Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Sunday, May 25, 2008
This sounds like one of Barack Obama's stump speeches except for the foul language.
Do you know why these people get in these b*** wars, its for the corporations.
We are only 5% of the world's population and we use 40% of the world's resources
Can someone tell Moonback Cindy how much we produce compared to the rest of the world.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Bush begs the saudi prince to release more oil supply, Congress drags the executives in front of them for a dog and pony show.
Not one of these idiots does the obvious, drill for oil
According to wikipedia,
Energy Bill authorized drilling in ANWR, but a filibuster by Senate Democrats kept the measure from coming to a vote. In 1995, Republicans prepared to take up the battle again and included a provision for ANWR in the federal budget. President Bill Clinton vetoed the entire budget and expressed his intention to veto any other bill that would open ANWR to drilling.
We have plenty of other sources of oil. Had Clinton not vetoed the bill, we would have already have ramped up the drilling in ANWR, and we would have set the stage for drilling in other areas.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Electing Barack Obama President of these United States is akin to giving your twelve year old child the keys to the car with a bottle of Jack Daniels.
When John McCain said he would be civil in his ad campaigns, (e.g. not use the reverend Wright as an issue against Barack Obama) – even though it showed Barack sitting in the pews for twenty years listening to his reverand spew anti-American rhetoric with his children – I thought McCain was going to lose the race. But, now I am not so sure. Barack Obama's nescience on just about anything of import is astounding as Michelle Malkin notes in her recent article in National Review
Michelle begins by writing:
All it takes is one gaffe to taint a Republican for life. The political establishment never let Dan Quayle live down his fateful misspelling of "potatoe." The New York Times distorted and misreported the first President Bush's questions about new scanner technology at a grocers' convention to brand him permanently as out of touch.
But what about Barack Obama? The guy's a perpetual gaffe machine. Let us count the ways, large and small, that his tongue has betrayed him throughout the campaign:
Last May, he claimed that tornadoes in Kansas killed a whopping 10,000 people: "In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed." The actual death toll: 12. Continue Reading…
There is one huge gaffe that Michelle did not mention in her article. In Obama's Victory Speech after the North Carolina Primary, he stated , "I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did." He must be taking history from our public school system, because he didn't learn much or he was asleep.
Let's look at Roosevelt, Kennedy and Truman's negotiations with their enemies. Any Barack Obama supporter who is also a student of history must be embarrassed by now.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was in office when World War II broke out in Europe. Roosevelt rejected the 1930s Wilsonian neutrality acts which were currently in effect and kept the United States neutral from external conflicts. Roosevelt believed he should instead support his allies France and Britain. Roosevelt wanted to enter the war, but there was a liberal contingent in the United States that did not want to be drawn into the conflict. There were the Barack Obamas during World War II who wanted to negotiate with the enemy too. The inept Neville Chamberlain, Britain's, Barack Obama returned from Germany after speaking with Hitler during the Munich Conference and in a speech defending the Munich agreement, Chamberlain assured the Brits that the Germans promised peace, ""My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time." The Munich agreement gave the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia to Hitler in exchange for peace; this is known as "appeasement" the act of granting some concession for peace. Well we know what Hitler did with his "appeasement."
Roosevelt did speak with Stalin but that was because Stalin had become an ally of the United States. It was Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill who defeated Hitler in the end. Roosevelt never negotiated with Adolf Hitler, Emperor Hirohito or Benito Mussolini, the enemies of the day, the Axis powers. The bombing of Pearl Harbor was the seminal event that brought the United States into the war. This also prompted Roosevelt to give his famous "Day of Infamy" speech.
In the speech, Roosevelt stated, "No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory."
After Roosevelt died, Truman assumed the presidency, and he did not negotiate with the Axis powers either. How did he help end the war? not through negotiation as suggested by Barack Obama but by dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945. After, the first bomb, Hirohito did not believe we had another bomb. Every man, woman and child of Japan was trained to fight to the death according to the ancient samurai tradition. In order to reach mainland Japan, several strategic islands had to be taken first including the island of Iwo Jima, which caused 6,200 casualties. Iwo Jima was one of a myriad of strategic islands near Japan. Entering the Japanese mainland would have caused half a million deaths or more as some have estimated. The concern was how many American lives would have to be lost if we entered mainland Japan. The decision was made to drop a second atomic bomb on Nagasaki, again no negotiation.
In fact, towards the end of the war, Hirohito wanted a peace that was conditional. Japan was trying to secretly negotiate a peace settlement with Russia. It called for Hirohito to remain in power, but the message from the Allies known as the Potsdam proclamation was clear, "the unconditional surrender of all the Japanese armed forces." (U.S. Dept. of State, Foreign Relations of the U.S., The Conference of Berlin (Potsdam), vol. 2, pg. 1474-1476). Imagine what Barack Obama would have done. This would be like leaving Hussein or Ahmadinejad in power. Do you think Japan would be the thriving economic democracy it is today? It was necessary to obliterate Japan first, so it could rise from the rubble and grow into the powerhouse economy it is today.
In a press conference May 16, 2008, Barack then talks about Kennedy and Khrushchev, "We were on the brink of war of nuclear war" in reference to the Kennedy and Khrushchev meeting in Vienna, Austria 1961. We were not on the brink of war.
The meeting between the two leaders was to discuss the peace in Eastern Germany. What followed the meeting was the Berlin wall. In reality, however, Khrushchev was testing the weakness or strength of President Kennedy. The United States was unaware of this, at the time, but Khrushchev cognizant of the debacle of the Bay of Pigs was testing Kennedy's resolve. This meeting actually emboldened Khrushechev. Khrushchev underestimated Kennedy, and 15 months later, he brought us to the brink of nuclear war. Obama missed the date by 15 months, because he thought that meeting was all about the nuclear war. It wasn't even on our minds. Obama thought we were on the brink of war at that meeting or so he said. We finally discovered missiles on Cuba by aerial photographs, and that caused the start of the Cuban missile crisis. Kennedy never negotiated with Khrushchev after that disastrous meeting; we gave him an ultimatum followed by a blockade.
If Obama studied the meeting between Kennedy and Khrushchev, it would have been a reason for Obama to get out of the race. Kennedy had vastly more experience than Obama, yet Krushchev thought him weak. There is a reason Hamas came out in support of Obama. The one difference between Kennedy and Ahmadinejad is any meeting between the two, Ahmadinejad will not underestimate Obama. He will see Obama as weak, and he will be correct. Who do you think Hamas thinks is the weakest of the candidates?
A good read on the subject is the New York Time's piece, "Kennedy Talked, Khruschev Triumphed." In this article, Nathan Thrall and Jesse James Wilkins describe how Kennedy was advised by George Kennan not to rush into a high-level meeting with Krushchev, Dean Rusk, Kennedy's secretary of state said, "Is it wise to gamble so heavily? Are not these two men who should be kept apart until others have found a sure meeting ground of accommodation between them?” This was not an example Obama should have used to support his contention for holding negotiations. It should have done just the opposite.
It would not be that difficult to splice footage of these gaffes by Obama, followed by clips of the actual history. Clips could also be used where he claims Iran is not dangerous because it is a small country. Barack makes gaffe after gaffe, and then he tries to spin what he said the following day. And there is no doubt; this lightweight will keep on doing it. There is enough viable footage for television ads that McCain should find suitable. Who needs Reverend Wright when you have Barack Obama!
Get busy team McCain.
