Touring Vietnam in 1965, Michigan Gov. George Romney proclaimed American involvement there "morally right and necessary." Two years later, however, Romney -- then seeking the Republican presidential nomination -- not only recanted his support for the war but claimed that he had been hoodwinked.

"When I came back from Vietnam, I had just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get," Romney told a Detroit TV reporter who asked the candidate how he reconciled his shifting views.

Romney (father of Mitt) had visited Vietnam with nine other governors, all of whom denied that they had been duped by their government. With this one remark, his presidential hopes were dashed.

The memory of this gaffe reverberates in the contemporary rhetoric of many Democrats, who, when attacking the Bush administration's case for war against Saddam Hussein, employ essentially the same argument. In 2006, John F. Kerry explained the Senate's 77-23 passage of the Iraq war resolution this way: "We were misled. We were given evidence that was not true." On the campaign trail, Hillary Rodham Clinton dodged blame for her pro-war vote by claiming that "the mistakes were made by this president, who misled this country and this Congress."

Nearly every prominent Democrat in the country has repeated some version of this charge, and the notion that the Bush administration deceived the American people has become the accepted narrative of how we went to war.

Yet in spite of all the accusations of White House "manipulation" -- that it pressured intelligence analysts into connecting Hussein and Al Qaeda and concocted evidence about weapons of mass destruction -- administration critics continually demonstrate an inability to distinguish making claims based on flawed intelligence from knowingly propagating falsehoods.

In 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously approved a report acknowledging that it "did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments." The following year, the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report similarly found "no indication that the intelligence community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."

Contrast those conclusions with the Senate Intelligence Committee report issued June 5, the production of which excluded Republican staffers and which only two GOP senators endorsed. In a news release announcing the report, committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV got in this familiar shot: "Sadly, the Bush administration led the nation into war under false pretenses."

Yet Rockefeller's highly partisan report does not substantiate its most explosive claims. Rockefeller, for instance, charges that "top administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and Al Qaeda as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11." Yet what did his report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were "substantiated by intelligence information." The same goes for claims about Hussein's possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program.

Four years on from the first Senate Intelligence Committee report, war critics, old and newfangled, still don't get that a lie is an act of deliberate, not unwitting, deception. If Democrats wish to contend they were "misled" into war, they should vent their spleen at the CIA.

In 2003, top Senate Democrats -- not just Rockefeller but also Carl Levin, Clinton, Kerry and others -- sounded just as alarmist. Conveniently, this month's report, titled "Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information," includes only statements by the executive branch. Had it scrutinized public statements of Democrats on the Intelligence, Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees -- who have access to the same intelligence information as the president and his chief advisors -- many senators would be unable to distinguish their own words from what they today characterize as warmongering.

This may sound like ancient history, but it matters. After Sept. 11, President Bush did not want to risk allowing Hussein, who had twice invaded neighboring nations, murdered more than 1 million Iraqis and stood in violation of 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions, to remain in possession of what he believed were stocks of chemical and biological warheads and a nuclear weapons program. By glossing over this history, the Democrats' lies-led-to-war narrative provides false comfort in a world of significant dangers.

"I no longer believe that it was necessary for us to get involved in South Vietnam to stop communist aggression in Southeast Asia," Romney elaborated in that infamous 1967 interview. That was an intellectually justifiable view then, just as it is intellectually justifiable for erstwhile Iraq war supporters to say -- given the way it's turned out -- that they don't think the effort has been worth it. But predicating such a reversal on the unsubstantiated allegation that one was lied to is cowardly and dishonest.

A journalist who accompanied Romney on his 1965 foray to Vietnam remarked that if the governor had indeed been brainwashed, it was not because of American propaganda but because he had "brought so light a load to the laundromat." Given the similarity between Romney's explanation and the protestations of Democrats 40 years later, one wonders why the news media aren't saying the same thing today.

Goodness.  From the LA Times?

In Canada, you have Global Warming warrior numero uno, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) poster boy David Suzuki encouraging children to rat out their own parents in a treehouse setting televised advertisement (The David Suzuki Foundation YouTube)

In Australia, the state-run Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) targets 9-year-old children in Planet Slayer, which includes “Prof. Schpinkee’s Greenhouse Calculator.  Find out when you should die”.  Planet Slayer’s when you should die option comes for kiddies whose don’t use only their “fair” share of the Earth.  (Parents can view Planet Slayer here).

The Australian parents of 9-year-olds waking up screaming with nightmares of exploding pigs dying in pools of blood can blame their state-run television network.

As offensive as these child-frightening tactics are, it’s proof positive that global warming scare tactics on adult masses are failing—failing enough for Global Warming Alarmists to seek out a younger, more impressionable audience.

And at the same time global warming alarmists in Canada and Australia are stooping to bogeymen tactics for school age kids, their leader Al Gore has been caught with his global warming pants on fire.

For the second time in the space of little more than a year, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has dragged the size of Gore’s real global warming footprint onto the Drudge Report.

Despite Gore’s well-touted “green” overhaul of his mansion, his personal electricity is up more than 10%.

“A man’s commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home,” said Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.  “Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption.

“In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity—enough to power 232 average American households for a month.”

Champagne belches celebrated the February 2007 academy award for An Inconvenient Truth, a documentary film based on a climate change speech developed by Gore.

The very next day the Tennessee Center for Policy Research uncovered that Gore’s Nashville home guzzled 20 times more electricity than the average American household.

Gore’s documentary was to go on as mandatory viewing for school age children in the British Isles.  His personal wealth increased by an estimated $100 million, thanks largely to speaking fees and investments related to global warming hysteria.

In the year that followed, Gore’s partner in global warming credits, Canadian Maurice Strong--the UN diplomat who started the global warming craze, has all but disappeared.

But while Global Warming alarmists were laughing all the way to the bank, average people everywhere were starting to smell a Global Warming rat. 

Tired of being told to give up their SUVs, by SUV-driving global warming Hollywood hypocrites, something was about to backfire on Gore, Suzuki, Strong and company.  Their plebes were being reminded of radical environmentalism every day at the gas pumps.

Soaring gas prices are a burden on hard-working families.  The genie came out of the bottle when consumers made the link between gas prices and radical environmentalists.  For years environmentalists enabled by government grants have routinely erected barriers to the production and distribution of energy.

The latest trend of the global warming alarmists frightening children is destined to come to a bad end.

Parents have been slaying bogeymen for their children down through the centuries.

Al Gore, David Suzuki, Maurice Strong et al are too far from their child rearing days to remember how nine year olds love their parents.

Meanwhile the Global Warming scare is careening its way to hit with a big bang, proverbial rock bottom.

Canada Free Press

She's big-busted, petite, very friendly and she runs on batteries.

Sega, best known for its home video game consoles, has introduced a 15-inch tall robotic 'girlfriend' that kisses on command, with a target market of lonely adult men.

The robot, named "EMA," which stands for Eternal Maiden Actualization, is designed to pucker up for nearby human heads, entering "love mode" using a series of infrared sensors powered by battery.

"Strong, tough and battle-ready are some of the words often associated with robots, but we wanted to break that stereotype and provide a robot that's sweet and interactive," said Minako Sakanoue, a spokeswoman for the maker, Sega Toys to Reuters news agency.

BY ERIC CREED

GOOGLE “RECORD HEAT” and you will get 3,180,000 hits. Google “record cold” and you will get 5,110,000. Yes, that’s right; and it’s just the tip of the proverbial (not melting) iceberg. You see, the convenient truth about the theory of global warming is that you can blame anything on it. Record snows and snow cover in North America, record cold in Asia, snow falling in Baghdad. That’s right. Snow in the desert. Clearly more signs of catastrophic global warming. Not so fast. Pull up a chair, put your feet up, expel some evil CO2, and let’s talk about how “settled” the issue of global warming really is.     I know full well that writing this piece will cause me to be labeled a “global warming denier” and be lumped in with those that Al Gore said in March are, along with Dick Cheney, “in such a tiny minority view now with their point of view, they’re almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the world is flat.”

    Seriously? I can’t question the people who are incapable of telling me what the weather is going to be for my tee-time this Saturday, but claim to know exactly how much warmer the entire globe will be, how much the sea will rise, how much the snow cover will recede, and how much the ice caps will melt in 100 years?

    You’re really going to implicitly equate me with a holocaust denier because I don’t believe that your faulty computer models (designed by James Hanson, et al., a liberal NASA scientist with an agenda) prove that the globe is warming, or if it is, that it’s our fault? You swear by the models, why don’t you swear by the corrections that NASA very quietly released last summer that show the warmest year on record was not 1998, but in fact is 1934, and that five of the top 10 hottest years on record were all before World War II?

    The Pope once had a problem with a “denier.” His name was Galileo, and he thought that the earth was round and that it was not the center of the universe; [Uh, it was widely accepted that the Earth was round at the time...  -- ed.] that it actually revolved around the sun, not the other way around. The Pope did the same thing that Al Gore is doing now. With faulty data and conjecture, the Pope declared that the debate was over and that anybody who disagreed would be burned at the stake. While we don’t burn people at the stake these days, Gore claims we will all die in a ball of fire if we don’t rally around this theory and devote all of our time, energy (both fossil and kinetic), and money to it.

    OK, I am a skeptic. When every lunatic liberal leftist on the face of the planet says we need to close down the carbon emissions of industry (carbon caps) and spend trillions of dollars trying to fix something that (1.) we don’t know if we caused it (the factual evidence says we didn’t), and (2.) if we did cause global warming, is it really in our power to fix (reverse) it, red flags go up. Many leading scientists firmly believe that more CO2 in the atmosphere is actually good for the planet. David Archibald, PhD, at the Biology Department of San Diego State University, is one of those leading scientists. In a lecture given at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, Dr. Archibald said that more CO2 in the atmosphere will give us a lusher environment and actually increase plant growth rates in addition to increasing the sustainability of crops in arid regions.

    If you believe that liberal bastion of policy wonks and diplomats (and a couple of decent, and many not-so-decent, scientists), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), we cannot reverse it. The IPCC closed its Fourth Assessment Report’s (AR4) Summary for Policymakers with this: “[B]oth past and future anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to global warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium, due to the time scales required for removal of this gas from the atmosphere.” For those of you who do not know, the IPCC is more than just Gore’s co-conspirator in the global warming fraud, they are co-recipients of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. And what does climate change have to do with peace anyway?

