Friday, June 27, 2008

What's missing in Iowa??


Q: What's missing in Iowa?

The place is flooded.

Homes, businesses, crops, and lives are in ruin, yet Al Sharpton and Jesse
Jackson
are nowhere to be seen.

Every photo I have seen shows determined people working together to save
their homes and communities.

No one has cried for the government to save their butt.

There is no looting, raping, murdering, or shooting.

No need for a sundown to sunrise curfew.

The government hasn't gone door-to-door confiscating all weapons.

The governor of Iowa hasn't asked for $175 billion ($100 K per person) to
rebuild the state.

Nobody blames the government for failed levees.

There aren't conspiracy theories claiming the Feds planned the floods on
purpose.

No prisons have released all their prisoners into the streets.

Half the population hasn't relocated to neighboring states.

What's missing here?  Why is this so different than New Orleans/Louisiana ?

A: Apparently Iowa, a red state, has fallen through the cracks and missed
out on the federal Victim Mentality Education Programs in the schools.

Must be Bush's fault.
 

Friday, June 20, 2008

How Long Does America Have?



About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier: 'A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.''
 
A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.'
 
From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.'
 
'The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years''During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:

1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage

Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:
 
Number of States won by: Gore: 19 Bush: 29
 
Square miles of land won by: Gore: 580,000 Bush: 2,427,000

Population of counties won by: Gore: 127 million Bush: 143 million

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Gore: 13.2 Bush: 2.1

Professor Olson adds:
 
'In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country.
 
Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare...'
 
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the 'complacency and apathy' phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the 'governmental dependency' phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

Friday, June 13, 2008

Global warming and the price of a gallon of gas



by John Coleman (founder of The Weather Chanel)

You may want to give credit where credit is due to Al Gore and his global warming campaign the next time you fill your car with gasoline, because there is a direct connection between Global Warming and four dollar a gallon gas.  It is shocking, but true, to learn that the entire Global Warming frenzy is based on the environmentalist's attack on fossil fuels, particularly gasoline.  All this big time science, international meetings, thick research papers, dire threats for the future; all of it, comes down to their claim that the carbon dioxide in the exhaust from your car and in the smoke stacks from our power plants is destroying the climate of planet Earth.  What an amazing fraud; what a scam.

The future of our civilization lies in the balance. 

That's the battle cry of the High Priest of Global Warming Al Gore and his fellow, agenda driven disciples as they predicta calamitous outcome from anthropogenic global warming.  According to Mr. Gore the polar ice caps will collapse and melt and sea levels will rise 20 feet inundating the coastal cities making 100 million of us refugees.  Vice President Gore tells us numerous Pacific islands will be totally submerged and uninhabitable.  He tells us global warming will disrupt the circulation of the ocean waters, dramatically changing climates, throwing the world food supply into chaos. He tells us global warming will turn hurricanes into super storms, produce droughts, wipe out the polar bears and result in bleaching of coral reefs. He tells us tropical diseases will spread to mid latitudes and heat waves will kill tens of thousands.  He preaches to us that we must change our lives and eliminate fossil fuels or face the dire consequences.  The future of our civilization is in the balance.

With a preacher's zeal, Mr. Gore sets out to strike terror into us and our children and make us feel we are all complicit in the potential demise of the planet.

Here is my rebuttal.

There is no significant man made global warming.  There has not been any in the past, there is none now and there is no reason to fear any in the future. The climate of Earth is changing. It has always changed.  But mankind's activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the natural forces.

Through all history, Earth has shifted between two basic climate regimes: ice ages and what paleoclimatologists call "Interglacial periods".  For the past 10 thousand years the Earth has been in an interglacial period.  That might well be called nature's global warming because what happens during an interglacial period is the Earth warms up, the glaciers melt and life flourishes. Clearly from our point of view, an interglacial period is greatly preferred to the deadly rigors of an ice age.  Mr. Gore and his crowd would have us believe that the activities of man have overwhelmed nature during this interglacial period and are producing an unprecedented, out of control warming. 