Neville Chamberlain Peace in Our Time 1938
Ever since I assumed my present office my main purpose has been to work for the pacification of Europe, for the removal of those suspicions and those animosities which have so long poisoned the air. The path which leads to appeasement is long and bristles with obstacles. The question of Czechoslovakia is the latest and perhaps the most dangerous. Now that we have got past it, I feel that it may be possible to make further progress along the road to sanity.From Great Britain, Parliamentary Debates, Commons, Vol. 339 (October 3, 1938)
Sounds like Barack Obama
The result, estimated loss of human life 72 million including Six Million Jews dead, 47 million civilians dead, 20 million deaths as a result of famine and starvation, 25 million military troops dead, 61 million allies dead, 11 million of the Axis powers.
I wonder how many would have been saved if the world had not ignored Hitler for so long, and I wonder how many lives will be lost if Barack Obama is elected president.
I am not much of a Hillary fan, because America is not about socialism. But one has to admire Hillary's tenacity. I am actually finding a newfound respect for her with this fight between Obama and Hillary. I do not believe she should withdraw from the race. I say, "Keep on fighting." If we fall into the hands of the democrats, a dire outcome indeed - I would rather it be Hillary than a neo-Marxist like Obama.
Hillary Clinton now understands that the mainstream media will support the most liberal of the candidates, and she also now understands, and she has said so that Fox news has been the most fair to her.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
I recently heard an analogy about Barack Obama that seems quite befitting. Electing Obama president would be like giving the car keys to a twelve year old with a bottle of Jack Daniels.
So let's get this straight….
We don't need to worry about Iran or any of those other small countries because they are in fact, "small." What can they do to us? I mean ask the hijackers who rammed the planes through the twin towers.
Amanda Carpenter writes:
Likely Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama told supporters Iran is just a "tiny" country at a campaign stop in Oregon Sunday evening.
"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," Obama said continue reading
Barack Obama then goes on by stating we were on the brink of nuclear war when Kennedy met Kruschev. Kennedy met Kruschev in 61, the Cuban missile crisis was in 62. It was because of the meeting in 61, Krushev thought America as weak.
Barack Obama says that Truman, Roosevelt and Kennedy talked with our enemies. Here is the real history lesson for Obama.
May 09, 2008
Obama Needs a History Lesson
In his victory speech after the North Carolina primary, Sen. Barack Obama said something that is all the more remarkable for how little it has been remarked upon.
In defending his stated intent to meet with America's enemies without preconditions, Sen. Obama said: "I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did."
That he made this statement, and that it passed without comment by the journalists covering his speech indicates either breathtaking ignorance of history on the part of both, or deceit.
I assume the Roosevelt to whom Sen. Obama referred is Franklin D. Roosevelt. Our enemies in World War II were Nazi Germany, headed by Adolf Hitler; fascist Italy, headed by Benito Mussolini, and militarist Japan, headed by Hideki Tojo. FDR talked directly with none of them before the outbreak of hostilities, and his policy once war began was unconditional surrender. Continue reading.
There were 75,000 sycophants fawning over Barack at his last Oregon rally. I hope this isn't prescient as to what is to come.
If Obama is elected president, it then becomes a question if this nation will survive, and if it does, we will have another Jimmy Carter flying around for the next thirty years visiting and coddling dictators while decrying the evils of America.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Note: I goofed. It says May 2005, should be May 2008. I am too lazy to fix it. You get the picture.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Well California has joined the likes of countries like Spain by activist judges. Zapatero legalized gay marriage, and now Gays gain the full rights of Heterosexuals - Isn't that sweet? I guess what the people say no longer counts.
In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation's biggest state to tie the knot.
Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in striking down the ban.
Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as the news spread.
It is the time to recall the judges. The judges have become black robe dictators, and they are violating the rule of law.
Understand this, four judges just gave the voters of California the finger.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
From Hugh Hewitt.com
As expected, the death toll is shooting up, and thousands --tens of thosusands?-- are still trapped.
Consider a donation to the earthquake relief fund established by CaringforChina.org, which can be made over the web or by sending a check to
Caring for China
3300 S. Fairview
Santa Ana, CA 92704
B of A does not see a very rosy picture and they should now
BofA sees consumers under pressure
Bank of America (BAC) is the latest big company to note the pain being felt by consumers hit by rising food and fuel prices. BofA exec Liam McGee told investors at a conference in New York that the bank has seen a “recent sharp increase” in spending on necessities by its credit-card customers, Bloomberg reports. The comment comes a week after giant retailer Wal-Mart (WMT) said the slowdown in the economy was observable through what it called “the paycheck cycle,” in which sales drop late in the month as workers run low on cash, and a day after JPMorgan Chase (JPM) chief Jamie Dimon said he believes a recession could be deeper than the 1990 and 2001 pullbacks.
BofA is also being hit by the housing bust, McGee said. He said the bank now expects to post losses above 2.5% of its home equity loan portfolio, up from a projection last month of a loss between 2% and 2.5%, Bloomberg reports. While McGee says the bank is “obviously not happy with rising credit losses,” The Wall Street Journal reports, it’s hoping to weather the storm by trying to attract more affluent consumers.
May 13 (Bloomberg) -- Bank of America Corp., the nation's biggest consumer bank, said losses on home-equity loans will be even worse than predicted three weeks ago, adding to evidence that more consumers are falling behind on debts.
More customers are under financial stress and using credit cards to pay for necessities, said Liam McGee, president of the consumer and small business division, at an investor conference today in New York. Losses on the bank's $118 billion in loans linked to home values may top 2.5 percent, higher than the 2 percent to 2.5 percent projected last month. He didn't specify a time frame.
Credit-card customers are cutting back on retail, travel and entertainment purchases, said McGee, whose company is the nation's largest credit-card issuer and ranks No. 1 by deposits. That backs up economists and bankers who say the U.S. may be teetering near a recession as consumers struggle with job losses and gasoline prices of more than $4 a gallon.
From Value Line
The housing market remains in a dreadful slump, with no end in sight. In fact, recent construction numbers, in particular those relating to March housing starts and building permits, suggest that the downturn continues to intensify. By way of example, in January of 2006, when the housing cycle was in its ascendancy, some 2.3 million units were started on an annualized basis. In March of this year, that number stood at 947,000. Home sales also are suffering, with sales of previously owned homes off 2% in March from February and down 19.3% from last March. Meanwhile, home prices remain depressed, and both foreclosures and inventories of unsold homes are rising. It is not a pretty picture.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
The last devastating earthquake in China, the communist government tried to cover up.
Researchers fear that the magnitude-7.9 earthquake that struck near the major city of Chengdu today will easily be China's biggest killer since 1976's Tangshan quake, conservatively estimated to have taken 250,000 lives. "I would think there's going to be horrific loss of life in this one," says seismologist Lucile Jones of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) office in Pasadena, California. The all-too-familiar combination of millions of people living by a major fault rupture in quake-vulnerable structures makes for an inevitably bad outcome, she says....