Back to our favorite global warming alarmist, Al Gore. He recently announced that his Alliance for Climate Protection will embark on a mission to better educate the public on the dangers of man-made global warming and the dire necessity to make drastic (and prohibitively costly) changes in order to stop it. Oh yeah, he’s spending $300 million to do it. Maybe Gore subscribes to Gallop. A recent Gallop poll revealed that about the same percentage of people believe in man-made global warming as did when they first took the poll in 1989. Ironically, the propaganda machine that is Nobel Laureate Gore bans the media from his lectures. An odd contradiction for a man that wants the world to adopt his doomsday outlook and invest in his “green” funds. Gore’s lecture contract, handled by The Harry Walker Agency, Inc., in New York, in addition to requiring non-disclosure of the terms and conditions of the agreement, says in section 9(a) that “the press is not invited or permitted to cover the event unless express written permission is granted by the Harry Walker Agency, Inc.” Section 9(c) reads, “Vice President Gore will accept no interview requests.” Maybe if he allowed the press into his lectures, or gave an interview or two, he wouldn’t have to spend $300 million on public awareness. In case you are wondering, yes, I have a copy. Are you at least a little bit curious why the free press is not allowed to attend his lectures? Read on, my friend.

GLOBAL WARMING HAS BECOME QUITE THE INDUSTRY.
    The U.S. alone spends over $4 billion per year on climate change research. That seems like a lot of money to spend on something that is so well settled and agreed upon by all but a few “flat-earthers.” Gore has started giving a disclaimer during his lectures. Gore, and Global Investment Management, LLP (GIM), the London-based private equity firm of which Gore is the founder and Chairman, stand to benefit in untold riches if we invest in the companies he recommends in his lectures. His disclaimers are no different than those of a stock broker or insurance agent. Gore is basically saying, yes, I own stock in these companies, but you should too if you want to save the planet from certain doom. Doom-and-gloom has served Gore well. Like the other two shysters from his administration, he is reported to be worth north of $100 million. If you missed the media’s passing mention last month, Clinton finally released her income tax returns. Turns out she’s worth about $109 million. Civil servants, huh? Servants never had it so good. All the past presidents and vice presidents combined probably don’t have the wealth of the Gores and Clintons. As a side note, Gore closed GIM’s second “green” fund, Climate Solutions Fund, in April at $683 million. The first fund, Global Equity Strategy Fund, has invested $2.2 billion in large companies judged to have, from an environmental, social and economic viewpoint, a “sustainable” business. I wonder, can any of the companies that Gore is investing billions in help him and his Nashville mansion use less than 10 times the amount of energy the average American household uses? But don’t worry, he’s using compact fluorescents in his house, so it’s ok to use 10 times as much energy as everyone else. Speaking of Gore’s waste and gluttony, I wonder how ginormous his carbon footprint was while he was jetting around the world promoting his lie/movie and trying to convince everyone to invest in his companies.

    It was reported in April that An Inconvenient Truth used computer-generated footage from the movie The Day After Tomorrow to show a crumbling ice shelf. Those are the kinds of deceptions necessary when trying to convince the world of a lie.

Just as Nazi Propaganda Chief Joseph Goebbels said, “[T]ell a lie enough and it becomes accepted as truth.” As well as that has worked for Gore, support for his “planet in peril” mantra is eroding faster than he claims the ice caps are. In 2007 a British court held that, in order for his lie/movie to be shown to school children, “eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of the [students].” Among those inaccuracies, the court ruled, was that rises in CO2 lagged behind temperature rises by 800-2,000 years; that despite the movie’s claim, it is a scientific impossibility for global warming to cause the Gulf Steam to stop flowing; and that, while the movie claims sea levels could rise 23 feet, the evidence showed sea levels are expected to rise 15 inches over the next 100 years. If you believe Gore, we shouldn’t even bother buying green bananas, the end is so close at hand. Gore should have won his Oscar for the best mockumentary, not documentary, of 2007.

Although quite ham-handed, the author makes some excellent points.

Read the rest.

The Associated Press has not only jumped the shark, they’ve leaped over that baby like Carl Lewis: AP sets up a toll booth for bloggers citing its stories.

The AP’s disharmony with bloggers may have only just begun, as the alternative it’s now offering to being served with takedown notices involves paying an up-front sum for excerpting online articles — as few as five words.

A meeting between the Associated Press’ Vice President for Strategic Planning Jim Kennedy and Robert Cox, who heads the Media Bloggers Association, is now planned for Thursday of this week. The subject at hand is the AP’s attempt to find a new way of sharing AP content, which now involves a fee per excerpt based on its word length.

On the heels of a blogosphere revolt last week because of its harsh actions against social news site The Drudge Retort, the AP regrouped over the weekend to take a less litigative — but more bureaucratic — approach to dealing with those who wish to quote its material.

Where the group had previously invoked the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and sent cease-and-desist orders to at least one blogger, seeking the removal of excerpted content (in some cases as few as 17 words in length), now the press service has attached an “Excerpt for Web Use” charge for passages as short as five words in length.

The pricing scale for excerpting AP content begins at $12.50 for 5-25 words and goes as high as $100 for 251 words and up. Nonprofit organizations and educational institutions enjoy a discounted rate.

Meanwhile, they continue to provide RSS feeds for free, in a classic case of one hand not knowing what the other’s doing.

if they plan to enforce this mind-bogglingly stupid policy, it will be interesting to see what happens with sites like Digg.com — which are nothing but excerpts from news articles, with hundreds of AP stories being posted every day.

Via:  LGF

Fair enough.  Screw you, AP.  Ernie Pyle must be weeping in Heaven.  Bastards.

Un-freaking-believable: Barack Obama aide: Why Winnie the Pooh should shape US foreign policy.

Richard Danzig, who served as Navy Secretary under President Clinton and is tipped to become National Security Adviser in an Obama White House, told a major foreign policy conference in Washington that the future of US strategy in the war on terrorism should follow a lesson from the pages of Winnie the Pooh, which can be shortened to: if it is causing you too much pain, try something else.

Mr Danzig told the Centre for New American Security: “Winnie the Pooh seems to me to be a fundamental text on national security.”

Oh yeah. Let’s put these people in charge of the United States. What could possibly go wrong?

Via:  LGF

Gore’s personal electricity consumption up 10%, despite “energy-efficient&r dquo; home renovations

NASHVILLE - In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former Vice President’s home energy use surged more than 10%, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.

“A man’s commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home,” said Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. “Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption.”

In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month.

In February 2007, An Inconvenient Truth, a film based on a climate change speech developed by Gore, won an Academy Award for best documentary feature. The next day, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research uncovered that Gore’s Nashville home guzzled 20 times more electricity than the average American household.

After the Tennessee Center for Policy Research exposed Gore’s massive home energy use, the former Vice President scurried to make his home more energy-efficient. Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home’s windows and ductwork, Gore now consumes more electricity than before the “green” overhaul.

Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month –1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations – at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration.

In the wake of becoming the most well-known global warming alarmist, Gore won an Oscar, a Grammy and the Nobel Peace Prize. In addition, Gore saw his personal wealth increase by an estimated $100 million thanks largely to speaking fees and investments related to global warming hysteria.

“Actions speak louder than words, and Gore’s actions prove that he views climate change not as a serious problem, but as a money-making opportunity,” Johnson said. “Gore is exploiting the public’s concern about the environment to line his pockets and enhance his profile.”

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, a Nashville-based free market think tank and watchdog organization, obtained information about Gore’s home energy use through a public records request to the Nashville Electric Service.

Lying, hypocritical sack of shit...

TCPR

Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani is the latest Marine to turn out not to be a "cold-blooded killer" that the media and Democratic politicians painted Marines charged with the Haditha "massacre" to be. This two weeks after another Marine was acquitted in a Haditha court martial.

FoxNews.com has the AP story about the dismissal of charges against him here.:

CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. - A military judge dismissed charges Tuesday against a Marine officer accused of failing to investigate the killings of 24 Iraqis.

Col. Steven Folsom dismissed charges against Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani after finding that a four-star general overseeing the case was improperly influenced by an investigator probing the November 2005 shootings by a Marine squad in Haditha.

As you might have guessed, this story is not exactly commanding the airwaves of the cable news networks this afternoon, although the media obsessed about the "massacre" in 2005.

From my colleague Scott Whitlock's June 5 post about the media's similar lack of interest in the acquittal of Marine Lt. Andrew Grayson:

The same network newscasts that hyped the 2005 "alleged massacre" by U.S. soldiers in Haditha are so far ignoring the acquittal on all charges of Lieutenant Andrew Grayson on Thursday. Grayson was accused of attempting to cover up details of the events surrounding a raid that lead to the death of 15 Iraqis. However, Grayson's acquittal was skipped by ABC's "Good Morning America," CBS's "Early Show" and NBC's "Today" show. (CNN's "American Morning" covered the story only as a news brief.)

In contrast, the morning shows seemed much more interested in the subject back when dark allegations were made about the actions of U.S. solders in Haditha. On Memorial Day 2006, then-GMA host Charles Gibsonbut troubling new information about Marine misconduct in Iraq. A new eyewitness on what could be a mass murder of civilians. Was there a cover-up?" On the March 20, 2006, "Nightly News," host Brian Williams touted the "disturbing new allegations" made by Congressman John Murtha about Haditha. (It should be noted that, so far, five of the eight originally charged with murder or cover-up have been acquitted.) On May 25, 2006, referencing the massacre of hundreds of Vietnamese civilians in 1968, "Nightline" host Terry Moran speculated, "Will Haditha be the My Lai of the Middle East?" On June 7 of that year, reporter Andrea Mitchell opined on "Today" that Haditha was a "black eye for American policy." intoned, "America honors its fallen war heroes,

A 2006 MRC study of how CNN, MSNBC and Fox News covered Iraq found that CNN and MSNBC were much more likely to focus on the negative, such as incidents like Haditha.

The MSM has obviously chosen a side, and it is NOT that of the American people.  Screw you, John Murtha.  Where's your apology?

Newsbusters

Remember that Che Guevara flag in Barack Obama’s Houston campaign office? The one that all the Obama supporters came out and decried as a fluke, and totally unrepresentative of the campaign, and just one person’s opinion?

Well, here’s an Ohio judge with an attraction to mass murderers and Communist thugs—and Barack Obama.

And as we’ve been pointing out all week, you can find blogs all over the official Obama web site that support Communists, terrorists, and 9/11 Troofers.

