cleveland is Canada's hip-replacement center.

Some of our politicians hold up the Canadian and British nationalized health care systems as models for us. You can bet that if we ever have such a system, they would exempt themselves from what the rest of us would have to endure.

There's a cure for our health care problems. That cure is not to demand more government but less government. I challenge anyone to identify a problem with health care in America that is not caused or aggravated by federal, state and local governments. And, I challenge anyone to show me people dying on the streets because they don't have health insurance.

Like most other things in the lefty utopia, good ideas are not good enough. Results matter.

Muslim Mothers and Martyrs

We don't do many jokes, here (other than laughing at Democrats) but this one is good:
Two Muslim Mothers are sitting in the cafe chatting over a pint of goat's milk.

The older of the Mothers pulls out her bag and starts flipping through pictures and reminiscing.

"This is my oldest son, Mohamed. He would be 24 now." The other Mother replies, "I remember him as a baby." The Mum says, "He's a martyr now." "Oh, so sad, my dear."

Mum flips to another picture. "And this is my second son, Kali. He would be 21." "Oh I remember him. He had such curly hair when he was born." Mum sighs, "He's a martyr, too." "Oh gracious me" says the second Mother.

"And this is my third son. My beautiful Ahmed.! He would be 18", Mum whispers. "Yes" says her friend enthusiastically, "I remember when he first started school." "He's a martyr also" Mum says, with tears in her eyes.

After a pause and a deep sigh, the second Muslim Mother looks wistfully at the photos and says: "They blow up so fast, don't they?"

Thanks Fursey!

House of Representatives Lays Groundwork for Defeat

Defeatists and others intent on U.S. surrender in Iraq had their way today with passage of a non-binding resolution in the House of Representatives. The roll call for the vote is here.

Demonstrating just how partisan House Democrats are, only 2 Democrat's dared to vote against the fools who are the elected leadership of House Democrats. Only Gene Taylor of Mississippi and Jim Marshall of Georgia dared buck their masters.

To all those who are unfortunate enough to live in a so-called conservative congressional district which recently elected a Democrat, keep notes on how YOUR Representative voted.

Worst of all, 17 Republicans voted for this foolish, flawed, damaging resolution. They are:
Feel free to click on the office links above and let those GOP backstabbers know how you feel. You might also email the National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee and let them know you will be giving future campaign contributions directly to candidates only and not party committees which share funds with the above.

Thursday, February 15, 2007

Quick Takes

The Army, Navy and Air Force versions of the Congressional Medal of Honor.
  • Program Alert: Conservative Intelligence Review alerts readers to watch America's Most Wanted on Saturday, February 17 9PM EST for a story on the historic Congressional Medals of Honor which were stolen from the Patriots Point Naval and Maritime Museum in nearby Charleston, SC in June 2004 (story here).
  • Global Warming Hysteria: The Blog, and soon the movie? Peter Glover, an honored member of that distinguished minority of Europeans who still possess a modicum of common sense has launched the blog: Global Warming Hysteria. I encourage all those with a keen interest in the most monumental environmental scam of the last one hundred years to bookmark the site, and visit often.

Antidote to the "Daily Show" Debuts Sunday 10 PM EST

Set your VCRs, DVRs or WATCH!

More on the Fox News Channel 10 PM Sunday, EST.

It's about time!

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Iran Escalating War & Killing MORE Americans

The first questions at President Bush's news conference today were about the Iranian murders of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

Press Conference by the President
The White House East Room
February 14, 2007
WH Transcript

[David Gregory, NBC]Q. Thank you, sir. I'd like to follow on Iran. Critics say that you are using the same quality of intelligence about Iran that you used to make the case for war in Iraq, specifically about WMD that turned out to be wrong, and that you are doing that to make a case for war against Iran. Is that the case?

