Don’t Touch My Wife
Posted on July 18, 2008
Filed Under Uncategorized | 2 Comments
That really makes Obama mad. According to a recent interview:
In an interview with Glamour magazine, Obama said attacks on his wife are "infuriating." The likely Democratic presidential nominee blamed the conservative press for going after his wife as if she were the candidate.
"If they have a difference with me on policy, they should debate me. Not her," Obama told the magazine.
Michelle Obama has been highly active in her husband’s campaign, appearing with him at events and by herself at other times in an effort to help tout his candidacy. She promotes his policy agenda at fundraisers and gives interviews to reporters in support of her husband’s views.
"Attack" in the liberal mind is any criticism of a liberal’s belief or value. So Michelle Obama, a lawyer and former hospital executive, is "highly active" in her husband’s campaign, voicing his opinions on everything from Obama’s support of gay "marriage" to the state of racism in the US and yet she should be beyond criticism. Figures. How about this. Ask your wife to shut her yapper and the critics will go away.
Global Warming Doubters Club
Posted on July 17, 2008
Filed Under Uncategorized | 1 Comment
That should be the new name for the American Physical Society. Seems the group of 50,000 has some dubious men of science having second thoughts about mans’ role in global warming. According the report:
The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming “incontrovertible.”
In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,”There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.”
The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity — the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause — has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.
These guys haven’t got the memo yet. Don’t they know that according to Algore, the debate on global warming is over, there need be no dissent.
The Curtain Pulled Back
Posted on May 25, 2008
Filed Under Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Every once in a while, the leftists forget where they are at and who they are talking to and express their real agenda. Such was the case with Maxine Waters, uber-liberal and unter-intellect.
type=\”application/x-shockwave-flash\” wmode=\”transparent\” width=\”425\” height=\”355\”></embed></object>”>Maxine, the socialist
Joe Lieberman Gets It
Posted on May 21, 2008
Filed Under "PC" Rantings, Religious Rantings | 2 Comments
So why don’t the Democrats? Lieberman has a great piece in the Wall Street Journal today looking at some changes that have occured in his former party. He argues that the Democrats have lost their sense of America as the great defender of freedom in the world. Moving away from the traditions of Roosevelt and Truman, here’s a bit of what he writes about the Dems:
This worldview began to come apart in the late 1960s, around the war in Vietnam. In its place, a very different view of the world took root in the Democratic Party. Rather than seeing the Cold War as an ideological contest between the free nations of the West and the repressive regimes of the communist world, this rival political philosophy saw America as the aggressor – a morally bankrupt, imperialist power whose militarism and “inordinate fear of communism” represented the real threat to world peace.
It argued that the Soviets and their allies were our enemies not because they were inspired by a totalitarian ideology fundamentally hostile to our way of life, or because they nursed ambitions of global conquest. Rather, the Soviets were our enemy because we had provoked them, because we threatened them, and because we failed to sit down and accord them the respect they deserved. In other words, the Cold War was mostly America’s fault.
How true. The left embraces the tyrants and blames America. It remains true today. The left believe that except for our presence in Iran, the Taliban would not seek our destruction or the destruction of Israel. How sad and how naive. The Democrats today, in their hatred of Bush, have lost touch with their roots. Lieberman argues that in the 80’s and 90’s the Dems reaclaimed some of their heritage (I would argue this a dubious claim,) but soon after 9/11, allowed their primal partisan instinct to cloud their view of the world and of good and evil. With regard to Obama’s naive view of foreign policy Lieberman writes:
There are of course times when it makes sense to engage in tough diplomacy with hostile governments. Yet what Mr. Obama has proposed is not selective engagement, but a blanket policy of meeting personally as president, without preconditions, in his first year in office, with the leaders of the most vicious, anti-American regimes on the planet.
Mr. Obama has said that in proposing this, he is following in the footsteps of Reagan and JFK. But Kennedy never met with Castro, and Reagan never met with Khomeini. And can anyone imagine Presidents Kennedy or Reagan sitting down unconditionally with Ahmadinejad or Chavez? I certainly cannot.
If a president ever embraced our worst enemies in this way, he would strengthen them and undermine our most steadfast allies.
A great Democratic secretary of state, Dean Acheson, once warned “no people in history have ever survived, who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies.” This is a lesson that today’s Democratic Party leaders need to relearn.