Still just a “fluke?”

(Hat tip: Power Line.)

Via:  LGF

AUSTIN -- Whoever launched the Molotov cocktail that led to the devastating weekend fire at the Texas Governor's Mansion had breached the security fencing and was standing on the property's front lawn at the time of the attack, officials said Thursday.

"There was an individual on the property," state Fire Marshal Paul Maldonado told reporters at a news briefing near the 152-year-old two-story mansion, which has been home to the past 40 governors of Texas. "The individual was on the grounds. The origins [of the fire] were on the porch."

Latest updates

Maldonado, who with other state officials and federal investigators from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives concluded the on-site portion of the investigation Thursday, confirmed published reports that surveillance video taken when the fire began about 1:45 a.m. Sunday showed one person lighting an object and heaving it toward the mansion's front door. Maldonado said the surveillance video was not being made public because of the ongoing investigation.

The resulting huge fireball on the building's stately front porch quickly spread inside, causing severe damage to both floors and the roof.

Maldonado said it was unclear how the arsonist had reached the mansion, which is surrounded by construction fencing that has been in place for several months during an ongoing $10 million restoration project and by the wrought-iron and masonry fence that has been in place for decades.

Restoration and rebuilding

Gary Jaster, a structural engineer brought in to evaluate the building, said the exterior brick walls, the flooring and even the elegant staircase near the entrance were in surprisingly good shape. The flat roof, which has been visibly sagging since the fire, will need to be removed and replaced with a temporary top to protect the interior from further damage, he said.

"The mansion is salvageable," Jaster said.

Gov. Rick Perry, who has been living in temporary quarters since the restoration project got under way and was in Europe when the fire broke out, is promising to push for a complete restoration of the mansion. Cost estimates are pending.

"I will not allow the destructive act of some deranged individual or group to destroy something that Texans hold so dear," said Perry, speaking Thursday at the state Republican Convention in Houston. "We will rebuild. We will restore. We will renew this Texas treasure for future generations."

Criminal investigation

Maldonado repeated on Thursday what he has been saying since the fire was ruled an act of arson: Authorities will catch the culprit. Asked how he could be so sure -- it isn't clear whether the person on the surveillance video is a man or a woman, or if accomplices were involved -- he replied that tips coming in to a special hot line, 877-434-7345, were proving helpful.

He declined to elaborate, but he held out the possibility that reward money might be offered in the hope of producing even more leads.

"There is consideration of that at this time, but we have not made final decisions about that," Maldonado said. "We'll be discussing that with the investigation team throughout the day."

Staff writer Anna M. Tinsley contributed to this report from Houston.

How to help

Contributions may be made to the Save the Mansion Fund, Heritage Society of Austin, P.O. Box 2113 Austin, TX 78768-2113.

Donors may also direct contributions to Friends of the Texas Historical Commission, P.O. Box 13492, Austin, TX 78711, or to Austin Community Foundation, 4315 Guadalupe St., Suite 300, Austin, TX 78751; and Friends of the Governor's Mansion, P.O. Box 24447, Austin, TX 78768.

Ft. Worth Star-Telegram

Man, I want one of these...

This piston was fitted to the World Championship-winning F1-2000. 2000 was one of the most significant years in Ferrari's F1 career: the team scored 170 points, 10 victories and 10 poles, winning both world titles in the process. For the first time in 21 long years, a Ferrari driver, Michael Schumacher, was crowned World Drivers' Champion while the Scuderia Ferrari won the Constructors' title for the second year in a row.

The article is set on a special carbon fiber base with metal nameplate and it is stowed in a red cardboard box.

The piston comes with a certificate of origin signed by Jean Todt as a guarantee of its absolute authenticity.

Ferrari Store

This bill is supposed to stop the military from sending “any form of communication in support of national objectives designed to influence the opinions, emotions, attitudes or behavior of the people of the United States in order to benefit the sponsor, either directly or indirectly.”

In other words, the military is not allowed to talk to the American people or Congress for fear of disseminating “propaganda.”

The only way to fulfill this idiotic policy is to stop anyone in the military from ever speaking in public because, when you get right down to it, nearly any communication from the Pentagon, or any command staff in theater, will have the effect of “influencing” those who hear it. That is the nature of human communication, after all.

Of course this is a silly concept that the Democrat Party has come up with. Every single thing that man conceives of must be “sold” to everyone else to get implemented. The idea is born in the minds of one or a few and then those disciples of the idea go forth and begin a campaign to convince those who can put that idea into place that the idea is worthy of support. In essence, that is propaganda in its simplest form. The happy face is put on, the hands are shaken, and the plan is laid out for discussion. This is called being human! It’s how we all get things done.

Besides, what level of information becomes propaganda and what just “information” ? To a rabid, anti-military nut any words from the Pentagon is “propaganda.” To the highest booster, none are. Who is to determine when what is being said becomes “propaganda”?

My guess is no one in the Democrat caucus is smart enough to know.

But, let’s look at the real reason this simple-minded policy was created. The real reason the Democrats want such a policy in place is to silence the military entirely. Democrats aren’t interested in keeping the tender ears of the people from being assaulted with “propaganda.” No, they want to be able to shut the military off from being able to appear before the American people to defend themselves against Democrat attacks. THAT is the true goal.

If the Democrat Party can keep the Pentagon in the can, then Congress and the Democrat Party will be the conduit of information between the military and the people. And the Democrat Party finds an enemy in the American military. So, what better way to further their own propaganda then by making sure the enemy’s will never be heard.

Stalin would be proud of Congressional democrats.

Publius Forum

Since they didn't bother in the article:  Here it is, section 1075, page 559, of the “Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)”.  H.R. 5658

Analysts used to joke about waiting for the results from cemetery precincts in Chicago before calling elections. In Louisiana, that may be closer to the truth than one might imagine. WBRZ reports on a voter registration scandal that had Democrats submitting thousands of fraudulent enrollments, included George W. Bush and a bunch of dead people:

Secretary of State Jay Dardenne said Tuesday he will meet today with a Democrat-affiliated group responsible for a voter registration effort that is inundating East Baton Rouge and other parish registrars with bogus and incomplete applications.

Dardenne said his investigators are trying to determine if any state election laws have been violated as thousands of voter registration cards have been dumped on registrars offices through the efforts of VIP.

“We have some very real concerns about the data we are getting from them,” Dardenne said.

VIP is a Washington, D.C., group hired by national Democrats to register some 70,000 new voters in advance of the presidential and other federal elections this fall.

It’s easier to meet that goal when recruiters don’t pay attention to details, such as a pulse:

Two cards received in Caddo Parish had George W. Bush as the voter applicant with a 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. address in Shreveport, Dardenne said. Other cards have been filed for prisoners who cannot vote and dead people. In Jefferson Parish, a voter registration card was filed for the registrar of voters.

Louisiana Republicans demanded an investigation, and Dardenne assured them that he had already begun a probe into VIP’s activities. It would seem that “hope and change” in Louisiana means “more of the same”.

Voter fraud strikes at the heart of a democracy. If VIP conspired to inflate Democratic registrations unlawfully, the FBI has jurisdiction, as this qualifies as interstate commerce. Congress should also look into this latest corruption eruption in Louisiana.

Hot Air

I talked about this a bit yesterday, but now I have the exact quote before me, so I want to cover it again.  On the night that Barack Obama clinched the Democrat nomination he was in St. Paul, Minnesota – there to deliver this absolute gem of a quote:

"I am absolutely certain that generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick.  This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." 

Isn't that amazing?  Not until Barack "The Messiah" Obama signed up that last delegate did this country do anything to care for sick people. Medicare and Medicaid have existed on paper only ... certainly not in reality.  What's more ... a signal has now been sent to the oceans to recede and a great glob of Neosporin has now been spread across our planet.  Does this man believe his own bullshit?  We can only hope not.

By the way ... I'm still waiting for someone to point out one single Obama legislative accomplishment.  Don't rush, I have all the time in the world.

Neal Nuze

WASHINGTON, DC – Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, commented today on the cloture vote that effectively halted the Climate Tax Bill.

"This bill was doomed from the start," Senator Inhofe said. "When the Majority Leader filled the amendment tree and filed cloture on the Climate Tax Bill, it was obvious that the Democrats were not serious about supporting this bill. This was one of the largest bills ever considered by this Congress and probably the largest non-appropriations bill the Senate has ever considered. This bill deserved a full and honest debate, with amendments offered and voted upon. The American people did not deserve a political exercise geared toward election year politics. Republicans were prepared to debate this bill with over 150 amendments ready to be offered. The Democrats did not want to debate and vote on our amendments that were aimed at protecting American families and workers from the devastating economic impacts of this bill. The 1990 Clean Air Act amendments were considered on the Senate floor for five weeks, and this comprehensive climate bill demands at least equal debate.

"The committee process was short-circuited, the floor debate was circumvented, and the amendment process was derailed. I do not see how the Democrats use this failed bill as any kind of model for future success. As I suspected, reality hit the U.S. Senate when the economic facts of this bill were exposed. When faced with the inconvenient truth of the bill’s impact on skyrocketing gas prices, very few Senators were willing to even debate this bill."  

Background:

This week’s Climate Tax Bill debate revealed many useful insights into why the American people will remain skeptical of a global warming cap-and-trade system.

The Wall Street Journal aptly noted on June 6 that environmentalists are "stunned that their global warming agenda is in collapse" after the Climate Tax Bill debate. "The green groups now look as politically intimidating as the skinny kid on the beach who gets sand kicked in his face. Those groups spent millions advertising and lobbying to push the cap-and-trade bill through the Senate," the paper noted. "With gasoline selling at $4 a gallon, the Democrats picked the worst possible time to bring up cap and trade," a political analyst noted. "This issue is starting to feel like the Hillary health care plan," the analyst added. (LINK)

On June 3, Roll Call quoted frustrated Democrat staffers as being beside themselves in anger for the way the cap-and-trade bill was presented.

"We have no strategy, no message and no plan," said one senior Senate Democrat aide. "Everyone knows this bill is going nowhere. The president is opposed to it. The House is not inclined toward action on this, and now we're going to spend valuable floor time on a bill that's going nowhere ... while Republicans are champing at the bit to accuse Democrats of raising gas prices," the aide added. “Boxer is walking us off a cliff,” another senior Senate Democratic aide said, according to the paper. (LINK) & (LINK)

What We Learned This Week:

1) Raise Gas Prices Higher: "Government studies confirm this will only raise gas prices." The EPA estimates that the Lieberman-Warner bill will increase fuel costs an additional 53 cents per gallon by 2030 and by $1.40 by 2050. The Energy Information Agency (EIA) estimates gas prices will increase anywhere from 41 cents per gallon to $1.01 per gallon by 2030.