Well, it is simply not happening.  Worldwide there was a significant natural warming trend in the 1980's and 1990's as a Solar cycle peaked with lots of sunspots and solar flares.  That ended in 1998 and now the Sun has gone quiet with fewer and fewer Sun spots, and the global temperatures have gone into decline.  Earth has cooled for almost ten straight years.  So, I ask Al Gore, where's the global warming?

The cooling trend is so strong that recently the head of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had to acknowledge it.  He speculated that nature has temporarily overwhelmed mankind's warming and it may be ten years or so before the warming returns.  Oh, really.  We are supposed to be in a panic about man-made global warming and the whole thing takes a ten year break because of the lack of Sun spots.  If this weren't so serious, it would be laughable.

Now allow me to talk a little about the science behind the global warming frenzy. I have dug through thousands of pages of research papers, including the voluminous documents published by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  I have worked my way through complicated math and complex theories. Here's the bottom line: the entire global warming scientific case is based on the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels.  They don't have any other issue.  Carbon Dioxide, that's it.

Hello Al Gore; Hello UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  Your science is flawed; your hypothesis is wrong; your data is manipulated.  And, may I add, your scare tactics are deplorable.  The Earth does not have a fever.  Carbon dioxide does not cause significant global warming.

The focus on atmospheric carbon dioxide grew out a study by Roger Revelle who was an esteemed scientist at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute. He took his research with him when he moved to Harvard and allowed his students to help him process the data for his paper.  One of those students was Al Gore. That is where Gore got caught up in this global warming frenzy.  Revelle's paper linked the increases in carbon dioxide, CO2, in the atmosphere with warming.  It labeled CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

Charles Keeling, another researcher at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute, set up a system to make continuous CO2 measurements.  His graph of these increases has now become known as the Keeling Curve.  When Charles Keeling died in 2005, his son David, also at Scripps, took over the measurements.  Here is what the Keeling curve shows: an increase in CO2 from 315 parts per million in 1958 to 385 parts per million today, an increase of 70 parts per million or about 20 percent.

All the computer models, all of the other findings, all of the other angles of study, all come back to and are based on CO2 as a significant greenhouse gas. It is not.

Here is the deal about CO2, carbon dioxide.  It is a natural component of our atmosphere.  It has been there since time began.  It is absorbed and emitted by the oceans.  It is used by every living plant to trigger photosynthesis.  Nothing would be green without it.  And we humans; we create it.  Every time we breathe out, we emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  It is not a pollutant. It is not smog.  It is a naturally occurring invisible gas. 

Let me illustrate. I estimate that this square in front of my face contains 100,000 molecules of atmosphere.  Of those 100,000 only 38 are CO2; 38 out of a hundred thousand.  That makes it a trace component.  Let me ask a key question: how can this tiny trace upset the entire balance of the climate of Earth?  It can't.  That's all there is to it; it can't.

The UN IPCC has attracted billions of dollars for the research to try to make the case that CO2 is the culprit of run-away, man-made global warming.  The scientists have come up with very complex creative theories and done elaborate calculations and run computer models they say prove those theories. They present us with a concept they call radiative forcing. The research organizations and scientists who are making a career out of this theory, keep cranking out the research papers. Then the IPCC puts on big conferences at exotic places, such as the recent conference in Bali. The scientists endorse each other's papers, they are summarized and voted on, and viola, we are told global warming is going to kill us all unless we stop burning fossil fuels.

May I stop here for a few historical notes?  First, the internal combustion engine and gasoline were awful polluters when they were first invented.  And, both gasoline and automobile engines continued to leave a layer of smog behind right up through the 1960's.  Then science and engineering came to the environmental rescue.  Better exhaust and ignition systems, catalytic converters, fuel injectors, better engineering throughout the engine and reformulated gasoline have all contributed to a huge reduction in the exhaust emissions from today's cars. Their goal then was to only exhaust carbon dioxide and water vapor, two gases widely accepted as natural and totally harmless.  Anyone old enough to remember the pall of smog that used to hang over all our cities knows how much improvement there has been.  So the environmentalists, in their battle against fossil fuels and automobiles had a very good point forty years ago, but now they have to focus almost entirely on the once harmless carbon dioxide.  And, that is the rub.  Carbon dioxide is not an environmental problem; they just want you now to think it is. 