Liberal Elite Fascism
Posted on May 13, 2008
Filed Under Uncategorized | 1 Comment
In the name of "tolerance," the University of Toledo (Ohio), a public institution of higher indoctrination (I mean learning) has terminated a staff member who dared to question the mainstream liberal thinking on the nature of homosexuality. Associate Vice President of Human Resources Crystal Dixon has lost her job because she had the audacity to question a mainstream liberal hot-button agenda item. Here is a portion of her offensive remarks:
As a Black woman who happens to be an alumnus of the University of Toledo’s Graduate School, an employee and business owner, I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are "civil rights victims." Here’s why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a Black woman. I am genetically and biologically a Black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended. Daily, thousands of homosexuals make a life decision to leave the gay lifestyle evidenced by the growing population of PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex Gays) and Exodus International just to name a few. Frequently, the individuals report that the impetus to their change of heart and lifestyle was a transformative experience with God; a realization that their choice of same-sex practices wreaked havoc in their psychological and physical lives. Charlene E. Cothran, publisher of Venus Magazine, was an aggressive, strategic supporter of gay rights and a practicing lesbian for 29 years, before she renounced her sexuality and gave Jesus Christ stewardship of her life. The gay community vilified her angrily and withdrew financial support from her magazine, upon her announcement that she was leaving the lesbian lifestyle. Rev. Carla Thomas Royster, a highly respected New Jersey educator and founder and pastor of Blessed Redeemer Church in Burlington, NJ, married to husband Mark with two sons, bravely exposed her previous life as a lesbian in a tell-all book. When asked why she wrote the book, she responded "to set people free… I finally obeyed God."
In all fairness, the university offered her a demotion with a pay cut as an alternative to her job loss.
A former UT administrator who was fired for opinions she expressed on Toledo Free Press’ Web site said the university offered her a demotion and pay cut prior to terminating her employment.
Crystal Dixon, former associate vice president of human resources, said UT officials, at a May 5 pre-disciplinary hearing, offered to allow her to continue to be employed at the university if she agreed to accept a demotion and salary reduction. Dixon was paid an annual salary of $134,383.
After declining the offer, Dixon was notified of her termination May 9 through her attorney, Tom Sobecki, she said, noting UT’s offer was “unacceptable because I didn’t do anything wrong.”
How generous. Stay tuned. My guess that Toledo will much more generous in their settlement with Ms. Dixon once her lawyers elaborate on her rights.
Here we have yet another example of how the left feel that people somehow loose their right to free speech when they come to work at a university or public institution. "Diversity," another of the great liberal virtues rarely includes diversity of opinion particularly of the conservative persuasion. "Diversity" is just another perversion of the language required for the left to advance their agenda.
Could the Obamas Be The Most Angry Family in America?
Posted on May 8, 2008
Filed Under Current Events, Political Rantings | Leave a Comment
For all the audacity of hope that Barack espouses, these people seem very angry. For twenty years, Barack was mentored in liberal black "theology" seemly based on continued anger toward whites for sins of slavery and discrimination. How can someone like Barack , once community activist and now presidential contender, continue this kind of angry, hopeless rhetoric? Take Michelle Obama’s recent speech (transcript at Hugh Hewitt’s site) in which she laments:
But we’ve also learned something else this year, something that we’ve all sort of felt at some point in our life, that we’re still living in a nation, and in a time when the bar is set, I talk about this all the time, they set the bar. They say look, if you do these things, you can get to this bar, right? And then you work and you struggle, you do everything that they say, and you think you’re getting close to the bar and you’re working hard, and you’re sacrificing, and then you get to the bar, you’re right there, you’re reaching out for the bar, you think you have it, and then what happens? They move the bar. They raise it up. They shift it to the left and to the right. It’s always just quite out of reach. And that’s a little bit of what Barack has been experiencing. The bar is constantly changing for this man. Raise the money? Not enough. Build an organization? Not enough. Win a whole bunch of states? Not the right states. You got to win certain states. So the bar has been shifting and moving in this race, but the irony is, the sad irony is that that’s exactly what’s happening to most Americans in this country. The bar is shifting and moving on people all the time. And folks are struggling like never before, working harder than ever, believing that their hard work will lead to some reward, some payoff. But what they find is that they get there and the bar has changed, things are different, wasn’t enough. So you have to work even harder.