2) Largest Tax Increase Ever: The Climate Tax Bill was the largest tax increase in American history. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says Lieberman-Warner would effectively raise taxes on Americans by over a trillion dollars just during the next 10 years. The bill would have created $6.7 Trillion in the form of higher gasoline and electricity bills, and with no climate benefit. The Lieberman-Warner bill did not have a tax cut provision in it.  Boxer’s claim of "tax relief" in the bill is based on a non-binding Sense of the Senate resolution that says some funds "should be" used to protect consumers from the coming "increases in energy and other costs" caused by the bill (Section 585, page 204 of substitute version, Sense of the Senate on Tax Initiative to Protect Consumers). 

3) Nuclear Energy Lacking: Nuclear power is by far the world’s largest sources of non-emitting energy. Any credible attempt to reduce carbon emissions must include significant development of new nuclear plants. Merely passing a climate bill will not be enough to support the nuclear construction needed to satisfy the bill’s mandates. Additional incentives will be indispensable in the near-term to revitalize the industry to a level that encourages massive development.

4) Job Killer: The independent Energy Information Administration says the bill would result in a 9.5% drop in manufacturing output and higher energy costs, and that it will be worse unless we can build 268 new nuclear plants by 2030. This country has already lost 3 million manufacturing jobs since 2000. An analysis of this bill by the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Council for Capital Formation states that up to 1.8 million jobs could be forfeited by 2020 and 4 million jobs could be by 2030. Midwestern states alone could lose close to a million jobs alone in this time frame. Without international participation, which this bill fails to adequately address, global concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to increase, even if America were to nearly eliminate its emissions.

Good riddance.

EPW

Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.

CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.

CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.

If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have a negligible effect on global climate!

The case for a "greenhouse problem" is made by environmentalists, news anchormen , and special interests who make inaccurate and misleading statements about global warming and climate change. Even though people may be skeptical of such rhetoric initially, after awhile people start believing it must be true because we hear it so often.

"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

"In the United States...we have to first convince the American People and the Congress that the climate problem is real."

Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are...

"In the long run, the replacement of the precise and disciplined language of science by the misleading language of litigation and advocacy may be one of the more important sources of damage to society incurred in the current debate over global warming."

"Researchers pound the global-warming drum because they know there is politics and, therefore, money behind it. . . I've been critical of global warming and am persona non grata."

"Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are."

"Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing -- in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."

"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."

'An ominous tone of authoritarianism'

Around this time in the presidential election cycle, Democratic candidates traditionally start "running to the center."

With a wink and a nod to their core, far-left constituencies, the candidates in effect say, "For the next five months I'm going to sound like a small-government Republican, talking about tax cuts and free enterprise and a strong defense and cutting back the welfare rolls. But don't worry, this is just to have a calming effect on all those oxen we're going to get back to collectively goring next year."

The rhetoric then shifts to the right -- until the day after the election, of course.

We hope our congratulations are not premature, but it's worthy of note that, so far, presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama does not seem to be taking this path. If Sen. Obama is elected president, it will not be because he has disguised the fact that he is a dyed-in-the-wool collectivist.

Researchers have found a potentially deadly strain of tuberculosis infection spreading through Latino communities in Southern California and suspect the disease is being imported from Mexico in unpasteurized cheese.

Health officials in Orange County, though, say they have not seen any cases of the rare strain of tuberculosis in at least five years. They credit a long-running campaign to educate people about the dangers of eating unlabeled cheese and other dairy products.

Tuberculosis is an infection of the lungs that kills nearly 2 million people worldwide every year. The strain of tuberculosis that researchers found in San Diego County is more often linked to cattle, but can spread to people through raw dairy products.

That particular strain remains rare, even in San Diego County, the researchers concluded. But more than 90 percent of the people who were sickened by it were Latino, mostly from Mexico.

The researchers from the University of California, San Diego, pointed to a kind of cheese known as queso fresco, or fresh cheese, as the likely culprit. The soft, crumbly cheese is especially popular in Latino communities.

All dairy products sold in the United States are required to be pasteurized, which kills tuberculosis and other diseases. But, the researchers noted, unpasteurized dairy products are common just across the border, in Baja Mexico.

An earlier study also linked cases of the rare tuberculosis strain – known as M. Bovis – in New York City to unpasteurized cheese from Mexico.

Orange County's health-care agency has received no reports of that kind of tuberculosis in years, said Richard Sanchez, the director of the county's Environmental Health Division. The county also hasn't fielded any recent complaints about markets or vendors selling illegal cheese, he said.

That may be due to an earlier outbreak linked to bad cheese in Orange County. Several years ago, cases of Listeria were traced back to the same kind of illegal, home-made cheese that's sometimes called "bathtub cheese."

Listeria infections are especially dangerous for pregnant women; the disease can kill babies in the womb. The outbreak in Orange County prompted an aggressive campaign to warn people not to eat unpasteurized cheese or other dairy products. "We hope that had some impact," Sanchez said.

The advice then is the same as the advice now, Sanchez said: Look for a label. Make sure you know where your food came from. Buy cheese and other dairy products from a market or store.

And, he said, call the county's Health Agency at 714-433-6000 if you see someone selling suspect cheese.

Gee.  What an effing shock...

OC Register 

 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Space). Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 18, 2007, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) is recognized for 60 minutes.

   Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I preface my remarks with a personal statement that, while I am opposed to the advocates of man-made global warming theories, I am committed to a clean and healthy environment, to purifying our air, our water, and our soil; all of this for the sake of the people of this planet, including my three children, Anika, Tristan and Christian. I do this not because of some paranoid theory that humans are changing the climate of the world, but instead, I am very concerned about the health of the people of the world and, thus, committed to clean air, clean soil, and clean water.

   Thus, we have, today, to take a look at the issues of global warming and pollution that confront our society because there are enormous implications to this whole discussion of what has been called ``man-made global warming.''

   Only 18 months ago the refrain ``Case closed: Global warming is real,'' was repeated as if the mantra from some religious zealots. It was pounded into the public consciousness over the airwaves, in print, and even at congressional hearings, ``Case closed.'' Well, this was obviously a brazen attempt to end open discussion and to silence differing views by dismissing the need for seriously contrary arguments and seriously listening to both sides of an argument. And rather than hearing both sides of the argument, this was an attempt to dismiss arguments even though the person making the arguments might have a very impressive credential or might be a very educated scientist or someone else who should be listened to.

...

 A 2006 report entitled ``Livestock's Long Shadow'' to the United Nations mentions livestock emissions and grazing, and it places the blame for global warming squarely on the hind parts of cows. Livestock, the report claims, accounts for 18 percent of the gases that supposedly cause the global warming of our climate. Cows are greenhouse-emitting machines. Fuel for fertilizer and meat production and transportation, as well as clearing the fields for grazing, produce 9 percent of the global CO2 emissions, according to the report. And also, cows produce ammonia, causing acid rain, of course.

   Now, if that's not bad enough, all of these numbers are projected in this report to double by the year 2050. Well, not only are we then going to have to cut personal transportation, which will keep us at home, but when we stay at home, we can't even have a bbq. And heck, they won't even let us have a hamburger.

   I would like to point out that before the introduction of cattle, millions upon millions of buffalo dominated the Great Plains of America. They were so thick you could not see where the herd started and where it ended. I can only assume that the anti-meat, manmade global warming crowd must believe that buffalo farts have more socially redeeming value than the same flatulence emitted by cattle. Yes, this is absurd, but the deeper one looks into this global warming juggernaut, the weirder this movement becomes and the more denial is evident.

...

So were the predictions of global heating correct? Forget ``case closed.'' The question needs to be answered. Were all of these predictions correct? Mr. Hansen said it would rise by a third of a degree just a little over a decade ago. And the answer is that the predictions of a decade ago have turned out to be dramatically wrong. Temperatures during that decade rose only one-third of the jump predicted by Hansen, a modest 0.11, one-third of what he had predicted.

   Further more, numerous and powerful hurricanes that were forecast by the National Hurricane Center, for example, at NOAA and others, well, by now we haven't seen such a trend, and by now we were led to believe there would be a drought and a melting of the ice caps would be clearly upon us. My beautiful Sierra Nevada Mountains in California were due to heat up, dry up, brown up, and burn, burn, burn. Yep, during the entire Clinton administration, we heard these predictions over and over again. During the Clinton administration, we saw scientists produce study after study predicting the horrific impact of the unstoppable onslaught of man-made global warming, which we were led to believe would be overwhelming us right now. Right now. Of course, if there was even a hint that the conclusion of their research wouldn't back up the theory of man-made global warming, these scientists wouldn't have seen one red cent from the Federal research pool during the Clinton administration.

...

The first attempt to basically cover their tracks about this noticeable dichotomy in what they predicted and what was happening happened a few years ago, and it went very slowly but very cleverly. The words ``climate change'' have now replaced the words ``global warming.'' Get that? Every time you hear it now, half the time they are going to be using the words ``climate change'' where those very same people were so adamant about ``global warming'' only 4 or 5 years ago. So no matter what happens now, now that they've changed it to ``climate change'' rather than global warming, whatever happens to the weather pattern, whether it's hotter or cooler, it can be presented as further verification of human-caused change. If you just had ``human-caused warming,'' it would have to be at least warming for them to actually have any verification of what they were trying to say. But right now by using ``climate change,'' they can bolster their right to be taken seriously upon recommending policies, even though no matter what direction the climate goes, it is justified by how they are labeling themselves.

   I'm sorry, fellows. Do you really think the world is filled with morons? When it comes to bait and switch, used car salesmen are paragons of virtue compared to this global warming crowd. Excuse me. It's not the ``global warming'' crowd now; it's the ``climate change'' crowd. Of course, they don't want any of us to own automobiles; so   what the heck. They can act like used car salesmen because there will be more jobs for them as being advocates in the climate change arena.

   We just need to ask ourselves, if a salesman gives a strong pitch and claims something that is later found to be wrong, totally wrong, when does one stop trusting that salesman? Then if he starts playing word games, changing the actual words that he's using about the same product rather than just admitting an error, isn't it reasonable to stop trusting him?