Numerous independent research projects have been done about the greenhouse impact from increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide.  These studies have proven to my total satisfaction that CO2 is not creating a major greenhouse effect and is not causing an increase in temperatures.  By the way, before his death, Roger Revelle coauthored a paper cautioning that CO2 and its greenhouse effect did not warrant extreme countermeasures.

So now it has come down to an intense campaign, orchestrated by environmentalists claiming that the burning of fossil fuels dooms the planet to run-away global warming.  Ladies and Gentlemen, that is a myth.

So how has the entire global warming frenzy with all its predictions of dire consequences, become so widely believed, accepted and regarded as a real threat to planet Earth?  That is the most amazing part of the story. 

To start with global warming has the backing of the United Nations, a major world force.  Second, it has the backing of a former Vice President and very popular political figure.  Third it has the endorsement of Hollywood, and that's enough for millions. And, fourth, the environmentalists love global warming.  It is their tool to combat fossil fuels. So with the environmentalists, the UN, Gore and Hollywood touting Global Warming and predictions of doom and gloom, the media has scrambled with excitement to climb aboard.  After all the media loves a crisis.  From YK2 to killer bees the media just loves to tell us our lives are threatened. And the media is biased toward liberal, so it's pre-programmed to support Al Gore and UN.  CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, the Associated Press and here in San Diego The Union Tribune are all constantly promoting the global warming crisis. 

So who is going to go against all of that power?  Not the politicians. So now the President of the United States, just about every Governor, most Senators and most Congress people, both of the major current candidates for President, most other elected officials on all levels of government are all riding the Al Gore Global Warming express.  That is one crowded bus. 

I suspect you haven't heard it because the mass media did not report it, but I am not alone on the no man-made warming side of this issue.  On May 20th, a list of the names of over thirty-one thousand scientists who refute global warming was released.  Thirty-one thousand of which 9,000 are Ph.ds.  Think about that.  Thirty-one thousand.  That dwarfs the supposed 2,500 scientists on the UN panel. In the past year, five hundred of scientists have issued public statements challenging global warming.   A few more join the chorus every week.  There are about 100 defectors from the UN IPCC.  There was an International Conference of Climate Change Skeptics in New York in March of this year.  One hundred of us gave presentations.  Attendance was limited to six hundred people.  Every seat was taken. There are a half dozen excellent internet sites that debunk global warming.  And, thank goodness for KUSI and Michael McKinnon, its owner.  He allows me to post my comments on global warming on the website KUSI.com.  Following the publicity of my position form Fox News, Glen Beck on CNN, Rush Limbaugh and a host of other interviews, thousands of people come to the website and read my comments.  I get hundreds of supportive emails from them.  No I am not alone and the debate is not over. 

In my remarks in New York I speculated that perhaps we should sue Al Gore for fraud because of his carbon credits trading scheme.  That remark has caused a stir in the fringe media and on the internet.  The concept is that if the media won't give us a hearing and the other side will not debate us, perhaps we could use a Court of law to present our papers and our research and if the Judge is unbiased and understands science, we win.  The media couldn't ignore that. That idea has become the basis for legal research by notable attorneys and discussion among global warming debunkers, but it's a long way from the Court room.

I am very serious about this issue.  I think stamping out the global warming scam is vital to saving our wonderful way of life.

The battle against fossil fuels has controlled policy in this country for decades. It was the environmentalist's prime force in blocking any drilling for oil in this country and the blocking the building of any new refineries, as well. So now the shortage they created has sent gasoline prices soaring. And, it has lead to the folly of ethanol, which is also partly behind the fuel price increases; that and our restricted oil policy.  The ethanol folly is also creating a food crisis throughput the world – it is behind the food price rises for all the grains, for cereals, bread, everything that relies on corn or soy or wheat, including animals that are fed corn, most processed foods that use corn oil or soybean oil or corn syrup. Food shortages or high costs have led to food riots in some third world countries and made the cost of eating out or at home budget busting for many.