And see what happens when you live in a nation where the vast majority of Americans are struggling every day to reach an ever-shifting and moving bar, then what happens in that nation is that people do become isolated. They do live in a level of division, because see, when you’re that busy struggling all the time, which most people that you know and I know are, that you don’t have time to get to know your neighbor. You don’t have time to reach out and have conversations, to share stories. In fact, you feel very alone in your struggle, because you feel that somehow, it must be your fault that you’re struggling so hard. Everybody else must be doing okay. I must be doing something wrong, so you hide. You don’t realize that the struggles of that farmer in rural Iowa are the same as the struggles as a city worker in the south side of Chicago, because we don’t talk to each other. And when you live in a nation with a vast majority of Americans are struggling to reach an ever-shifting and moving bar, then naturally, people become cynical. They don’t believe that politics can do anything for them. So they fold their arms in disgust, and they say you know, I can’t be bothered voting, because it has never done anything for me before. So let me stay home, let me not bother. Naturally, we as a nation get cynical.
Struggling, isolated, cynical. That’s the way she sees America. No hope, no promise, no potential. Not enough government programs to make people happy. Not enough "diversity" and "tolerance" for us to really be happy.
What’s so audacious about that?
The Secular Media Has No Clue About Religion
Posted on April 16, 2008
Filed Under Current Events, Religious Rantings | 1 Comment
I’m rather amused by the secular media’s attempt to report on something that they generally have little knowledge of. Take for instance the visit of Pope Benedict XVI to the US. Even before the Holy Father has said a single word while in the US, the papers have things all figured out. The Washington Post reports:
To be sure, there are tangible goals: Ramp up frank interfaith dialogue. Return Catholics to regular, traditional worship that reminds them of their long history. But his biggest aspiration for his six-day trip is to encourage Christians to believe in Jesus — to really believe in him, not as a metaphor but as a real miracle meant to deliver human beings from misery and war. The challenge, experts say, is trying to sell this message in a culture dominated more by reason than faith.
What’s wrong with the above? Returning to Mass is for the purpose of "reminding them of their long history?" That’s what Mass is about? Some nostalgic moment meant to foster memories from childhood? Perhaps most of the "Christians" known to the media don’t "really" believe in Jesus. Perhaps they just have some warm feelings about Jesus as a sage or nice, warm and wise man. A "metaphor" (not a person in history) meant to deliver human beings from "misery and war?" Did I miss something in the Gospels or did Jesus not come to redeem us from our sins? And the last sentence. A "culture dominated more by reason than faith." Do these people ever get to leave the liberal ghettos and see the rest of the country? Have they no clue that faith and reason are perfectly harmonious except to them and the secular left?
And to quote one of the experts in the article:
This pope is a pope of rule books.
For goodness sakes, can’t they just hire one person of "real faith" to proof read this drivel?
Getting (the) Green
Posted on April 15, 2008
Filed Under Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Ever wonder how "carbon credits" work? I have. And what is it exactly that Al Gore purchases to offset his ulta-mega-supersized carbon footprint? The answer is that Al purchases a "credit" for some amount of money (say $24) and this money is put to work in some third world country to fund a project that results in a cleaner world. Sounds simple. And ripe for potential profits for the middlemen.
Here’s a bit from the WSJ about one company involved in selling carbon credits and the money some have made.
…United Kingdom-based EcoSecurities Ltd., helps companies in the industrialized world meet their obligations to pollute less by selling them "credits" that fund clean-air projects in poorer nations. Last year, some $9.4 billion in these credits were traded, up from almost none four years earlier.
The market’s anything-goes early days now appear to be ending. United Nations officials who regulate the trade have started questioning scores of proposed projects, from hydroelectric plants in China to wind farms in India. The issue: whether they provide real environmental gains, or are just padding the pockets of middlemen like EcoSecurities.
One thorny issue: Who should vouch for the quality of clean-air projects? EcoSecurities says the U.N. scrutiny adds bureaucracy because it duplicates work already done by independent auditors who are hired to vet all projects. The U.N. panel should stick to an "executive and supervisory role," EcoSecurities says.
U.N. officials have questioned whether the auditors have been tough enough. The concern centers on whether auditors, who are hired by project developers, are adequately staffed to police the environmental legitimacy of the swelling number of projects. The auditors strenuously defend the quality of their oversight.