Pow!  Right between the eyes!  I highly recommend you go read the full transcript.

Cong. Rohrabacher's webpage

1.) Selma Got Me Born - NOT EXACTLY, your parents felt safe enough to have you in 1961 - Selma had no effect on your birth, as Selma was in 1965. (Google’ Obama Selma’ for his full March 4, 2007 speech and articles about its various untruths.)

2.) Father Was A Goat Herder - NOT EXACTLY, he was a privileged, well educated youth, who went on to work with the Kenyan Government.

3.) Father Was A Proud Freedom Fighter - NOT EXACTLY, he was part of one of the most corrupt and violent governments Kenya has ever had.

4.) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom – NOT EXACTLY, your cousin Raila Odinga has created mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007, in Kenya. It is the first widespread violence in decades. The current government is pro-American but Odinga wants to overthrow it and establish Muslim Sharia law. Your half-brother, Abongo Oba ma, is Odinga’s follower. You interrupted your New Hampshire campaigning to speak to Odinga on the phone. Check out the following link for verification of that....and for more. Obama’s cousin Odinga in Kenya ran for president and tried to get Sharia Muslim law in place there. When Odinga lost the elections, his followers have burned Christians’ homes and then burned men, women and children alive in a Christian church where they took shelter.. Obama SUPPORTED his cousin before the election process here started. Google Obama and Odinga and see what you get. No one wants to know the truth.

5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian – NOT EXACTLY, she does her daily Salat prayers at 5am according to her own interviews. Not to mention, Christianity wouldn’t allow her to have been one of 14 wives to 1 man.

6.) My Name is African Swahili - NOT EXACTLY, your name is Arabic and ‘Baraka’ (from which Barack came) means ‘blessed’ in that language. Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama. Barack Hussein Obama is not half black. If elected, he would be the first Arab-American President, not the first black President. Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother’s side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father’s side. While Barack Hussein Obama’s father was from Kenya, his father’s family was mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein Obama’s father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father’s birth certificate even states he’s Arab, not African Negro). From....and for more....go to..... http://www.arcadeathome.com/newsboy.phtml?Barack_Hussein_Obam a_-_Arab-erican_only_6.25" title="http://www.arcadeathome.com/newsboy.phtml?Barack_Hussein_Obam a_-_Arab-erican_only_6.25" target="_blank"http://www.arcadeathome.com/n...%25_African

7.) I Never Practiced Islam - NOT EXACTLY, you practiced it daily at school, where you were registered as a Muslim and kept that faith for 31 years, until your wife made you change, so you could run for office. 4-3-08 Article ‘Obama was ‘quite religious in Islam’’ http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&" title="http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&" target="_blank"http://www.wnd.com/index.php?...;pageId=60559

8.) My School In Indonesia Was Christian - NOT EXACTLY, you were registered as Muslim there and got in trouble in Koranic Studies for making faces (check your own book). February 28, 2008. Kristoff from the New York Times a year ago: Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as ‘one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.’ This is just one example of what Pamela is talking about when she says ‘Obama’s narrative is being altered, enhanced and manipulated to whitewash troubling facts.’

9.) I Was Fluent In Indonesian - NOT EXACTLY, not one teacher says you could speak the language.

10.) Because I Lived In Indonesia, I Have More Foreign Experience - NOT EXACTLY, you were there from the ages of 6 to 10, and couldn’t even speak the language. What did you learn, how to study the Koran and watch cartoons.

11.) I Am Stronger On Foreign Affairs - NOT EXACTLY, except for Africa (surprise) and the Middle East (bigger surprise), you have never been anywhere else on the planet and thus have NO experience with our closest allies.

12.) I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion - NOT EXACTLY, you were quite content in high school to be Barry Obama, no mention of Kenya and no mention of struggle to identify - your classmates said you were just fine.

13.) An Ebony Article Moved Me To Run For Office – NOT EXACTLY, Ebony has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn’t, and never did, exist.

14.) A Life Magazine Article Changed My Outlook On Life - NOT EXACTLY, Life has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn’t, and never did, exist.

15.) I Won’t Run On A National Ticket In ‘08 - NOT EXACTLY, here you are, despite saying, live on TV, that you would not have enough experience by then, and you are all about having experience first.

16.) Voting ‘Present’ is Common In Illinois Senate - NOT EXACTLY, they are common for YOU, but not many others have 130 NO VOTES.

17.) Oops, I Mis-voted - NOT EXACTLY, only when caught by church groups and Democrats, did you beg to change your mis-vote.

18.) I Was A Professor Of Law - NOT EXACTLY, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.

19.) I Was A Constitutional Lawyer - NOT EXACTLY, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.

20.) Without Me, There Would Be No Ethics Bill – NOT EXACTLY, you didn’t write it, introduce it, change it, or create it.

21.) The Ethics Bill Was Hard To Pass - NOT EXACTLY, it took just 14 days from start to finish.

22.) I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill - NOT EXACTLY, your bill was rejected by your own party for its pandering and lack of all regulation - mainly because of your Nuclear donor, Exelon, from which David Axelrod came.

23.) I Have Released My State Records - NOT EXACTLY, as of March, 2008, state bills you sponsored or voted for have yet to be released, exposing all the special interests pork hidden within.

24.) I Took On The Asbestos Altgeld Gardens Mess – NOT EXACTLY, you were part of a large group of people who remedied Altgeld Gardens. You failed to mention anyone else but yourself, in your books.

25.) My Economics Bill Will Help America – NOT EXACTLY, your 111 economic policies were just combined into a proposal which lost 99-0, and even YOU voted against your own bill.

26.) I Have Been A Bold Leader In Illinois – NOT EXACTLY, even your own supporters claim to have not seen BOLD action on your part.

27.) I Passed 26 Of My Own Bills In One Year – NOT EXACTLY, they were not YOUR bills, but rather handed to you, after their creation by a fellow Senator, to assist you in a future bid for higher office.

28.) No One on my campaign contacted Canada about NAFTA - NOT EXACTLY, the Canadian Government issued the names and a memo of the conversation your campaign had with them.

29.) I Am Tough On Terrorism - NOT EXACTLY, you missed the Iran Resolution vote on terrorism and your good friend Ali Abunimah supports the destruction of Israel.

30.) I Want All Votes To Count - NOT EXACTLY, you said let the delegates decide.

31.) I Want Americans To Decide - NOT EXACTLY, you prefer caucuses that limit the vote, confuse the voters, force a public vote, and only operate during small windows of time.

32.) I passed 900 Bills in the State Senate – NOT EXACTLY, you passed 26, most of which you didn’t write yourself.

33.) I Believe In Fairness, Not Tactics - NOT EXACTLY, you used tactics to eliminate Alice Palmer from running against you.

34.) I Don’t Take PAC Money - NOT EXACTLY, you take loads of it.

35.) I don’t Have Lobbyists - NOT EXACTLY, you have over 47 lobbyists, and counting.

36.) My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Ad - NOT EXACTLY, your own campaign worker made the ad on his Apple in one afternoon.

37.) I Have Always Been Against Iraq - NOT EXACTLY, you weren’t in office to vote against it AND you have voted to fund it every single time.

38.) I Have Always Supported Universal Health Care - NOT EXACTLY, your plan leaves us all to pay for the 15,000,000 who don’t have to buy it

Barack Obama's willingness to meet with the leaders of rogue states such as Iran and North Korea "without preconditions" is a naive and dangerous approach to dealing with the hard men who run pariah states. It will be an important and legitimate issue for policy debate during the remainder of the presidential campaign.

Consider his facile observations about President Kennedy's first meeting with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, in Vienna in 1961. Obama saw it as a meeting that helped win the Cold War, when in fact it was an embarrassment for the American side. The inexperienced Kennedy performed so poorly that Khrushchev may well have been encouraged to position Soviet missiles in Cuba in 1962, thus precipitating one of the Cold War's most dangerous crises.

Such realities should cause Obama to become more circumspect, minimizing his off-the-cuff observations about history, grand strategy and diplomacy. In fact, he has done exactly the opposite, exhibiting so many gaps in his knowledge and understanding of world affairs that they have not yet received the attention they deserve. He consistently reveals failings in foreign policy that are far more serious than even his critics had previously imagined.

Consider the following statement, which was lost in the controversy over his comments about negotiations: "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. ... Iran, they spend 1/100th of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance."

Let's dissect this comment. Obama is correct that the rogue states he names do not present the same magnitude of threat as that posed by the Soviet Union through the possibility of nuclear war. Fortunately for us all, general nuclear war never took place. Nonetheless, serious surrogate struggles between the superpowers abounded because the Soviet Union's threat to the West was broader and more complex than simply the risk of nuclear war. Subversion, guerrilla warfare, sabotage and propaganda were several of the means by which this struggle was waged, and the stakes were high, even, or perhaps especially, in "tiny" countries.

In the Western Hemisphere, for example, the Soviets used Fidel Castro's Cuba to assist revolutionary activities in El Salvador and Nicaragua. In Western Europe, vigorous Moscow-directed communist parties challenged the democracies on their home turfs. In Africa, numerous regimes depended on Soviet military assistance to stay in power, threaten their neighbors or resist anti-communist opposition groups.

Both sides in the Cold War were anxious to keep these surrogate struggles from going nuclear, so the stakes were never "civilizational." But to say that these "asymmetric" threats were "tiny" would be news to those who struggled to maintain or extend freedom's reach during the Cold War.

Had Italy, for example, gone communist during the 1950s or 1960s, it would have been an inconvenient defeat for the United States but a catastrophe for the people of Italy. An "asymmetric" threat to the U.S. often is an existential threat to its friends, which was something we never forgot during the Cold War. Obama plainly seems to have entirely missed this crucial point. Ironically, it is he who is advocating a unilateralist policy, ignoring the risks and challenges to U.S. allies when the direct threat to us is, in his view, "tiny."

What is implicit in Obama's reference to "tiny" threats is that they are sufficiently insignificant that negotiations alone can resolve them. Indeed, he has gone even further, arguing that the lack of negotiations with Iran caused the threats: "And the fact that we have not talked to them means that they have been developing nuclear weapons, funding Hamas, funding Hezbollah."

This is perhaps the most breathtakingly naive statement of all, implying as it does that it is actually U.S. policy that motivates Iran rather than Iran's own perceived ambitions and interests. That would be news to the mullahs in Tehran, not to mention the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah.