So now the global warming myth actually has lead to the chaos we are now enduring with energy and food prices. We pay for it every time we fill our gas tanks.  Not only is it running up gasoline prices, it has changed government policy impacting our taxes, our utility bills and the entire focus of government funding. And, now the Congress is considering a cap and trade carbon credits policy.  We the citizens will pay for that, too. It all ends up in our taxes and the price of goods and services.

So the Global warming frenzy is, indeed, threatening our civilization.  Not because global warming is real; it is not.  But because of the all the horrible side effects of the global warming scam. 

I love this civilization.  I want to do my part to protect it.

If Al Gore and his global warming scare dictates the future policy of our governments, the current economic downturn could indeed become a recession, drift into a depression and our modern civilization could fall into an abyss. And it would largely be a direct result of the global warming frenzy.


My mission, in what is left of a long and exciting lifetime, is to stamp out this Global Warming silliness and let all of us get on with enjoying our lives and loving our planet, Earth

Blue Dogs finaly step to the plate (sort of)



Blue Dogs look beyond '08 election (privatize Social Security?)

By PATRICK O'CONNOR | 6/11/08 4:50 AM EST


Democrat Jim Cooper is focused on the federal government's swelling financial obligations. Photo: John Shinkle

Rep. Jim Cooper never misses a chance to talk about the federal government's swelling financial obligations. But the Tennessee Democrat clams up when asked about a conversation he had on the topic with his party's likely presidential nominee, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.

"I'll let his campaign speak to his position on this issue," Cooper says.

Cooper's silence is understandable: Although the party that takes power next year will have to address deficit reduction and entitlement reform, those issues — especially when they involve painful changes to Social Security and Medicare — are too hot to touch during a presidential election campaign.

Instead, Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill are positioning themselves — quietly — to deal with the difficult choices after the election is over.

At the request of fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats, House Budget Committee Chairman John M. Spratt Jr. (D-S.C.) will convene a hearing later this month to address some of the entitlement questions.

At the centerpiece of that hearing will be a proposal, authored by Cooper and Republican Rep. Frank R. Wolf of Virginia, that would kick entitlement reform to a bipartisan commission like the one that has handled military base closings. The Cooper-Wolf panel would spend a year studying the nation's fiscal concerns before presenting Congress with a legislative package which it would be forced to vote on in its entirety.

Other members, including Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and ranking Republican Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), have proposed similar commissions with more member involvement. Some lawmakers, including House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), say a bipartisan approach is the best way — maybe the only way — to give members the political cover they need to overhaul these massive federal programs.

"This is the only way to solve the problem," Wolf said.

The veteran Republican boiled over during a brief discussion about the mounting costs of these programs, scribbling pie charts on the back of a stray bill to demonstrate how the costs of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are eating up a greater percentage of the federal budget each year. Wolf and others have grown increasingly frustrated with the partisan politics that have plagued previous reform efforts.

"We're waiting for Godot," Wolf said.

But other members say Congress has to keep trying to come up with its own solutions.

"These are monumental decisions," Spratt said. "They shouldn't be made in a black and white manner. I don't think members would be happy with outsider recommendations."

His GOP counterpart on the Budget panel, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, agrees.

"I just want to do it," Ryan said. "I'm only interested in actually doing my job."

To that end, Ryan, an outspoken conservative who has become an increasingly influential voice inside his party, unveiled "A Roadmap for America's Future," a comprehensive 391-page bill that lays out his proposals to overhaul Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. For good measure, it also revamps the tax code, creates new budgetary restrictions on Congress and includes Democratic priorities such as means testing for Medicare and Social Security and an improved safety net for low-income Americans.

Ryan plans to spend the rest of the year reaching out to colleagues on both sides of the aisle. He has already spoken to his conservative colleagues in the Republican Study Committee and party moderates in the Tuesday Group. And he has requested meetings with the Blue Dogs, the Congressional Black Caucus and other Democratic groups.

He even gave copies of his proposal to Obama's and Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaigns.

"I'm trying to jump in the pool first to get everyone else to come in and go swimming with me," Ryan said.

Conrad says that the national debt is "going up like a scalded cat" and that the presidential candidates are going to have to be a part of the conversation about it.

But the process and the politics involved in overhauling any of the entitlement programs remain dicey, particularly for Democrats.