THE PRESIDENT: I can say with certainty that the Quds force, a part of the Iranian government, has provided these sophisticated IEDs that have harmed our troops. And I'd like to repeat, I do not know whether or not the Quds force was ordered from the top echelons of government. But my point is what's worse -- them ordering it and it happening, or them not ordering it and it happening? And so we will continue to protect our troops.
Q -- using faulty intelligence to provoke Iran?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I heard your question, and I told you, I was confident that the Quds force, a part of the Iranian government, was providing weaponry into Iraq. And to say it is provoking Iran is just a wrong way to characterize the Commander-in-Chief's decision to do what is necessary to protect our soldiers in harm's way. And I will continue to do so.
Q What assurances can you give the American people that the intelligence this time will be accurate?

THE PRESIDENT: Ed, we know they're there, we know they're provided by the Quds force. We know the Quds force is a part of the Iranian government. I don't think we know who picked up the phone and said to the Quds force, go do this, but we know it's a vital part of the Iranian government.

What matters is, is that we're responding. The idea that somehow we're manufacturing the idea that the Iranians are providing IEDs is preposterous, Ed. My job is to protect our troops. And when we find devices that are in that country that are hurting our troops, we're going to do something about it, pure and simple.

Now David says, does this mean you're trying to have a pretext for war? No. It means I'm trying to protect our troops. That's what that means. And that's what the family members of our soldiers expect the Commander-in-Chief and those responsible for -- responsible for our troops on the ground. And we'll continue do so.

Donkeys With Their Heads in the Sand

So there you go. Democrats, as voiced by their media allies, will attempt to prevent, or undermine any efforts to deal with Iran by playing the "faulty intelligence" card.

The briefing that senior U.S. military officials had in Baghdad on Sunday is here. Readers are invited to view the presentation and the evidence for themselves. Our troops in Iraq are being killed by explosively formed projectiles (description here) which exceed the technical means to produce inside Iraq.

We caught Iranian agents in Iraq with Iranian Revolutionary Guard ID's . The Iranian government demanded their release, why would they do that if they didn't know about it?

We've got the serial numbers and dates of production for other Iranian weapons captured in Iraq.

At what point do Democrats take seriously the fact that Iran is and has been killing Americans?

For years we've sat and looked the other way as Iran used it's proxy Hezbollah to kill at least 289 U.S. citizens.

Other than tough talk, we haven't challenged their funding, training and incitement of terrorism, or their desire to build a nuclear weapon.

Last August, Mike's America asked the question: "Why Iran Does Not Fear the U.S.?" The heart of the matter goes all the way back to the Carter Administration's lame response to the act of war committed by Iran when it "allowed" "students" to violate International Law and seize the U.S. embassy. One of those former "students" is the current President of Iran.

Going on 28 years now Iranians gather after Friday prayers and chant "Death to America" and frequently hold up signs "America Can't Do a Damned Thing" about their attacks, threats, terrorism and nuclear weapons development.

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

Muslim Congressman Imposing No Smoking Restriction on Congressman Tancredo?


Rep. Ellison calls the cops to snuff Tancredo’s cigar
By Betsy Rothstein
The Hill
February 14, 2007

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) believes it is his right as a Muslim to be sworn into Congress with the Quran. But apparently, the freshman lawmaker doesn’t believe it’s Rep. Tom Tancredo’s (R-Colo.) right to smoke a cigar in his congressional office.

Ellison’s office called the Capitol Hill Police on Tancredo last Wednesday night as Tancredo was in his office smoking a cigar. The lawmakers have neighboring offices on the first floor of the Longworth House Office Building.

Tancredo was still stunned a day later. “It’s very bizarre,” said Tancredo, who has never met Ellison. “Seemed to me not a good way to say hello.”

And let’s face it. Calling the cops on a colleague takes the cake for the nerviest behavior so far among members of this year’s freshman class of Congress.


Why the nerve of Congressman Tancredo! Doesn't he know that we must submit to whatever demands Muslims make, or else?