It is an article of faith for Obama, and many others on the left in the U.S. and abroad, that it is the United States that is mostly responsible for the world's ills. In 1984, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Jeane Kirkpatrick labeled people with these views the "San Francisco Democrats," after the city where Walter Mondale was nominated for president.

Most famously, Kirkpatrick forever seared the San Francisco Democrats by saying that "they always blame America first" for the world's problems. In so doing, she turned the name of the pre-World War II isolationist America First movement into a stigma the Democratic Party has never shaken.

This is yet another piece of history that Obama has ignored or never learned. There may be one more piece of history worthy of attention: In 1984, Mondale went down to one of the worst electoral defeats in American political history. We will now see whether Obama follows that path as well.

John R. Bolton is the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. He is now a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of "Surrender Is Not an Option."

Outstanding

LA Times

By 1996, the New Party had solidified its ties with ACORN, unions, and the left so much so that even the New York Times referred to it as "leftist." Manning Marable, writing in the left-wing New York Beacon, on October 23, 1996, wrote that "there are four key components in this strategy for progressive political change." Among those components were civil disobedience and "support for independent movements like the New Party which are running candidates in local races. More importantly an innovative approach to electoralism is represented by ACORN's ‘living wage' referenda campaigns."

The Chicago Democratic Socialists of America were quite pleased in 1996 with the New Party's success including the election of "Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, [who] encouraged [New Party members] to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration".

[snip]

With districts redrawn, ingratiating himself to black politicians on his side of the city, and rules loosened on voter registration, Obama could set out to run. And he did. Obama sought the New Party endorsement, which required him to sign a contract that he would keep up his relationship with the New Party.

The end of the story is simple. Obama won the New Party's nomination and, through fusion with his Democratic votes, he became the Democratic nominee. Using ACORN's get out the vote efforts and relying on his gerrymandered Democrat district, Obama moved on to the State Senate. While there, he paid back the New Party and the far left. He opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, he opposed legislation that would have prohibited the sale of pornography across the street from elementary schools and churches, and he supported allowing criminals to sue their victims if their victims injured the criminals in self-defense.

This is the second leg of the radical triad that Obama has used to advance his political career. The first leg can be seen in his long time friendship with both Jeremiah Wright and Father Michael Pfleger - two religious/political powerhouses on the south side of Chicago. Obama's coziness with those radical preachers gave him a firm base on which to run for office.

The big question mark is the Nation of Islam and Louis Farrakhan. The NoI is very powerful on the south side and many are wondering what kind of deal Obama may have made with them. Tony Rezko, long time fund raiser and political mentor of Obama has personal ties to Farrakhan (you couldn't build a treehouse on the south side without the NoI's permission) and there has been speculation that Rezko could have been a go-between for the two (Obama not wanting to taint himself with the stench of Farrakhan's radical separatism and anti-semitism.).

Are we about to elect a president who has made common political cause with Marxists? This should prove interesting as the press wrestles with a way to keep the damage regarding these revelations to a minimum.

American Thinker

Global temperatures continued to slide in May 2008.  Meteorologist Anthony Watts details the cooling temperatures in a report titled “Global Temperature Dives in May.” The new global temperature data reveals a whopping three quarters of a degree Celsius drop in temperatures since January 2007. Watts reported late yesterday that the cooling is “equal in magnitude to the generally agreed upon ‘global warming signal’ of the last 100 years.”

“Confirming what many of us have already noted from the anecdotal evidence coming in of a much cooler than normal May, such as late spring snows as far south as Arizona, extended skiing in Colorado, and delays in snow cover melting in many parts of the northern hemisphere, the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH), published their satellite-derived Advanced Microwave Sounder Unit data set of the Lower Troposphere for May 2008,” Watts reported on June 3. 

“It is significantly colder globally, colder even than the significant drop to -0.046°C seen in January 2008,” Watts explained. (The updated global temperature chart is here )

“But even more impressive is the change since the last big peak in global temperature in January 2007 at 0.594°C, giving a 16 month change in temperature of -0.774°C which is equal in magnitude to the generally agreed upon ‘global warming signal’ of the last 100 years,” he added. [Note: MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen’s March 2008 presentation of data from the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office found the Earth has had “no statistically significant warming since 1995.” (LINK) An April 2008 peer-reviewed study found "global warming will stop." - LINK ]

Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer, formerly of NASA and currently principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, commented on the new data.  “If you exclude the anomalous 1992 cooling from the Pinatubo volcano eruption, it’s the coolest May in 20 years,” Spencer said.

Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl, formerly of Harvard University, also reacted to the new temperature data. “The global anomaly was -0.17 °C, the coldest reading after January 2000 and the third coldest monthly figure after September 1993. Yes, I mean that anomaly-wise, May was even colder than all the cool months of 2008, despite the dramatically weakening La Nina that now seems likely to change to ENSO neutral conditions this month. For example, the month-on-month cooling from April 2008 was by 0.19 °C while May 2008 was more than 0.75 °C cooler than January 2007. The average anomaly for the first five months of 2008 is negative. 1994 was the last year whose average annual anomaly was negative,” Motl wrote on June 4. (LINK)

“The Sun has been spotless at least for 9 days. The standardized May sunspot number was 2.9, equal to April, and the solar flux was even slightly lower than in April, namely 68.4,” Motl wrote.

# #

Related Links:  

'Global Warming Will Stop,' New Peer-Reviewed Study Says – April 30, 2008  

Global COOLING Currently Under Way – February 27, 2008  

U.S Army Chief Scientist Says Sun, Not Man, Is Causing Climate Change – June 3, 2008 

National Post: Global Cooling! 'Spotless Sun' prompts scientists to fear 'dramatic turn for the worse' – May 31, 2008 

U.S. Senate Minority Report: “Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007”

EPW

Glen Miller recorded the song Perfida in 1941. While the song was about a lover’s broken heart:

“With a sad lament my dreams have faded like a broken melody,
“While the gods of love look down and laugh at what romantic fools we mortals be.”

Today, the words might well be:

“With a sad lament our dreams of peace have faded like a broken melody,
“While the gods of war look down and laugh at what idealistic fools we mortals be.”

An apt description of today’s America, where our attention is focused on the battle between to liberal presidential candidates, super delegates, and Teddy Kennedy’s legacy and cancer, while the situation in the Middle East and Iran approaches the flash point. Syria is attempting to acquire nuclear weapons technology. And nuclear Pakistan is sliding down the slippery slope toward Islamic fundamentalism.

Islamic fundamentalists in charge of Iran, who are providing arms used to kill our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, are close to having the ability to produce nuclear weapons. Hezbollah is preparing for another major attack on Israel. Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff recently commented on Iranian-backed Hezbollah, “To be honest, they make al-Qaeda look like a minor league team.”

In America, the media is in a frenzy over another “tell all” Bush bashing book, written by a disgruntled former employee, encouraged by his spurned mother. McClellan’s mother, Carole Strayhorn asked for, but did not receive, President Bush’s support in her 2006 run for governor in Texas as an independent.

America’s Jewry, long time supporters of the Democrat Party, inconceivably continues to support the party’s presumed nominee, Barack Obama—a man who appointed anti-Israel Representative David Bonior to represent him at the recent Democratic National Committee meeting. If we elect a sixty percent Democratic controlled Congress and a Democratic president, the US probably will abandon Israel.

It seems we in the West never learn.

Many, including the author, have compared the current situation to the rise of Nazi Germany in the 1930s, but few are listening. Iran’s Supreme Leader, and his puppet president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, state their intentions to wipe Israel off the map. They are serious about their intentions—they intend to carry them out.

A year ago I predicted Iran would have a nuclear weapon by the end of 2008. Then the infamous National Intelligence Estimate (Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities) was released, and the media and liberals went into a frenzy of denial. Since then, the intelligence community has backed away from the flawed estimate, and now predicts Iran will produce weapons grade U-235 in 2009. The media does its best to ignore this reversal.

The term “produce” is significant. It means Iran will have the ability to manufacture bombs, not just one or two, but many nuclear weapons. Once Iran has a stockpile of nuclear weapons, they will dominate the region with threats or by actual use of the bomb. My major concern is that Iran will demonstrate its nuclear weapon by detonating one in Israel or the US. The religious fanatics that control Iran have no fear of consequences.

Will Israel and/or the US stand by and twiddle their thumbs until an Iranian nuclear bomb detonates? Time to prevent such a catastrophe is running out. What can we, the West, do?

First, the decision matrix must be simplified. It boils down to “them or us.” Yes, it really is that simple. One of the lessons we should have learned in Iraq is that the local population will not rise up and support an invading force, no matter how lofty the force’s purpose. Principals of Western government—separati on of church and state—are contrary in Islam, where the church is the state. Eventually the Mullahs will always rule. Keep your eye on Turkey and Pakistan.

Current wishful thinking revolves around an internal revolution in Iran. The young, tired of the dominating clerics, will rise up and overthrow the current regime. We forget that while Iran has had many presidents, it has had only had two Supreme Leaders. The clerics have their own army, the Revolutionary Guard, which is also in charge of Iran’s nuclear weapons program. There will be no successful uprising in Iran and the Iranian people will oppose an invasion of their homeland.

Second, what are the options? The answer depends upon our resolve. There is no support for any type of real action in the UN. A conventional bombing attack may succeed, provided we can identify the key nuclear targets. The key word is “may,” because our obsession with collateral damage will significantly degrade the attacks chances of success. Any thing other than a no-holds-bared attack will only make matters worse.

Power is the key to respect and success in the Middle East. Israel failed to use its power last year in Lebanon, emboldening Hezbollah and Hamas. Now Israel is perceived as weak by its enemies.

To have any chance in establishing stability in the region, the US and Israel must first use overwhelming force. Explain it so they can understand. Will we? Can we afford to wait for the November elections? We can’t, but I am afraid that we will. Worse, if America elects a liberal majority in Congress and a liberal president, Israel will be abandoned. What then will Israel’s options be?

Israel does not have the option of waiting. Unlike the US, Israel does not have F-117 and B-2 stealth bombers. Israel cannot take out key Iranian sites with conventional weapons. Hezbollah and Hamas are preparing to deliver more violent attacks. We somehow expect Israel to accept rocket attacks on its civilians, when such an attack on a US border city would result in the immediate annihilation of the attackers. At some point Israel will reach the conclusion that it is “them or us,” and employ the nuclear option. If the US does not soon act, this will occur.