Some lawmakers, including Spratt, favor a piecemeal approach that calls for Congress to reform one program at a time. Under that model, Congress overhauls Social Security, for example, and then moves on to Medicare or the health care system. Others, like Conrad and Ryan, favor a more comprehensive approach in which Congress tackles a major overhaul.

Many of the members who favor a comprehensive approach believe the easiest way to tackle the task would be to couple any changes to these federal entitlement programs with an extension of some of the president's tax cuts before they expire in 2010. That could give both sides revenue to work with.

But congressional leaders, including the chairmen with direct jurisdiction over these agencies, have not given many signals about which direction they prefer.

In the House, a natural divide separates the liberal wing of the Democratic Party from a small but growing band of fiscal conservatives. These Blue Dogs have created headaches for their leaders on immigration and spending issues since Democrats regained power in 2006. Most recently, the group threatened to block consideration of a measure increasing college aid for veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan unless party leaders offset its $52 billion price tag over the next 10 years. These lawmakers are also driving the discussion on entitlement reform, and they are adamant that the next administration must not create new programs without offsetting those costs.

The influence of these fiscal conservatives grows inside the party each time Democrats pick up a seat in a historically Republican district — and they can claim three already this year.

But the biggest concern remains the presidential election. President Bush barely mentioned Social Security reform in the run-up to his reelection in 2004, but it was the hallmark proposal — and one of the signature failures — of his second term.

Both Obama and Arizona Sen. John McCain have detailed plans to address each of these issues. The presidential hopefuls offer a lengthy roster of specific remedies to the federal agencies that make up these entitlement programs. They also offer plenty of broader bromides about "protecting seniors" and providing "access to health care for every American." That includes a measure to overhaul the country's health care system.

But neither candidate deals with these overhauls in terms of the expected budgetary shortfalls they could create. And the two nominees-in-waiting haven't exactly dwelled on those proposals, either — and neither have the media.

Cooper, a longtime Obama supporter, said he discussed his commission idea with the Illinois senator after a campaign event earlier this year. He wouldn't describe Obama's response, but he did issue a stark challenge for his party — which could include the next president of the United States — about the tough choices ahead.

"At some point, you have to govern," Cooper said. "We can't keep on promising candy to everyone. To have a balanced diet, you also have to have meat, vegetables and fruit."

Monday, June 09, 2008

"Bush Lied" If only it were that simple


'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple.

By Fred Hiatt

Search the Internet for "Bush Lied" products, and you will find sites that offer more than a thousand designs. The basic "Bush Lied, People Died" bumper sticker is only the beginning.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, set out to provide the official foundation for what has become not only a thriving business but, more important, an article of faith among millions of Americans. And in releasing a committee report Thursday, he claimed to have accomplished his mission, though he did not use the L-word.

"In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent," he said.

There's no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.

But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

In the report's final section, the committee takes issue with Bush's statements about Saddam Hussein's intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?

After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."

Rockefeller was reminded of that statement by the committee's vice chairman, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), who with three other Republican senators filed a minority dissent that includes many other such statements from Democratic senators who had access to the intelligence reports that Bush read. The dissenters assert that they were cut out of the report's preparation, allowing for a great deal of skewing and partisanship, but that even so, "the reports essentially validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers' statements were substantiated by the intelligence."

Why does it matter, at this late date? The Rockefeller report will not cause a spike in "Bush Lied" mug sales, and the Bond dissent will not lead anyone to scrape the "Bush Lied" bumper sticker off his or her car.

But the phony "Bush lied" story line distracts from the biggest prewar failure: the fact that so much of the intelligence upon which Bush and Rockefeller and everyone else relied turned out to be tragically, catastrophically wrong.

And it trivializes a double dilemma that President Bill Clinton faced before Bush and that President Obama or McCain may well face after: when to act on a threat in the inevitable absence of perfect intelligence and how to mobilize popular support for such action, if deemed essential for national security, in a democracy that will always, and rightly, be reluctant.

For the next president, it may be Iran's nuclear program, or al-Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan, or, more likely, some potential horror that today no one even imagines. When that time comes, there will be plenty of warnings to heed from the Iraq experience, without the need to fictionalize more.