I've got an idea: Send gift certificates for cigars and Pork Barbecue to Congressman Tancredo at his Capitol office:
1130 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515-0606

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Still No Plan from Democrats

Libby "Trial" Audio: Richard Armitage "Outs" CIA's Valerie Plame

From the court documents in the Scooter Libby "trial" comes this one minute tape (audio in link) where reporter Bob Woodward talks to then Deputy Secretary of State Armitage in June 2003 about Joe Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame:
2:15 WOODWARD: But it was Joe Wilson who was sent by
2:16 the agency. I mean that's just ---
2:17 ARMITAGE: His wife works in the agency.
2:18 WOODWARD: --- Why doesn't that come out? Why does ---
2:19 ARMITAGE: Everyone knows it.
2:20 WOODWARD: ---that have to be a big secret?
2:21 Everyone knows.
2:22 ARMITAGE: Yeah. And I know [ ] Joe Wilson's
2:23 been calling everybody. He's pissed off because he was
2:24 designated as a low-level guy, went out to look at it. So,
2:25 he's all pissed off.
3:1 WOODWARD: But why would they send him?
3:2 ARMITAGE: Because his wife's a [ ]
3 3:2 -3:23 Woodward & Amitage Interview
Printed: 2/12/2007 1:27:59PM Page 1 of 2
3:2 ARMITAGE: Because his wife's a [ ] analyst at
3:3 the agency.
3:4 WOODWARD: It's still weird.
3:5 ARMITAGE: It---It's perfect. This is what she
3:6 does she is a WMD analyst out there.
3:7 WOODWARD: Oh she is.
3:8 ARMITAGE: Yeah.
3:9 WOODWARD: Oh, I see.
3:10 ARMITAGE: [ ] look at it.
3:11 WOODWARD: Oh I see. I didn't [ ].
3:12 ARMITAGE: Yeah. See?
3:13 WOODWARD: Oh, she's the chief WMD?
3:14 ARMITAGE: No she isn't the chief, no.
3:15 WOODWARD: But high enough up that she can say, "Oh
3:16 yeah, hubby will go."
3:17 ARMITAGE: Yeah, he knows Africa.
3:18 WOODWARD: Was she out there with him?
3:19 ARMITAGE: No.
3:20 WOODWARD: When he was ambassador?
3:21 ARMITAGE: Not to my knowledge. I don't know.
3:22 I don't know if she was out there or not. But his wife is in
3:23 the agency and is a WMD analyst. How about that [ ]?

Unfortunately, they deleted the expletives from the recording, but where you see "[ ]" use your imagination.

Is it possible the entire Joe Wilson scam was perpetrated because he was "pissed off" that he was viewed as some "low-level guy?" How much time and attention was wasted on this loon?

I'll remind readers of the Washington Post's conclusions about the Wilson Fraud:

End of an Affair
It turns out that the person who exposed CIA agent Valerie Plame was not out to punish her husband.
Friday, September 1, 2006; Page A20

WE'RE RELUCTANT to return to the subject of former CIA employee Valerie Plame because of our oft-stated belief that far too much attention and debate in Washington has been devoted to her story and that of her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, over the past three years. But all those who have opined on this affair ought to take note of the not-so-surprising disclosure that the primary source of the newspaper column in which Ms. Plame's cover as an agent was purportedly blown in 2003 was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage.
It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue. The partisan clamor that followed the raising of that allegation by Mr. Wilson in the summer of 2003 led to the appointment of a special prosecutor, a costly and prolonged investigation, and the indictment of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges of perjury. All of that might have been avoided had Mr. Armitage's identity been known three years ago.
Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

It's unfortunate that the Washington Post and all the major media trumpeted this story day after day for years while Americans are dying in war. And it's unfortunate that instead of deal with the real life and death issues, we continue to have people who would rather focus on fantasies of "Bush lied."
fsg053d4.txt Free xml sitemap generator