What will be the effect of a Israeli nuclear strike on Iran? A full scale regional nuclear war, if the US does not immediately step in and state that it will destroy any nation that attacks Israel. If the US does not, the Muslim nations, including Pakistan, will attack Israel and Israel will have no choice but to launch the rest of its nuclear weapons at its enemies.

The sand has almost run through the hour glass.

Indeed, the gods of war do look down and laugh at what idealistic fools we mortals be.

New Media Journal

Take a look at the above picture. Notice anything strange? Those legs and that hand next to the guy with the microphone belong to a critic of Vladamir Putin named Mikhail G. Delyagin. The rest of him? It's been digitally erased from the entire broadcast, a result of his being placed on a "stop list" of critics of the Russian government and Prime Minister Putin.

Using digital manipulation to literally erase any critic of the administration is a pretty great way to stifle any kind of dissent, and it's pretty easy when you're in control of the national networks. It's also scary, reminiscent of the "memory holes" from 1984 and a startling sign of an oppressive government.

It's not just politicians and talk shows that are affected, either.

Televizor, a rock group whose name means TV set, had its booking on a St. Petersburg station canceled in April, after its members took part in an Other Russia demonstration.

When some actors cracked a few mild jokes about Mr. Putin and Mr. Medvedev at Russia’s equivalent of the Academy Awards in March, they were expunged from the telecast.

Indeed, political humor in general has been exiled from TV. One of the nation’s most popular satirists, Viktor A. Shenderovich, once had a show that featured puppet caricatures of Russian leaders, including Mr. Putin. It was canceled in Mr. Putin’s first term, and Mr. Shenderovich has been all but barred from TV.

Gizmodo

Myth #1: LW wouldn’t be expensive.

Fact: LW works like a massive energy tax. By restricting carbon-dioxide emissions from coal, oil, and natural gas — with a freeze at 2005 levels beginning in 2012, to a 70-percent reduction in 2050 — the bill forces down supply and thus boosts the price of energy. In fact, if energy prices didn’t go up, then the targets in the bill wouldn’t be met. As energy is the economy’s lifeblood, and 85 percent of it comes from these fossil fuels, the impact will be substantial. Cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses could reach $4.8 trillion by 2030, according to an analysis conducted by the Heritage Foundation. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Environmental Protection Agency, Charles River Associates, and the National Association of Manufacturers have all conducted studies predicting significant economic burdens on consumers if the bill is enacted.

Myth #2: The costs fall on industry, not consumers.

Fact: Virtually all the burden imposed by LW falls upon consumers. The bill would spur net job losses well into the hundreds of thousands, and possibly nearing one million. Particularly hard hit is the manufacturing sector — one million jobs would be lost by 2022 and two million by 2027. The losses in household incomes could reach $1,026 per year by 2015. Annual household energy-price increases could hit $1,000 by 2030, including a 29-percent increase in the price of gasoline from 2008 levels.

Myth #3: Global warming is a crisis that must be addressed at all costs.

Fact: Global warming is a concern, not a crisis. Both the seriousness and the imminence of the threat are overstated. For example, the recent United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report estimates 7 to 23 inches of sea level rise by the end of the century — far less than the widely popularized claims of 18 to 20 feet and little more than ongoing trends over the past several centuries. The attempt to link Hurricane Katrina with climate change is directly contradicted by the World Meteorological Organization and many scientists. Overall, current and expected future temperatures are far from unprecedented, and are highly unlikely to lead to catastrophes.

Myth #4: LW effectively addresses the threat of climate change.

Fact: Even assuming the worst of global warming, LW reduces the threat by a minuscule amount. The bill reduces emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the United States only. China has overtaken America as the world’s largest emitter, and its emissions growth is several times greater than that of the U.S. India and other fast-developing nations are on a similar trajectory. Thus, the unilateral impact of the bill on global emissions would be inconsequential. At most, it would reduce the earth’s future temperature by one or two tenths of a degree Celsius — too small to even verify. In other words, LW is all economic pain for no environmental gain.

Myth #5: LW’s cap-and-trade approach is a proven success.

Fact: Critics of the cap-and-trade approach in LW — in which emissions are capped and regulated entities may trade their rights to emit — point to the European Union’s substantial difficulties since initiating its own cap-and-trade program in 2005. Most E.U. nations aren’t on track to meet their targets, and many are seeing their emissions rise faster than those in the U.S. The program is furthermore plagued by accusations of fraud and unfairness. LW essentially adopts the European approach wholesale.

Overall, the Lieberman-Warner bill promises substantial hardship for the economy overall, for jobs, and for energy costs. Given current economic concerns and energy prices, this is the last thing the American people need. At the same time, the environmental benefits would likely be small to nonexistent. The Lieberman-Warner bill fails any reasonable cost-benefit test.

  — Ben Lieberman is senior policy analyst for Energy and Environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation.
 

Primaries are underway Tuesday in Montana and South Dakota, the final contests in the long primary race between Obama and U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York.

In other news: Dog bites man!

Link

By John Johnston
Managing Editor

Historically high gasoline prices are on the mind of virtually everyone in Boca Raton; indeed, virtually everyone in the nation

Dr. Chuck Laser serves on the board of governors for Northwood University; he’s also a well-known Boca Raton area oil wildcatter – and he will tell anyone who asks why gas prices are so high. 

You need to know, however, that you don’t ask Laser a question unless you’re prepared for a straight answer – and you also need more than a few minutes to listen.  Laser is passionate about his points of view – and passionate men care little about the clock. Straight talk and time are the price one pays to hear a passionate man, supported by science, as Laser puts it, “tell the truth.”

“What I’m telling you today is the truth,” Laser told West Palm Beach Rotarians recently. This included the following:

• “America has plenty of oil.”
• At the same time, the current oil shortages and resulting high prices are because “the world hasn’t been drilling for oil when prices were low for (the past) 20 years.”
• Alternative fuels such as corn-based ethanol are not only “dangerous,” but are grossly inefficient -- ethanol production from corn requiring “29 percent more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel produced.”
• And oh, by the way, “global warming is a myth.”

Global Cooling?

“Man does not cause global warming in any sense of the word,” Laser said, pointing to the actual science.  “Let's look at the weather,” he said, noting the following for the years 2007/2008.

• Snow fell in Baghdad for the first time in history. Ontario was buried under the worst snowstorm in 58 years; Denver reported the coldest temperatures since 1872. 500 bison died this year due to the coldest winter in the west

• In February the temperature fell minus 40 degrees in Minnesota breaking a record set in 1923. A record 24 feet of show piled up on Colorado’s vain mountain after December 1st. In Canada 271/2 inches of snow fell on Toronto setting a previous record of 261/2" set in 1950.

• China had it coldest winter in a century causing powerlines to collapse. In South America snow fell in Buenos Airies for the first time since 1918, and in Africa, Johannesburg had its first significant snowfall in 25 years.

NASA, and the four top organizations that measure temperatures worldwide said that the average world temperature “fell between 0.64 and 0.75 degrees Celsius in the 12 months ending in January 2008,” Laser said.

“This is the single biggest drop in more than 10 years and wipes out the gradual 0.67 percent degree Celsius increase in temperature over the past 100 years, which provides the empirical basis for the claim of global warming.”

“Some 60 top Canadian climatologists advised the prime minister of Canada that man is not causing global warming. Computer models are very inaccurate because they cannot put all the variables that affect climate into the calculations,” said Laser

In fact, Laser says the sun is both our friend and episodic enemy.

“The most important factor affecting heat and cooling are solar flares,” said Laser. There is a perfect correlation between warm periods and cold periods over hundreds of years, according to the strength of solar flares. C02 (greenhouse gasses) have no affect at all. NASA studied the artic temperatures over 100 years and solar flares correlated perfectly with the cooling and heating of the artic area.”

OK -- so there’s reason to, at the very least, ask some serious questions about those who say the sky is not only falling, but is also on fire -- but none of that answers the energy question.  What about biofuels, i.e., ethanol from corn?

Laser agreed biofuels based on ethanol, vegetable oil and other renewable sources are increasingly popular with government and environmentalists as a way to reduce fossil fuel dependence and limit greenhouse gas emissions.

However, he said, “ethanol is not only a pollutant and creates c02, but (some officials say) it is a crime against humanity, blaming ethanol production, because we are destroying the rain forests. There are food riots from Haiti to Egypt because crops are not being grown to feed people. “

The real culprit is human greed, Laser said, “with farmers getting $300 billion in subsidies. Consumers are paying much higher prices for foods that are not being grown, so farmers can get rich growing corn that is a pollutant.”    

At the same time, he said, “ethanol depends on oil to produce corn and uses more petroleum than it saves. Ethanol production using corn grain requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel produced. At best it could only supply two percent of our needs. It takes 1.29 gallons of petroleum to produce one gallon of ethanol.”

“And while the government is demanding the doubling of ethanol by 2010,” Laser said, “ethanol plants are releasing dangerous toxic organic compounds into the air such as formaldehyde and acetic acid, both carcinogenic, and methanol that is classified as a pollutant.”

The most recent new research supports Laser.  Research led by a biologist at the University of Washington, Bothell, shows that some of the most popular current biofuel stocks might have exactly the opposite impacts than intended.

The authors of a paper published in the June issue of the journal Conservation Biology offer a dozen policy recommendations to promote sustainability and biodiversity in biofuel production

The study looked at factors such as the energy needed to produce a renewable fuel source compared with how much energy is produced, the impact on soil fertility and effects on food supply when fuels based on crops such as corn and soybeans are mixed with fossil fuels.

Based on those factors, the authors determined that corn-based ethanol is the worst alternative overall.

"It's foolish to say we should be developing a particular biofuel when that could mean that we're just replacing one problem with another," said lead author Martha Groom of the UW Bothell. Co-authors are Elizabeth Gray of The Nature Conservancy and Patricia Townsend of the UW Seattle.

And other alternatives, i.e., fuel cells?

“Fuel cells will not work because they use platinum to catalyze the reactions. The precious metal is costly, toxic and not eco-friendly,” Laser said.

What about all the talk on hydrogen?

Laser argues that Ron West, Professor University of Colorado talking about conversion of hydrogen to heat or electricity states, "the problem with hydrogen is that it takes a process called steam reforming (making hydrogen out of water) and it creates greenhouse gases".

“I admit hybrids cars are making more sense now with higher gas prices,” said Laser,  “but normally the cost of the cars was higher than the cost of the increase in gasoline.”