China has come along way. This earthquake can be just as devastating. We in the San Francisco Bay Area understand the devastating effects of an earthquake. The best way to help is through cash donations at Caring for China.org
Sunday, May 11, 2008
For some time I have been collecting data on global warming, but I have not blogged on it because I thought I would leave it best to the scientists who understand the science behind it better than I. But, if the god of global warming Al Gore, can create a movie based on deception and lies, then I could at least write a piece that dispels a lot of the distortions in his movie. I decided to write this article on global warming because of events that I see happening in our schools. Global warming is happening – that we know. The debate centers on whether humans are the cause of it and if there is anything we can do about it. Global warming has become a movement. This movement has become dangerous because our politicians are enacting ineffectual populist policies which will have adverse affects on our economy, and the gullible electorate is falling for it hook, line and sinker. The liberal politicians will try every form of skullduggery until they finally succeed in enacting inane policies that will help no one but certain special interest groups. The problem is many conservatives are also falling for it. Newt Gingrich sits down with Nancy Pelosi and Al Sharpton sits down with Pat Robertson in Al Gore's 300 million dollar blitzkrieg ad campaign on global warming. This is a world gone mad. If I were a proponent of the global warming movement, my mission statement would probably go something like this, "Global warming is caused by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which occur naturally, and occur by human activity. Human activity is responsible for an inordinate increase in the concentration of some of these greenhouse gases especially CO2. If we don't stop it, the world will see a rise in ocean levels, a melting of the ice shelves, an increase in the occurrence of tornadoes, an increase in famine, an increase in droughts and a whole host of other natural disasters that will put our planet in peril. We must reduce the world's emission of CO2 whatever the cost." Teachers teach this bunk because they know they have a captive audience. They use this opportunity to spread the pseudo-science and liberal agenda of global warming. In the following analysis, I will attempt to discuss the global warming agenda paying special attention to Al Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth"
Virtually every totalitarian regime and religious cult have used brainwashing techniques in one form or another from the Nazi youth in Germany, the reeducation camps in Vietnam, to the brainwashing techniques of various cults such as the Unification Church of Sum Myung Moon. It is easy to convince the youth to certain ways of thinking because the teens of every generation are ignorant about the world around them, and ignorant of history. As Judge Judy says, "They are not fully cooked yet." The media, the politicians and agenda driven pundits have successfully brainwashed our children using teachers as their conduits. As High School Students grow older, they take with them to the universities the lies and deception that have been continuously pummeled in their half-baked minds during their four years in high school. Most of the liberal teachers who are our educators believe what they are teaching because they are a product of our public school system too. We do not teach our children how to think critically. Students of today are taught to fall in line with the movements of the day, the liberal talking points – today, it is global warming.
Schools Gone Nuts
I will be making reference to the global warming debate instead of global warming, because there is no question that the world is warming. The debate is - are humans the cause? And, if so, how much? And, can we do anything about it?
Most parents do not pay attention to what is being taught to their kids. Others tacitly agree. When my daughter comes home, I find out what her homework is, and I find out what she was taught in the classroom. In certain instances, I find myself having to tell what one teacher told her is just not true. For example, she was taught as fact that the KKK owned Marlboro, an urban legend, that was debunked a long time ago, yet until I proved it to her, she wouldn't believe me. That story didn't even make sense on the face of it. Marlboro is owned by Phillip Morris USA, a public company and investors would not touch a public company with a ten foot pole if the KKK owned any part of it.
During Spring break, my daughter's Algebra teacher gave the class an extra credit assignment over the holidays. Did it have anything to do with Math? No. The assignment was to watch CNN's four hour two segment documentary, "Planet in Peril", and to write an essay on what they thought of the documentary. At least it was an extra credit assignment, and not part of class time. But, to push this in Algebra is beyond the pale. CNN's Planet in Peril is just what it sounds like, an alarmist so-called documentary in the same vein of Al Gore's, "An Inconvenient Truth" warning us of the dangers and threats the planet faces, the majority of which deals with global warming.
I have mentored a 23 year old woman since her high school days. She is like family. She is currently at the end of her nursing program, and the other day she called me to tell me her teacher wanted the class to watch Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" and relate it to nursing. The homework was to watch this so-called documentary, and then discuss it in class. Jacque, the nursing student was taking a course in which the median age of the nursing students was the mid 30s. That night, she met with some of her colleagues and watched the documentary. The following day she discussed it with the rest of her class. The students would take turns in describing what the movie meant to them. Jacque was the last one to give her opinion, so she was able to watch the exchange between the other students and the teacher. As she sat in the class, she heard the discussion between her teacher and her other classmates. When the teacher asked what the students thought of the documentary, these preening sycophants began to fawn and swoon over the professor as each one in turn described how the movie told the truth, and the dangers we all faced because of global warming. One student noted, "I couldn't sleep at all last night thinking about what is going to happen to this world." Another said, "My boyfriend has a Prius, and he allows me to take it sometimes to save on energy." These statements droned on for some time as each student proffered his/her assent to a smiling and agreeable teacher in hopes that she would shower each one with praise. Each student described his/her newfound fears. Al Gore became the new god of the students, the god of global warming.
Some of this film is so unbelievably inaccurate it stretches the imagination (e.g.: connecting global warming with hurricane Katrina). The students became so enthralled and spellbound by the god of global warming's pearl of wisdom, their gullibility got the better of them. It is true what Hitler's propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels once said that" if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
I had spoken to Jacque the previous night, because she wanted to know what to say in the class, because she thought this whole global warming thing for a nursing class was bizarre. I gave her some ideas so as not to antagonize the teacher since the teacher was the one holding the cards. I wanted her to be armed with information about some of the distortions of the documentary. After Jacque and I talked, she was ready for her class. She was the last one to speak as she gave her opinion, "I did some investigative work and discovered there is another side to the story." She continued, "Global warming is not "settled science" as Al Gore claims, but there is still a lot of debate surrounding the subject." She then referred the class to a BBC news article where a high court judge ruled that if schools chose to show the film, "An Inconvenient Truth", they must show the other side because the court found nine significant errors in the film. After Jacque finished her turn to speak, the teacher looked nonplussed, and the rest of the class just stared at Jacque with eyes glazed over and mouths gaping. The class no longer seemed to be a unified and cohesive group; the students seemed to be in a stupor. Each classmate tried to register what Jacque was saying. The class could only watch this girl in her early twenties speak of heresy, against global warming and against the god of global warming, to students who were a decade or more her senior. The nerve! The teacher did acquiesce and say, "Yes, there is another side." Oh no! – Now the teacher capitulated and admitted that someone else might have a differing opinion and a 23 year old at that. The class continued…
Al Gore continues to say global warming is "settled science." Of course as soon as someone says that, beware. Al Gore equates "Global Warming Deniers" to those who deny the holocaust or to those who deny the Earth is round. His arrogance is unbelievable. Frederick Seitz of the Oregon Health Institute of Science and Medicine developed the Heidelberg Appeal that is comprised of 4,000 scientists in 106 countries including 72 Nobel Prize winners who disagree with the current global warming debate. Seitz warns against an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development. The Leipzig Declaration is similar to the Heidelberg Appeal. Thus, the debate is far from settled. If a scientist disagrees with global warming, he will not be able to obtain grant money. A scientist willing to go against his/her colleagues risks being ostracized and banished from his/her field of study. Follow the money. We have returned to the Salem witch trials.
The Polar Bear
Students and teachers sucked into the global warming myth have no idea how much it is going to affect their pocket book. Politicians are trying every way to ram these asinine policies through congress regardless of the veracity of the claims. One egregious example of this is the politics of the polar bear led by the democrats and the Machiavellian Barbara Boxer. Environmental groups have been lobbying long and hard to get the Polar Bear listed as an endangered species based on one erroneous scene (which has since been debunked) in Al Gore's movie. A pair of polar bears seemed to be precariously clinging to the cliffs in danger of drowning. The Associated Press released the photo two and a half years after it was taken. Al Gore saw it and decided to use it in his film. In his "An Inconvenient Truth" states "Their habitat is melting… beautiful animals, literally being forced off the planet," Of course, the polar bears were nowhere near drowning. They were near land; polar bears are perfectly capable of swimming. May 15th is an important day – it is the court-mandated decision on whether the polar bear is an endangered species. It will be similar to the day the energy and security act of 2007 bill was passed and life with the stroke of pen became more expensive as a result of ethanol mandates. The center for biological diversity, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit states their goal:
"Protection under the Endangered Species Act will provide concrete help to polarbears and could revolutionize American climate policy. Since U.S. resistance to curbing greenhouse gases has allowed other countries to shirk their responsibilities as well, major changes in American policy are likely to have a powerful domino effect, catalyzing change in climate policy worldwide. The polar bear's protected status will require a new level of environmental review before oil and gas development continue in polar bear habitat in the American Arctic. Even more critically, because it is illegal to harm threatened species or jeopardize their survival, the polar bear listing could mean that all U.S. industries emitting large quantities of greenhouse gases — and requiring a federal permit to do so — will come under the purview of the Endangered Species Act. From polluting power plants in the Midwest to auto manufacturers, a vast array of industries may have to clean up their acts to give the polar bear a chance to survive."
