Happy New Year!

Well, 2007 is over and we have all survived into a new year while not being able to make the liberals any smarter. They still think money in the hands of the people who earned it is bad, and if the government doesn't own it, it's bad. They think reducing tax rates will not increase the "tax take," even though it has worked every time it has been tried, even by one of their own, John Kennedy. They think the way for us to defend ourselves is to disarm ourselves while criminals have no problem getting guns any time they want. They whine about a "bad economy" (which doesn't exist outside of their imaginations) while doing everything they can to destroy it by trying to kill Wal-Mart, Target, Microsoft, and other examples of "big business." Who do they think is propping up this good economy (which they're too stupid to recognize)? Without "big business," there would be no jobs and no new projects to make the economy better. They believe anything the "child protectors" tell them while they ignore, on principle, anything told them by parents. They can't argue on the facts, so they immediately (within about 30 seconds, according to Rush Limbaugh) start calling us names (labels). But don't fret. As soon as they start name-calling, you've won. They can't debate on facts because anything they'd come up with, fact-wise, will destroy any argument they're offering. (Just common sense)

National ID?

National ID Card?

They're still trying to get a national identification card into existence so bureaucrats and politicians in our government can totally control everything you do. They don't say so now, but their ultimate goal is for every one of us to be REQUIRED, by LAW, to present this card for EVERY transaction into which we enter, even to be allowed entry into a public restroom. When that happens, you will no longer be free because the power to ISSUE such a card (give PERMISSION to live) is the power to DENY its issuance (and thus make you into an "unperson" unable to do the simplest thing, such as buy a loaf of bread, legally) Do you want to give our bureaucrats and politicians such total power? The power to make us into criminals if we buy a loaf of bread without it? I don't. The Social Security card is poised to become such a national ID if they can manage to get everybody to require it for every transaction. (Fox News, 1/9/07)

"Religious Left" Apologist for Islam

The left (liberals, collectivists) is constantly criticizing the "religious right." Nothing they do is any good. But the "religious LEFT" is "okay, and can do no wrong. Now they're "apologizing" for the Islamic terrorists: "Like most of the religious Left, the National Council of Churches (NCC) never has much to say about religious freedom issues affecting Christians. But any implied criticism of Islam sends the NCC ladder team flying out the door in a frenzy!" They never talk about the atrocities committed by the Islamics, only those (real or imagined) by us. Nary a word about the murders, bombings, beheadings, etc. committed by the Islamics. Only an attempt to "apologize" for them on the phony basis that we have "sinned against them." They ignore the fact that the war against "Infidels" by Islamic extremists has been going on for thousands of years and we are just the most recent major target (An "Infidel" is ANYONE who does not believe the same way they do, even other Muslims). As with most liberals, they blame us for the problem, ignoring facts, if they can, in any way, embarrass George Bush. (Front Page Magazine, 2/2/07)

The French Appear to Be Smarter than We Are

AlGore Himself

They've tumbled to AlGore's swindle about global warming and come right out and say it's his "cash cow." Apparently the government of France isn't as smart as some of its citizens, as witness this: "Climate-change skeptics are taking a beating these days even in France, where people long resisted the green creed. Paris bookstores brim with guidebooks -- including one shaped like a toilet seat -- that tell readers how to help save our planet [All making "big bucks" for scammers. -RT]. Yet the dissidents refuse to shut up, even now that Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize and the U.S. government has agreed to negotiate a new global-warming treaty by 2009." Al is a "glowing example" of the "big lie theory" where you tell a lie, make it big, and keep on telling it to anyone who will listen, until people believe it so strongly they will fight those who disagree. He even conned himself into a Nobel Prize and an Oscar for his lying propaganda movie. He refuses to debate global warming on its merits, instead dismissing people who disagree, even eminent climate scientists in France (Who know a lot more about the climate than he does), as well as his own country. "The most conspicuous doubter in France is Claude Allegre, a former education minister and a physicist by profession. His new book, 'Ma Verite Sur la Planete'' ('My Truth About the Planet''), doesn't mince words. He calls Gore a 'crook'' presiding over an eco-business that pumps out cash. As for Gore's French followers, the author likens them to religious zealots who, far from saving humanity, are endangering it. Driven by a Judeo-Christian guilt complex, he says, French greens paint worst-case scenarios and attribute little-understood cycles to human misbehavior." Global Warming is a religion, and AlGore is the Pope. You dassen't call him a liar or you will be vilified and marginalized without your arguments ever being studied. And this man was "within a heartbeat" of being president (Shudder!). (Bloomberg)

Politicians Hate It; The People Love It

Rev. Joe Wright

"When Minister Joe Wright was asked to open the new session of the Kansas Senate, everyone was expecting the usual generalities, but this is what they heard: 'Heavenly Father, we come before you today to ask your forgiveness and to seek your direction and guidance. We know Your Word says, "Woe to those who call evil good" But that is exactly what we have done; We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and reversed our values; We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery; We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare; We have killed our unborn and called it choice; We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable; We have neglected to discipline our children and called it Building self esteem; We have abused power and called it politics; We have coveted our neighbor's possessions and called it ambition; We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of speech and expression. We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our Forefathers and called it enlightenment. Search us, Oh, God, and know our hearts today; cleanse us from every sin and set us free. Amen!"