He added, however: “There are no alternative fuel systems that can replace oil, natural gas or coal. At best, in 50 years, the best-recognized experts expect all alternatives could account for 30 percent of our energy needs.”

“No,” Laser said – and he couldn’t have been more emphatic.

“We have enough oil to last hundreds of years right here on shore and off-shore. There are indications of Saudi type fields in Nevada and perhaps along the mid continent riff in Iowa and many other states we have billions of barrels off shore. Now Russia and Cuba have signed a pack to drill 40 miles off our shores and they will be getting oil we should be getting.”

“It is simply a matter of price, demand and supply. There are no conspiracies,” he said.

And in addition to the lack of drilling over the last 20 years, the rest of the world’s economies, i.e., China, India and Pacific Rim countries like Korea, are catching up to the US in terms of energy consumption.  More oil demand, combined with less drilling, equals higher gas prices.

This means, according to Laser, “we must implement a massive drilling program here in American on shore and off shore immediately.

What happens if we don’t?

“We could easily see $30 a gallon gasoline or higher. In Europe it is now $11 a liter.”

Laser was also adamant about one other thing:

“We do not hurt the environment. We don't hurt animals or plants. In fact, every place including Alaska where oil fields and pipelines have been installed, the animal life (caribou, elks, deer etc.) have increased substantially – in every case without exception, contrary to what you are hearing.”

Laser said as well that “big companies do not find oil, they buy other's oil. The small independents find (75 percent) of the oil because the big companies do want to take risks that would affect shareholder value. Big government is putting the small companies out of business with excessive regulation. This makes Americans pay more and more at the pump.”

As well, he said, “electricity rates will go sky high if we don't continue to drill for natural gas. We have enough natural gas to last hundreds of years right here in the US, but we need pipelines and now congress is promoting a bill to cut natural gas exploration in the US.”

Laser closed with perhaps the most controversial of his views:  a growing belief that oil is a renewable resource, and is not the result of death, transformation, and withdrawal of biological elements.

“Oil is not necessarily a fossil fuel,” he said. “More scientists (Thomas Gold) are accepting the theory that oil and natural gas comes from methane created above the mantel and crust of the earth where molecular changes occur. We have massive methane deposits under the artic ice the Russians want.”

In fact, Laser said, “We have not drilled 1/10 of 1 percent of the world's potential oil reserves.”

It is simply a matter of price, demand and supply,” he says again.  “There are no conspiracies – only government and environmentalists in the way.”

Interesting points.

Boca Raton News

A police community support officer ordered two Christian preachers to stop handing out gospel leaflets in a predominantly Muslim area of Birmingham.

The evangelists say they were threatened with arrest for committing a "hate crime" and were told they risked being beaten up if they returned. The incident will fuel fears that "no-go areas" for Christians are emerging in British towns and cities, as the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester, claimed in The Sunday Telegraph this year.

Arthur Cunningham, 48, and Joseph Abraham, 65, both full-time evangelical ministers, have launched legal action against West Midlands Police, claiming the officer infringed their right to profess their religion.

Mr Abraham said: "I couldn't believe this was happening in Britain. The Bishop of Rochester was criticised by the Church of England recently when he said there were no-go areas in Britain but he was right; there are certainly no-go areas for Christians who want to share the gospel."

The preachers, both ministers in Birmingham, were handing out leaflets on Alum Rock Road in February when they started talking to four Asian youths.

A police community support officer (PCSO) interrupted the conversation and began questioning the ministers about their beliefs.

They said when the officer realised they were American, although both have lived in Britain for many years, he launched a tirade against President Bush and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr Cunningham said: "I told him that this had nothing to do with the gospel we were preaching but he became very aggressive.

"He said we were in a Muslim area and were not allowed to spread our Christian message. He said we were committing a hate crime by telling the youths to leave Islam and said that he was going to take us to the police station."

The preacher refused to give the PCSO his address because he felt the officer's manner was "threatening and intimidating".

The ministers claim he also advised them not to return to the area. As he walked away, the PCSO said: "You have been warned. If you come back here and get beaten up, well you have been warned".

West Midlands Police, who refused to apologise, said the incident had been "fully investigated" and the officer would be given training in understanding hate crime and communication.

And I'm sure a Christian Police Constable "warning" "Asian" missionaries would get the same treatment.  Except for the riots and what-not...

The Telegraph

Likely Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has resigned from his controversial church, Trinity United Church of Christ.

“We don’t want to have to answer for everything that’s stated in that church,” Obama told reporters in Aberdeen, South Dakota during a rare Saturday night press conference.

Obama’s church came under intense scrutiny after videotapes were discovered of Obama’s longtime friend and former pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright making anti-American and racist statements in sermons earlier this spring. Obama’s initial reaction was to defend Wright, until Wright engaged on a media tour and reiterated many of his most offensive remarks.

Questions about the church were renewed last Sunday when another one of Obama’s Chicago friends, Father Michael Pfleger, made racist statements pointed at Obama’s Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.

"Rev. Moss, when Hillary was crying, and people said that was put on, I really don't believe it was put on," Pfleger said, recalling Clinton’s tearful press conference during the New Hampshire primary. "I really believe that she just always thought, 'This is mine! I'm Bill's wife, I'm white, and this is mine! I just gotta get up and step into the plate.' And then out of nowhere came, 'Hey, I'm Barack Obama,' and she said, 'Oh, damn! Where did you come from? I'm white! I'm entitled! There's a black man stealing my show!”

Obama expressed regret at having to leave his church of over 20 years. “I did not anticipate my fairly conventional Christian faith being subject to such challenge and such scrutiny,” he said in South Dakota.  [Fairly conventional???  --ed.]

Obama noted his resignation should not be interpreted as a denouncement of the church. “It’s not a church worthy of denouncing,” he said. Obama said his critics “they’ve seen caricatures of the church and accept those caricatures despite my insistence that’s not what the church is about and there’s not much I can do about it” with a defeatist tone.

TUCC issued a statement that said: “Though we are saddened by the news we understand this is a personal decision.”

Obama’s decision came shortly after a contentious meeting ended in Washington D.C. by the Democratic National Committee to determine how delegates from Michigan and Florida should be seated. Both states were punished by the DNC for moving up their primary dates and were thus stripped of their delegates.

The DNC decided Saturday to seat half of the delegates from Florida and Michigan and to specially allocate 69 of Michigan’s delegates to Clinton and 59 to Obama.

The compromise was fought intensely by Clinton’s surrogates who are unhappy with the outcome of the meeting. Clinton campaign strategist Harold Ickes said at the conclusion of the meeting that Clinton had asked him to reserve the right to challenge the compromise with the Democratic Credentials Committee. This tactic has been deemed the “nuclear option” by political analysts since it would likely extend the Democratic contest until the Democratic convention in Denver.

Getting awfully crowded under that bus.

Townhall 

Could Prime Minister Stephen Harper or Environment Minister John Baird please explain what they mean when they say Canada continues to be a participant in the Kyoto accord?

How can we be a participant when the PM has said we cannot do what Kyoto requires of us -- lower our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by an average of 6% below 1990 levels between now and 2012?

We're 29.1% above our Kyoto target. Achieving that target is the point of Kyoto.

So what, exactly, are we participating in?

fctAdTag("bigbox",MyGener icTagVar,1);

Yes, the Liberals are hypocrites for ratifying Kyoto and then doing zilch to implement it.

Yes, Liberal Leader Stephane Dion supports a carbon tax he once opposed.

But the Conservatives have been no more coherent.

In opposition, they didn't complain the Liberals were doing too little to implement Kyoto, as they do now. They complained they were doing too much, consistent with Harper's views at the time that Kyoto was a socialist, money-sucking scheme.

Kyoto is a socialist, money-sucking scheme. Why don't the Conservatives just say it?

I know -- I hear it from Conservatives supporters all the time -- Harper has to pay lip service to Kyoto to win the next election.

Nonsense. First off, voters know when politicians are bulls...ting them. If the Conservatives think they're getting a boost from pretending to support Kyoto, they're not.

Worshipping at the altar

More important, with the Liberals, Bloc, NDP and Green parties, and most of the provinces, all insanely worshipping at the altar of Kyoto and ready to "green" tax us to death, is there not one mainstream party with the courage to denounce Kyoto for the train wreck it is?

Look at the thing. Why do you suppose the main instigators of Kyoto -- the United Kingdom, the European Union and the United Nations -- happened to pick 1990 as the base year for reducing GHG emissions?

It wasn't written in stone. Kyoto wasn't even agreed to until 1997 and didn't come into effect until 2005. The drafters could have picked any year as the base year.

They retroactively chose 1990 because that was just before the Soviet Union imploded, meaning the European Union was able to take advantage of the dramatic drop-off in GHG emissions of the former Soviet satellites which later became part of Europe, countries which dramatically cut their GHG emissions not by doing anything, but by suffering a recession.

Also by 1990, the U.K.'s "dash for gas" was well underway -- again, unrelated to Kyoto. But by replacing coal power with natural gas, the U.K. was also able to benefit from Kyoto without doing anything.

These countries, along with the UN, whose interest was transferring wealth from the First World to the Third, crafted the treaty right down to exempting the entire developing world, led by China and India, with one purpose in mind.

Not ratified

That was to damage the U.S. economy by putting it at a competitive disadvantage had the Americans been stupid enough to ratify Kyoto. But even with Al Gore as their vice-president, they weren't.

We were. We ratified it because a reckless Jean Chretien was looking for an environmental legacy.

Chretien's top political aide, Eddie Goldenberg, has since acknowledged the Liberals knew Canadians weren't ready for what Kyoto required when they ratified it in 2002.

Of course, the Liberals weren't ready either, the proof being what they did to implement Kyoto after they ratified it. Nothing.

Ironically, even with all the advantages the U.K. and EU handed themselves in Kyoto, many of their own citizens are now revolting against the usurious carbon and green taxes they're being asked to pay.

Kyoto's Clean Development Mechanism, under which developed countries fund environmental projects in developing ones, is rife with charges of corruption and profiteering.

Even if every one of the 37 member states in Kyoto (including us) required to reduce their GHG emissions (as opposed to the 143, which aren't) meet their emission targets (which they won't), the coal plants China and India alone are building will more than wipe out all the cuts Kyoto calls for.

And this is the deal the Conservatives say we need to be part of?

Why?

Are we nuts?

Toranto Sun