The center for biological diversity does not even attempt to mislead. The intentions of this group are spelled out in black and white. These environmental nuts want to stop drilling for oil in the arctic, and they want to control American policy and curb economic growth to reduce greenhouse emissions. They are using the polar bear for their global warming agenda.
The Polar Bear is not decreasing; it is actually increasing. Fox News states: In the 1950s the polar bear population up north was estimated at 5,000. Today it's 20- to 25,000, a number that has either held steady over the last 20 years or has risen slightly. In Canada, the manager of wildlife resources for the Nunavut territory of Canada has found that the population there has increased by 25 percent.
Hugh Hewitt, a talk show host and an environmental attorney has been following the politics of the polar bear closely. If the polar bear is listed as an endangered species, it will be economic suicide.
Here is the long and short of it. The Democrats have thus far been unsuccessful in signing on to the Kyoto protocol. Using the polar bear is way to enact liberal greenhouse policies through the backdoor. If the polar bear is listed as an endangered species, the Federal Endangered Species Act, (FESA) established in 1973 is very clear. Hugh Hewitt states "Any federal action that might impact the polar bear must be reviewed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7 of the act." This is unprecedented, and FESA is being manipulated for the liberal's political agenda of global warming. Once listed, these environmental groups will begin to launch a myriad of lawsuits under the guise of protecting the polar bear. Environmentalists will challenge any new forms of energy production including drilling in Anwar or new power plants that produce fossil fuels. An estimated 15 billion barrels of oil and 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in Alaska's Chukchi Sea will be out of reach. Our energy policy will be in the hands of activist judges.
If the public understood what this was going to cost them in dollars and cents, they would be up in arms (liberals and conservatives). Everyone should be flooding their congressman's offices with faxes and telephone calls. The environmental wackos are doing it again, but the average Joe is unaware; he/she is just trying to make a living. The cost of living is going to skyrocket as a result of these liberal's policies. When will it end?
The hypocrisy of Al Gore.
As the death toll mounts in the tens of thousands possibly reaching or exceeding 100,000 in the Myanmar Cyclone in Burma, Al Gore uses the tragedy to advance his agenda on global warming and the release of his book "Assault on Reason" in paperback as he states:
"And as we're talking today, Terry, the death count in Myanmar from the cyclone that hit there yesterday has been rising from 15,000 to way on up there to much higher numbers now being speculated, and last year a catastrophic storm from last fall hit Bangladesh. The year before, the strongest cyclone in more than 50 years hit China – and we're seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming."
I have previously noted the hypocrisy of the Al Gore's of the world you can check it out by clicking here.
Is there any question why Al Gore refuses to debate anyone on the subject?
I told Jacque the only way this world has any hope is for people like her, who don't toe the liberal line to stand up for her beliefs. This at least might plant the seed to convince these otherwise naïve and gullible students to think critically, and to search out the truth. Maybe, this way, we won't go the way of Europe and be burdened by social policies that stifle economic growth.
Inconsistencies, distortions and outright lies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, and other problems with the global warming debate.
The most recent distortion in Al Gore's "schlocumentary" that even Michael Moore would be proud of was discovered on April 18, 2005. The famous shot above the Antarctic Ice Shelves was actually footage from the science fiction blockbuster, "The Day after Tomorrow." You know that movie that wiped out the planet because of global warming that apparently Al Gore thought was non-fiction. ABC news 20/20 broke the story. Al Gore refused to comment on it. When Al Gore is talking about the ice shelves, he makes the comment, "And if you were flying over it in a helicopter, you'd see it's 700 feet tall. They are so majestic." There was only one problem; it was digital footage from, "The Day after Tomorrow." The scenes were not real. Did you read that? The helicopter scenes, from the Antarctic ice shelves, were fake.
I had previously mentioned the United Kingdom's ruling on the 9 errors in the ruling. I am listing 11. I have seen one British report where it said 9, and I saw another one where it said 11. There were at least 9, but I have listed the 11 below.
A British high court judge questioned some of the claims in Al Gore's movie, and ruled that schools must show the other side. Moreover, in order for the film to be shown the guidance note to teachers must make clear that 1) the film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument and 2) If teachers present the film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children. I applaud the judge's efforts in making this ruling. After the eleven inconsistencies cited by the Judge, I will follow it by other inconsistencies or outright lies. The disputed points from Newsbuster.org:
- The judge disputed what he depicted as Gore's assertion that the melting of icecaps in Antarctica and Greenland could cause sea levels to rise by 20 feet "in the near future."
- Gore claimed that the disappearance of year-round snow from the summit of Kilimanjaro in Africa was attributable to global warming. The court was not convinced. According to the judge, the scientific "consensus" is that the reasons for the snow recession on Kilimanjaro cannot be established.
- Gore cited a scientific study showing that polar bears had drowned by "swimming long distances-up to 60 miles-to find the ice." Evidence backing up this claim was not produced by the British court. The judge wrote that the only scientific study shown to him indicated "that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm." I have talked about the polar bear previously.
- Gore attributed at least some of the destructive power of Hurricane Katrina to rising ocean temperatures and global warming. The judge found that there was "insufficient evidence to show that."
- The Gore movie depicted the drying up of Lake Chad as a prime example of the effects of global warming. Expert testimony in front of the British court suggested that "far more likely causes" were "population increase, over-grazing and regional climate variability." Al Gore even suggests hurricanes will get stronger because of global warming. Dr William Gray, the foremost expert on hurricanes and head of Colorado State's tropical Meteorology project stated that "the degree to which you believe global warming is causing hurricanes is inversely proportional to your knowledge about these storms." In other words, Al Gore knows nothing about these storms.
- Gore suggested an "exact fit" between the rise in carbon dioxide levels and the rise in temperatures over a period of 650,000 years. According to the judge, scientists generally agree that there is "a connection," between the two phenomena, but claims of an "exact fit" cannot be established.
- An "Inconvenient Truth" claimed that citizens of some low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls "have all had to evacuate to New Zealand" because of the inundation of their islands caused by global warming. The judge said that he found no evidence of "any such evacuation having yet happened."
- The movie suggested that global warming could shut down "The Ocean Conveyer," a process by which the Gulf Stream is carried over the North Atlantic to Western Europe. The judge cited a study by the intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) the co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, which concluded that it was "very unlikely" that the Ocean Conveyer would be shut down completely, although it might slow.
- Gore argued that coral reefs all over the world were bleaching because of global warming and other factors. The judge cited the IPCC view that it was difficult to separate the impact of stresses on coral reefs caused by climate change "from other stresses such as over-fishing and pollution.
- The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The court found the film to be misleading. Over that period the rises in C02 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
- The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The government's expert had to cede this was not the case.