While that debate rages, EcoSecurities has been busy refocusing on projects less likely to raise red flags. For instance, it is shifting to projects to curb secondary greenhouse gases, such as nitrous oxide, produced in obscure industrial processes like nylon making. The problem, as EcoSecurities executives point out, is that targeting secondary gases does nothing to combat fossil-fuel use, which according to the U.N. is the primary man-made contributor to global warming.
But environmentalists need to make a decent living, don’t they?
Last July, with the stock near its peak, Mr. Stuart sold 2.2 million shares for about £8 million, or about $16 million, and Mr. Moura Costa sold 1.3 million shares for about £5 million as part of a secondary offering, according to financial filings. The two men remain the biggest shareholders with a 20% stake between them.
Having money was a big change for the two men, Mr. Stuart says, recalling that when EcoSecurities was young he routinely charged up thousands of dollars of debt on his credit card to help keep it operating. After the stock sale, Mr. Stuart traded his 1994 Mercury Sable for a $55,000 black Lexus hybrid sedan.
Biofuel or Food?
Posted on April 14, 2008
Filed Under Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
It has never seemed to me that biofuels, you know the creation of ethanol from corn and various grains and plants, makes much sense. Sure, they are renewable, but the required acreage and the energy needed to create the ethanol may create a barrier too high in order for these fuels to become practical and competitive with oil.
There are a lot of statistics and facts regarding the conversion of corn to fuel. Consider:
…powering the average U.S. automobile for one year on ethanol (blended with gasoline) derived from corn would require 11 acres of farmland, the same space needed to grow a year’s supply of food for seven people. Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion into ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make one gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTUS. Thus, 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in it. Every time you make one gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTUs.
And the ethanol venture removes corn from the world market. And decreasing the supply or food results in increased food costs. Even modest increases in food costs by American standards can destabilize a poor country. Consider food riots that are occurring in the world.
Surging commodity prices have pushed up global food prices 83% in the past three years, according to the World Bank — putting huge stress on some of the world’s poorest nations. Even as the ministers met, Haiti’s Prime Minister Jacques Edouard Alexis was resigning after a week in which that tiny country’s capital was racked by rioting over higher prices for staples like rice and beans.
As food prices soar, protests are breaking out around the world, including this riot Saturday in Port-au-Prince, Haiti.
Rioting in response to soaring food prices recently has broken out in Egypt, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Senegal and Ethiopia. In Pakistan and Thailand, army troops have been deployed to deter food theft from fields and warehouses. World Bank President Robert Zoellick warned in a recent speech that 33 countries are at risk of social upheaval because of rising food prices. Those could include Indonesia, Yemen, Ghana, Uzbekistan and the Philippines. In countries where buying food requires half to three-quarters of a poor person’s income, “there is no margin for survival,” he said.
“Green” policies have consequences and the consequences may be more than a “warm fuzzy” feeling for people in other parts of the world.
Ted Turner with Turnips (and a Bit of Parsley)
Posted on April 7, 2008
Filed Under Current Events, Political Rantings, Science Rantings | Leave a Comment
That would be my recipe for Ted Turner’s corpse if I owned an cannibal restaurant. Boil the whole mess for hours to make it tender and then serve with a side of fresh bread and butter (or "I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter" if I were worried about cholesterol.)
Is there anyone anywhere in the world that has more money and less intelligence than Ted Turner, the billionaire, pro-abortion, liberal nutcase? Ted’s recent comments on the Charlie Rose show make Algore look downright reasonable on this whole global warming thing. Take a look at the whole interview here. Here are a few of Ted’s thoughts on the catastrophe that awaits us if we continue our current ways.
If steps aren’t taken to stem global warming, "We’ll be eight degrees hotter in 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow," Turner said during a wide-ranging, hour-long interview with PBS’s Charlie Rose that aired Tuesday.
"Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals," said Turner, 69. "Civilization will have broken down. The few people left will be living in a failed state — like Somalia or Sudan — and living conditions will be intolerable."
I was unaware that they were eating each other in Somalia and Sudan.
Ted has a great self awareness and understands that in the past, he’s said some really dumb things…
Admitting that he’s "always suffered from foot-in-the-mouth disease," Turner added, "I’ve gotten a lot better, though. It’s been a long time since anybody caught me saying something stupid."
Amazing. Really… just… amazing!
keep looking »-
Timeless Wisdom
"Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference, which is an elegant name for ignorance." - The Speaker, 12/15/00