Note: Al Gore specifically states the global warming debate is "settled science", and not political in nature. I have an experiment one should try. Have a group of people randomly selected to enter a vacant room. Have those who believe that global warming is mostly caused by human activity to move to one side, and the ones who do not believe global warming is mostly not caused by human activity to move to the other side. Then ask the liberals to raise their hands. What side of the room do you think you will see raise their hands? If it were not political, you would see hands on both sides raised, I would surmise that would not be the case.
Other problems with the documentary and global warming hysteria.
- Al Gore argues that global warming is caused by C02. Scientists do agree that the earth is warming, but if C02 has anything to do with it, no one knows to what degree or even if it is possible to combat the effects. In fact, trying to combat it may do more harm than good. There may be other reasons for the warming such as solar magnetic activity and irradiance. Warming trends are also cyclical in nature. Nobody has the foggiest idea how much of this warming is due to natural phenomena.
- NASA officials have admitted temperature data from NASA for the past seven years have been inaccurate. The mistake was spotted by a blogger. This shows the difficulty in trying to estimate temperature over millennia.
- Al Gore presents a graph where C02 tracks the global warming trend. He stands in front of his audience with the graph as his backdrop. The two lines show 650,000 years of Antarctic ice-core. There are no numbers to even put the graph into perspective. The bottom line shows the average atmospheric temperature. Al Gore is attempting to show that C02 correlates precisely with global warming trends. There is no X axis for atmospheric content, and its baseline is not zero. The quantities on record vary between about 200 and 300 parts per million – and the baseline is about 150. Therefore, we have an exaggerated illustration of the rise and fall of C02, The temperature graph dips nearly to the bottom of the screen during some of the colder periods. This would seem to chart an Earth temperature that has descended to near the freezing point. The baseline is a chosen one. At no time has the earth's average temperature been near the freezing point. The graph of course is suppose to show the correlation that C02 is the cause of global warming, but just because C02 trends with a global warming trend doesn't necessarily mean C02 is even the cause. If you match up solar activity, it also matches up to the warming trend line. Just because you see two lines trend with each other does not mean there is a cause and effect relationship. In Al Gore's graph, C02 precedes the increase in temperature. Historical records indicate that temperature increases precede C02. That is not all - Gore also uses Dr. Michael Mann's methodology "hockey stick graph, but this methodology has been attacked and criticized in peer-reviewed journals. An alternate graph by John Daily actually shows it cooler now than the Medieval Warm Period.
- Mars is also warming. Should we attribute that to C02. Solar activity would make more sense.
- Even if human causation of CO2 were true, Gore does not provide any solutions for the problem. Global warming alarmists are against the cleanest form of fuel that exists today, nuclear power.
- Gore never mentions the 1976 regime shift Pacific Decadel oscillation, a natural ocean cycle, which is a major cause of a recent climate change in Alaska.
- Gore neglects to mention that global warming can be beneficial
- Gore ignores the large role of natural variability in Arctic climate, never mentioning either that Arctic temperatures during the 1930s equaled or exceeded those of the late twentieth century, or that the Arctic during the mid Holocene period was significantly warmer than it is today.
- Al Gore cites a study by Isabella Velicogna and John Wahr, of the University of Colorado, that found an overall loss in Antarctic ice mass during 2002-2005, but ignores a study by University of Professor Curt Davis and colleagues that found an overall ice mass gain during 1992-1993. Three years worth of data is too short to tell anything about a trend in a system as vast and complex as Antarctica.
- Gore misrepresents the major auto companies' position in their lawsuit to overturn California's CO2 emissions law by neglecting to mention that CO2 standards are de facto fuel economy standards and that federal law prohibits states from regulating fuel economy.
- Al Gore loves to talk about how the West Antarctic Shelf is receding and collapsing, but what he neglects to say is that the center of Greenland has been growing over the last decade, and the East Antarctic ice shelf is also growing.
- In an article in Executive Intelligence Review appears this commentary, "In the first decades of the 20th Century, a scientific theory of climate emerged, based on the effects of three long-term cycles in the Earth's orbital relationship to the Sun. It was based on the work of the Russian-German meteorologist Vladimir Koppen (1846-1940), his son-in-law Alfred Wegener (the originator of the theory of continental drift), and the Serbian mathematician Milutin Milankovich. Their work drew upon a 19th-Century tradition which originated with a hypothesis of the German-English astronomer John Herschel." There are also little ice ages and glacial ages.
- Greenland used to be habitable and much warmer than it currently is because of the cyclical variability in the earth's atmosphere. Vikings used to live on Greenland. This was known as the Medieval Warm Period. They inhabited Greenland in the early 14th century. This was pre-CO2.
- It is often pointed out that with increasing temperatures the potential area of tropical diseases such as malaria will increase, because the mosquitoes that transmit malaria ordinarily need winter temperatures above 16-18 degrees Celsius to survive. However there are species that can hibernate in sheltered sites showing the difficulty in trying to pinpoint certain problems because of global warming when there is another completely viable explanation.
- Computer models – Global warming alarmists rely heavily on computer models. These computer models vary by 400%. We can't predict how the weather will be in one week yet we pretend to predict what it will be in ten years or even decades. There are all kinds of variables one has to consider, clouds, rain, water vapor etc. If one variable is changed in the slightest the entire model will be changed. This reminds me of when I had to work as an Accountant, and we created financial models to forecast financial statements for the coming fiscal year. If the controller said, "we need to increase revenue, or reduce expenses." We only had to go back, tweak a few variables, change an assumption and voila, we could arrive at the required number. Scientists need grants to study global warming. The need to arrive at certain conclusions forces them to adjust their models. They only need to change the variables or the assumptions of the model to reach their preconceived ideas, and the money will continue to flow in.
- We don't know about 75% of the factors that scientists believe cause global warming.
- Even if global warming by human activity were a fact, mankind has an inherent ability to adapt. This is not considered in any of the doomsday scenarios. Man does and will adapt.
Questions that still need to be asked on global warming.
- How much effect does C02 have on the temperature? The important question is not whether the climate is affected by humans, but to what degree.
- Could there be other causes behind the increasing temperature such as solar activity? If there are other reasons, it means that global warming becomes less important because humans are not the cause, and there isn't much we can do about it.
- Are the greenhouse scenarios reasonable? Are these predictions based on reasonable assumptions? If not, then what? How do we know what is reasonable?
- What are the consequences of a possible temperature increase? Temperature increases may not necessarily be a bad thing.
- What are the costs of decreasing versus not decreasing CO2 emissions? If we are to make an informed decision on global warming we need to know the costs of not acting versus the cost of acting. If we totally disrupt our economy with no effect on CO2, what is the point? The cap and trade schemes in Europe have been completely ineffectual, and their CO2 has actually increased after implementing their cap and trade schemes.
- Before relying on computer models and making policies that will be hugely expensive, we should use these models for a period of up to a decade at least before we know if these models work.
- What about volcanoes? Wetlands? Volcanoes do have an effect on CO2, and natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.
We have had hundreds of years of false alarms about the paucity of food supplies, overpopulation, etc and all for naught. I am left to think about groups that have followed cultish leaders who believed the world was coming to an end and by some tragic means killed themselves and their children because the followers became gullible to the point that they became absorbed in the lies and deceptions of their leaders. Groups that come to mind are Jim Jones of the People's Temple in Guyana and Heaven's Gate. Walter E. Williams enumerates some of the falsehoods in erstwhile years that people would rather forget because in the end, the claims were just plain wrong.
A few dire predictions from the Ellis County Press May 7 2008 by Walter E Williams, professor of Economics at George Mason University with my own commentary in italics.
It's not just latter day doomsayers that have been wrong, doomsayers have always been wrong:
- 1969 – First Earth Day – printed in Newsweek article April 28, 1975. Newsweek portended ominous signs of a decline in food production, and other disastrous events because of global cooling. CC Wallen, the head of the World meteorological organization equated the dangers of this new ice age to the dangers of a nuclear war. (sound familiar?)
- 1968 – Professor Erlich – predicted there would be a major food shortage, and in the 1970s hundreds of millions would die from massive starvation. His predictions on England were gloomier. He predicted England would not exist in the year 2000. The world fell for it. In fact, the reverse is true. Declining birth rates are a huge problem. To sustain a population at its current level, a woman needs to give birth to 2.1 persons. This is about where the U.S is today, but Europe (not counting the Islamic population) is less than 2 per woman. Europe is in decline. They cannot even afford to sustain their social programs. Muslims in Europe produce about 7 to 1. Europe will become Islamisized if they do not change their immigration policies. Russia is losing entire cities because of their declining populations. China is having detrimental effects because of their one child policy. Food is a problem because of politics. The recent food riots are not because of food shortages, but they are due to the idiotic liberal policies of ethanol mandates which is increasing the price of food which affects mostly the poor and third world countries. If you stick your food in a gas tank, prices are going to go up. Who can't figure that one out?
- 1972 – a report was written for the club of Rome warning the world would run out of gold by 1981. Gold was an especially important commodity in 1972 because it was not until 1973 that the U.S. dollar was taken off the Gold Standard.
- 1970 – Senator Gaylord Nelson said in his book "The Doomsday Book" that Americans were using 50% of the world's resources, and by 2000 they will have used all of them.
- 1970 – Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, "Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind."
- 1885 – The U.S. Geological Survey announced there was "little or no chance" of oil being discovered in California and a few years later they said the same thing about Kansas and Texas. Imagine if the geologists held on to that theory.
- 1949 – The Secretary of the Interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. We still hear that today. In fact, new oil deposits have been discovered in Venezuela, Brazil, Mexico, Australia, Russia and other places. I cannot mention the United States because we just sit on our hands and play tiddly-winks since the so-called environmentalists have succeeded in stopping the U.S in drilling anywhere.
- 1974 – Having forgotten about their previous erroneous claim, The U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a ten year supply of natural gas. The American gas association says there is a 1,000 to a 2,500 year supply of natural gas.
The problem with these predictions is that they gather media attention, and the media repeats them so often that these beliefs become mainstream, and the schools, the students, the teachers, and soon the world believe the predictions. Congress begins to react and enact populist policies that impede economic growth and put us behind other countries, and take jobs overseas.
Global warming has been a political tool to implement liberal policies. Global warming is not about truth; it is about advancing a cause. The "Science is settled" states Al Gore, except scientists who disagree with Al Gore's global warming hypothesis are coming through the woodwork. Al Gore and the Democratic elites have to silence them if they want to continue to advance their cause, but it's like trying to plug a sieve. When they are unable to advance the movement, global warming alarmists try to propagate their dogma through the backdoor by finding ways to enact their policies such as listing as an endangered species, the polar bear. I have barely touched the surface of the problems with the global warming debate. No one has the foggiest notion how much human activity has to do with global warming if any yet the politicians do not care. They continue trying to enforce their agenda with such zeal that we face adverse economic and social upheaval if these policies are ever implemented. We have already seen it with the MTBE fiasco, the ethanol mess and now global warming. May 15th will be the first step in the global warming direction if the polar bear is put on the endangered species list. These alarmists even equate the "global warming" danger with the terrorism threat. We need sound politicians who use sound science. Politics and science do not mix. Science in today's environment is guided by politics, and this is a dangerous precedent.
The Bible teaches us to be good stewards of the earth; therefore we should all be environmentalists. However, the environmentalists of today have become a political movement to advance their Marxist-socialist agenda. Patrick Moore, the founder of Greenpeace, left Greenpeace because Greenpeace has become politicized to the far-left. Greenpeace has become a movement whose only concern is in advancing a political agenda. The slug underneath some rock in some God-forsaken wasteland has become more important than the human who lives next to the slug. Corporations are evil; socialism is good. We do need to wean ourselves off of Middle Eastern oil, but the environmentalists have effectively prevented us from drilling on our own land. Forbes magazine just published in their May 19, 2008 publication that the outer continental U.S. shelf contains 100 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil, but 85% is off limits by congressional decree. We have 1.5 trillion barrels that Shell estimates trapped in the oil shell deposits in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah. We have oil in Colorado's Denver Julesburg basin. The Bakken formation in Western North Dakota may hold up to 400 billion to 500 billion barrels of oil. The arctic refuge, a pin-prick of a waste land, is estimated to have 16 billion barrels of oil. We should also begin building refineries, and then begin building nuclear reactors. We should scrap the ethanol program, and research other alternative fuels we know will work like natural gas. If we do this, we don't have to worry about cap and trade schemes, oil windfall taxes, and other ill-conceived ideas that won't work. Going this route will take us off Middle Eastern oil, make us energy independent and make for a cleaner environment. Everyone will be happy. It won't happen overnight, because we have sat on our hands for too long. From what I hear from our current crop of presidential candidates, I don't hear what is necessary to get the job done. McCain is the closest, but he still doesn't want to drill in Anwar, and he wants to impose cap and trade schemes. Hillary and Obama will just continue to sell us down the river. I hope we do what is right, and not what is politically expedient, but so far it is not looking good.
State of Fear, 2004 Michael Crichton
The skeptical Environmentalist Measuring the real state of the world, Bjorn Lomborg
The Ellis County Press May 7, 2008
Forbes Magazine May 18, 2008
Friday, May 9, 2008
I wasn't going to blog about this, but after listening to KGO last night, I couldn't resist.
I usually listen to conservative talk radio, but on occasion, I will listen to KGO radio even though it usually hosts personalities from the left or left leaning. The only political talk show personality on KGO who is not left leaning is Dr. Bill Wattenberg.
Bernie Ward commonly referred to as "The lion of the left" is an ex-Priest. He was one of the most abrasive and radical hosts at KGO radio. He does not tolerate anyone's views but his own. In addition to his own nightly show, Bernie also hosted a radio show called, "God talk" which was nothing but a bunch of sacrilegious bunk. I heard the most moronic of people call into his shows. Bernie also had his own version of the gospels, because what he taught was sure not scriptural.
Bernie Ward, a corpulent obese and obstreperous blowhard enjoyed his strident diatribes against the Bush administration, the conservative and especially the fundamental Christian. He even started his own church on his show "God Talk" thinking it droll and called it, "the Church of the Holy Donut." His views on eschatology included his belief that hell didn't exist, and he was intolerant of anyone else who had a different eschatological view than his. Ward had his own distorted view of the Bible. Spurred on by his vainglory of his background as a priest, Bernie would incessantly tout about how much he knew of the Bible while everyone else knew nothing. He taught theology at Cardinal Newman High School in Santa Rosa, CA. but his theology was the most bizarre of any theology I had ever heard. Reverend Wright's Trinity United might have been less radical. He didn't allow callers who were Bible adherents and knowledgeable to cite the Bible as proof that Bernie was wrong, instead these Bible-thumpers as he would call them would have to paraphrase, and then he would tail off into one of his rants and then hang up on them. Everything was relative according to Bernie's theology. Bad was only what you thought bad was and good was only what you thought good was. What God said was irrevelant. Do what feels good. If you were an atheist, you were going to heaven. It didn't matter who you were unless you were a fundamental Christian, then you were damned to Bernie's non-existent hell. Bernie's knowledge of the Bible was nescient to say the least.
Bernie would rant against the Iraq war with the same passion he railed against the fundamental Christian. Bernie also railed against the pedophilia in the Catholic Church.
Bernie Ward was recently charged with sending child porn via the internet, a crime punishable by five years in prison per image. It was actually hard for me to believe since Bernie was involved in a lot of Catholic charities. I did not think he was a predator. Several things did not add up. There was supposed to only be a couple of images that were sent across the Internet. Child predators would have many more than just a couple of images on their computers. Bernie Ward said it was for research on a book he was doing on hypocrisy (probably his). So where was the manuscript? Bernie Ward is the epitome of hypocrisy. It took the police several years before they actually charged him. Why did they wait so long? And why did child protective services allow Bernie Ward to keep custody of his children? Television stations even discovered chat transcripts in which he even talked about sexual acts with his children. Of course, that was just pure fantasy. He never did perform sexual acts on his children, but what father would even talk that way about his children. And, CPS let him keep his children.
Bernie's initial reaction to the allegations was to create a website, and try to get hired back on KGO, and at the same time raise funds for his defense. This was the height of arrogance on Bernie's part to create a website for the sole purpose of continuing his rants while trying to bring his flock together to support him. As details leaked out, I presume he decided that was not a good idea, and the website went down.
Today, however, several months after Bernie was fired from KGO, we find out more information, and now the Internet porn charges are beginning to make more sense. We discover that Bernie actually stated in writing that he sent between 15 and 150 images over the internet. We also discover that other priests had concerns about Bernie. At the high school where he taught, channel 7 has confirmed two alleged sexual misconducts while he was a priest. Rossane Schwab spoke of a beach outing where Bernie made sexual advances towards her. Click on Bernie Ward to check out the lurid details and other incidences.
So now we know who this man really is.
KGO had a comment section on their piece about Bernie Ward, and this is where it gets interesting. There were the typical rational comments on how some were appalled, etc, but there were also a slew of liberals whose comments were unbelievable. There was a barrage of comments on how his arrest was a conspiracy and a setup by the Bush administration, and that the Bush Administration wanted to silence him. I have news for you liberals out there – Bernie is not that important. Some would call in the talk show on Gene Burn's show or Karel's show about the conspiracy too, and at least the hosts did tell them it wasn't true. Then there were those comments about how people were torn up inside, and that Bernie represented a part of their life, and they were just so upset over it. Some called in the talk shows with teary eyes. You could almost see the lachrymose eyes. Others wrote comments about how their bubble had been burst, what were they going to do now? I listen to talk radio. These liberals are just nuts. Do they not have a life? These are talk show hosts. They are entertaining, some are informative, some are better than others. Most conservative talk show hosts are better than the liberal talk show hosts although I have heard entertaining liberal talk show hosts. I remember when Cynthia Oti, the financial KGO radio host, died in a plane crash, Alaska airline flight 261 from Mexico to California. I was somewhat saddened. This was a true tragedy, but I was also able to put it in perspective. She was not a family member; she was a radio talk show host. Liberals are just nuts. They don't know these people. The talk show host is doing his/her job, and he/she only hears a voice on the other end. Conservatives do not react this way. If you liberals really wanted to show your concern or support, and if you are believers, pray for his family and pray for him that he may seek true guidance from God.
Melanie Morgan knew him well, a former conservative talk show host from KSFO whom I respect says the following about Bernie:
The way he treated his family, for one thing, screaming at his children in public for seemingly minor misbehaviors on the many occasions he brought them to KGO/KSFO radio functions, and to our home.
....... I still can't believe this has happened. I cannot wrap my mind around this.... I have listened to Bernie for the last 18 years.,, and feel he is part of my family...
I don't know what to say.
My bubble has burst. I am crushed that Bernie Ward has fallen.He, like the other liberal talk show hosts have been my idols.Had it not been for them the past 7 years I doin't know that I would have survived this corrupt Bush administration.
My prayers go out to the Ward family and I hope and pray they can move past this and go on with theri lives. I hope Bernie can survive prison.
God bless them all.
- Marcus Vittitow
This reeks of a set up. Bernie was dealing with a powerful entity the catholic church. He angered a lot of pedophiles in the church hierarchy. So they pretty much had to "get him". Unfortunately Bernie helped them although inadvertently. It is tragic in more ways than one. A voice has now been silenced that was making the public aware of the evil that infests the catholic church. That evil is strong and Bernie underestimated it. Hopefully he will be able to write a book on this with the proceeds going to a legal fund for church abused children. Best of luck Bernie. Your presence at KGO will be missed and has changed my listening habits to say the least. Steve
Our family has listened to Bernie for years. None of us are without fault. We hope this situation resolves itself in a speedy manor so he can get back to what he does best. I hope KGO brings him back when this is all over. Still a fan!
I wrote in my weblog this morning that the bush Administration has won. the charges are irrelevant. the effect is dare not ever criticize the Federal government, or it will destroy you.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
You have to wonder how the Democrats talk about the Republicans steal elections when Democrats are doing when the exact same thing only worse. They are really doing it. Why cares what voters in Michigan and Florida think?
From Politico.comby David Paul Kuhn
Not long after the polls close in the May 20 Kentucky and Oregon primaries, Barack Obama plans to declare victory in his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.
And, until at least May 31 and perhaps longer, Hillary Clinton’s campaign plans to dispute it.
It’s a train wreck waiting to happen, with one candidate claiming to be the nominee while the other vigorously denies it, all predicated on an argument over what exactly constitutes the finish line of the primary race.
The Obama campaign agrees with the Democratic National Committee, which pegs a winning majority at 2,025 pledged delegates and superdelegates—a figure that excludes the penalized Florida and Michigan delegations. The Clinton campaign, on the other hand, insists the winner will need 2,209 to cinch the nomination—a tally that includes Florida and Michigan. Continue Reading
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
How many Florida and Michigan voters were silenced?
One of the reasons the Democrats hate Bush so much is because of "Bush-Derangement syndrome", a mental disorder whereby reality is mixed in with fantasy, and the affected individual develops a mistaken belief that the 2000 election was stolen. This disorder so profoundly affects the mind that entire areas of Democrats believe that blocks of voters were disenfranchised hence the infamous recount and the stolen election.
It didn't matter that the Florida recounts happened to be in Democratic precints nor did it matter that the media went in afterwards and determined Bush would have won anyway. The Democrats still believe the election was stolen from them. You can hold reams and reams of documents showing evidence that supports the notion that Bush truly won, and these disease-ridden Democrats will still remain unconvinced.
So this is what I can't figure out. Obama is currently ahead in the delegate count and he is ahead in the popular vote, but only because the Wright controversy came out late, and the Democrats do not care about the will of the voters insofar as Michigan and Florida are concerned.
How is it that Democrats on the one hand believe that the election was stolen by President Bush on the assumption of disenfranchised voters? but on the other hand, they don't seem to mind disenfranchising the 5 million plus voters of Michigan and Florida.
The DNC says it was part of the rules. Well, can you tell me how many voters voted for these DNC rules?
No matter how you slice it or dice it, over 5 million voters have been disenfranchised. If Michigan and Florida were seated, Hillary not Obama would be the nominee. If I were Hillary, I would fight til the very end. It is not fair to exclude two huge states from voting for their respective nominee.
If they do not seat Florida or Michigan, we, the Republican party will welcome Florida and Michigan. Because as a voter, I would be mad too.
And, on a side note. We may not like Hillary's policies, but the one thing we can say is she doesn't give up.
Hillary today said, "If we had the rules that the Republicans had,I would already be the nominee." - she has got that right.
Oprah could leave the church, but apparently Obama could not leave the church. Oprah made the correct judgment that Reverend Wright might hurt her if she were to stay in the church. So why did Oprah think Wright's sermons were incendiary but Obama didn't?
Yesterday, Greta Van Susteren had Allison Samuels of Newsweek on her show, "On the record" to discuss the latest Newsweek article about Oprah leaving the church. Allison was an African-American and an Obama supporter. Her response on why Oprah left was that she understood the black experience, and Obama didn't so it took him a little longer. Greta asked the logical follow up question, "I hate to quibble, but it took Obama twenty years to figure it out" I don't think Allison helped Obama much.
According to Newsweek in the article "Something wasn't right",
According to two sources, Winfrey was never comfortable with the tone of Wright's more incendiary sermons, which she knew had the power to damage her standing as America's favorite daytime talk-show host. "Oprah is a businesswoman, first and foremost," said one longtime friend, who requested anonymity when discussing Winfrey's personal sentiments. "She's always been aware that her audience is very mainstream, and doing anything to offend them just wouldn't be smart. She's been around black churches all her life, so Reverend Wright's anger-filled message didn't surprise her. But it just wasn't what she was looking for in a church." Oprah's decision to distance herself came as a surprise to Wright, who told Christianity Today in 2002 that when he would "run into her socially … she would say, 'Here's my pastor!' " (Winfrey declined to comment. A Harpo Productions spokesperson would not confirm her reasons for leaving the church.) continue reading
Monday, May 5, 2008
There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. John Maynard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace.
If you have ever wondered how the dollar came to be where it is today, and what the significance it is on the world stage, the Biography of a Dollar is a good primer understanding the history of the dollar and its current status. John R. Taylor of FX concepts is a major player in the hedge fund industry and foreign exchange trading, an industry that most people do not understand, but it is an industry that plays a major role in determining the value of what the dollar is worth. Taylor bets on currency movements within markets. The value of the currency is measured against the value of other currencies. Currencies are bought and sold within thin trading margins. Foreign exchange trading gave rise to the hedge fund.
Hedge funds are not required to register with the SEC since they are only available to large institutions or wealthy individuals. Hedge Funds gained notoriety largely because of high-profile men like George Soros. Soros gained the reputation for the man who broke, "the bank of England." George Soros sold short more than 10 billion dollars worth of British pounds. Soros bet that the Bank of England would be reluctant to protect its currency by raising interest rates. Raising interest rates would only further aggravate England's recession. Soros figured, and rightly so, that England would be forced to withdraw its pound from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. Soros bet that England would devalue its currency. England, not able to keep up with Soros, who bet against the pound, was unable to keep the pound at its agreed upon price and therefore capitulated. One man Soros was able to affect the entire economy of England, and it was estimated that Soros pocketed 1 billion dollars. This cost England an estimated 3.4 billion pounds, and is known as Black Wednesday.
What made this new industry possible? In 1944, the United States signed the Bretton Woods Agreement. This pegged the US dollar to gold bullion at 35$ an ounce. This guaranteed that every dollar could be exchanged for gold. The problem was after years of being pegged to the gold, there were more dollars than gold available, so concern mounted that there would be a run on the dollar. In 1971 Nixon took the dollar off the gold standard. This allowed the government to print more dollars and it also allowed for the nascent foreign exchange market to develop.
In 1973, Nixon abandoned the final restrictions of the Bretton Agreement. This allowed the market to determine the price of the dollar, and in a short period the American economy was in terrible shape. The Arab nations cut back oil production, leading to a global energy crisis - Gas lines grew long, patience grew short. The world saw a fourfold rise in the price of crude oil by The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, (OPEC). This made worse an economic crisis that was already bad. The oil producing countries were trying to recoup the losses they perceived they would reap as a result of taking the dollar off the gold standard. The OPEC nations used the excuse that they were ceasing shipments to countries that supported Israel during the Yom Kippur War when in reality the oil embargo was in direct response to U.S. inflation to protect them against future U.S. inflation. Inflation was running at 13%. This also sparked a vicious cycle leading to higher prices on everything from food to clothing affected by higher transportation costs. Rising inflation also caused Nixon to impose his ill-fated policy on wage-price controls. Many thought this was a disaster in the making.
Arthur Burns, the then Federal Reserve Chairman was one of the principal players of negating the Bretton woods Agreement, and he went down in ignominy because of the economic disaster that ensued after taking the dollar off the gold standard. Two other Fed Chairmen followed, William Miller who was considered even more ineffectual than Burns and Paul Volcker who aggressively raised interest rates until inflation was under control. It was Alan Greenspan, however, who garnered most of the credit for the robust economy that occurred after the Nixon administration. When the dollar was taken off of the gold standard, the economy was beset with high inflation and high interest rates, but Greenspan's tenure occurred during the greatest economic boom in US history partly as a result of taking the dollar off of the gold standard. Negating the Bretton agreement set the stage for the dollar to dominate as a universal world-wide currency.
The Biography of the Dollar discusses the problem of counterfeiting. Counterfeiting has always been a problem as long as there has been currency. Not only have individuals tried to counterfeit a country's currency, but countries have tried to cripple a country's economy as a means of economic warfare. NAZI Germany tried to cripple England after the failed blitzkrieg. Washington suspects North Korea of creating what they coin as the "Supernote", a counterfeit US currency that look extremely realistic. Previously, Columbia was the threat in counterfeiting, but now it's North Korea. The Supernotes are so good that they are hard to distinguish from the real thing by the experts. North Korean leader Kim Jong ll uses the same identical paper of three quarters cotton and one quarter linen, and the same intaglio press. New methods, processes watermarks are being devised to foil counterfeiters especially in this age of high technology where counterfeiting is becoming much easier.
The Biography of the Dollar describes how some countries have dropped their currency entirely such as Ecuador. Ecuador stopped printing its Sucre, and began using dollars on a permanent basis. This is called dollarization.. It explores the good and the bad of dollarization. Dollarization is only possible however because of the dominance of the American dollar.
Can the dollar retain its global dominance? With the country's growing current account deficit, other currencies rivaling the dollar such as the Euro have put the US dollar in doubt. The United States is the largest debtor nation. Some foreign bank officials have raised concern that there could someday be a run on the dollar causing a massive devaluation of the dollar. Countries have talked about diversifying their currency reserves which in the vernacular means "dumping dollars in exchange for other currencies." Two thirds of the US government is run by the US taxpayers, the other one third is run by lending money in the form of US treasuries to foreign countries. Worldwide reserves of the dollar have already begun to decline. Russia used to hold 50% of its reserves in US dollars. That number is currently 30%. Oil, commodities, foreign exchange trading are all pegged to the US dollar, but how long can that last? If we lose currency reserve status, it will lead to a series of economic and political crisis.
However, there has to be a viable alternative before the US dollar loses its status as the global currency. The Euro has its own set of problems. There are other currencies that also have other problems, but that does not mean it cannot happen. Famed investor Warren Buffet told his shareholders in 2004 he was stepping up investments abroad over fears of the decline in the dollar. If countries lose confidence in the dollar as a result of growing deficits, the devaluation of the dollar, low interest rates or a whole host of other reasons, may decide to look elsewhere for their currency reserves.
A weak dollar is not good for America.
The Biography of the Dollar gives a good history of the dollar, its current status, and where the dollar might head.