The response was immediate. A number of legislators walked out during the prayer in protest. In 6 short weeks, Central Christian Church, where Rev. Wright is pastor, logged more than 5,000 phone calls with only 47 Of those calls responding negatively. The church is now receiving international requests for copies of this prayer from India, Africa and Korea. Commentator Paul Harvey aired this prayer on his radio Program, 'The Rest of the Story,' and received a larger response to this program than any other he has ever aired." This was sent to me by e-mail. I have seen it many times before, and it contains a request to send it to everybody in my contact list so it will "go around the world" again. This is my way of doing that. Thanks to my sister for sending it. Does the fact that the politicians who heard it walked out while thousands of "average people" loved it mean anything to you?

The New OBL Statement

Osama bin Laden? or a double?

The news media is enthusing over the possibility of another Osama bin Laden statement and what it might be about. My question is this: who cares about what Osama has to say? I certainly don't. I think the news media ought to ignore his "pronouncements" the same way they do things that might tend to hurt their preconceived notions of what is news. If the terrorists use such announcements as a means to send coded messages to his followers, they won't be able to do so. The media puts much too much importance on Osama's "pronouncements. I have several other questions: Why do Islamics mostly spell their names several different ways? Why do they usually have several different names by which they're known? Is that just to confuse us stupid Infidels? (Fox News)

Kennedys Love Dictators

Teddy ("The Swimmer") Kennedy

"Old Joe's grandson, formerly a congressman until he discovered he could double his 'earnings' by taking over the 'Citizen's energy Corporation' from his dead brother, LOVES Hugo Chavez. 'In his Globe commentary, 1-877-Joe-4-Oil planted a big, wet one on Senor Chavez.' Kennedy: 'Meanwhile, in Venezuela, the president is socializing [stealing -RT] his nation's oil profits." (Kennedys like socializing profit, as long as its not their own.) Poverty has dropped by 25 percent [Probably by "lowering the bar." -RT]. State-sponsored provision of basic needs like food and health care has expanded.' He has seen the future and it works -- especially for rich-boy gringos drawing hefty salaries to help frosty grandmothers. Kennedy: 'So, sure, we'll distribute Hugo's oil. Doing so is called compassionate capitalism (courtesy of a communist). Right now, our country's vulnerable families fend for themselves [Except for the myriad government programs designed to redistribute worker's earnings to non-workers. -RT], while the well-to-do can afford to throw snowballs at our program from the security of their warm homes and offices.' There you have it: If you dare question Joe Kennedy's partnership with the man who's turning Venezuela into a police state, you are a heartless plutocrat who doesn't give a damn for the shivering masses. Besides resorting to class warfare at the first hint of criticism, Kennedys are great at shilling for tyrants. Joe-4-Oil's alliance with Chavez is reminiscent of his grandfather's pre-World War II infatuation with another socialist tyrant -- National Socialist Adolf Hitler." (Front Page Magazine, 2/2/07)

Typical Liberal Stupidity

A liberal blog still makes the mistake of believing tax cuts come out of the government's pocket, and that the money that goes back to the non-rich doesn't matter. They say, " Remember, . . . with record deficits and all the bills from Iraq and the Katrina rebuilding piling up, the Bush administration's tax cuts would give $336 billion to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans over the next 5 years. That's money we are literally going to give away [Give away? Who owns it in the first place? -RT] to those handful [handful? -RT] of Americans who make an average of $1 million a year or more [Who pays the most taxes? -RT]. We can't afford it -- and it's time for the Democratic Party as a whole make that truth part of its core message moving forward." I ask them: "You think they aren't? That's been their main phony message for years. So long, in fact, that we're getting tired of it. They just refuse to understand that letting investors keep more of their money sparks investment in the kind of projects that create jobs and more tax liability for them, thus bringing in more money to the government. They think if the money doesn't come in directly to the government, there's something wrong. Sheesh! (Sirotablog,9/16/05)

Ya Think?

"New Wave Bulbs"

"More than 100 years after Thomas Edison perfected the incandescent light bulb, two California lawmakers are pushing to make California the first state to ban it. Democratic Assemblyman Lloyd Levine said he wants to phase out the incandescent bulb in favor of the more energy-efficient compact fluorescent bulb. "They're cheaper for the consumer, they save the state money and they're better for the environment," Levine said of the energy-efficient bulbs. Republican State Sen. George Runner, however, said banning incandescent bulbs amounts to lawmakers dictating how people should live their lives." That's the "nanny state." They should have a plaque outside the state offices saying, "I don't like it. Ban it." What gives them the right to just ban things they don't like? I don't know of anything in ANY Constitution that gives ANY state (or the feds) that right, just because lawmakers don't like something. So how do they consistently get away with banning legal things, just because they don't like them? Their common defense to such questions is, "If it saves just ONE life, it's worth it." But it ISN'T. If they followed that reasoning, they'd ban the automobile, which has killed thousands of people every year. But they don't, because that would cause riots with them as the subject of the riot. So they just ban small things and hope more people don't care than do. If we ALLOW them to ban things, they'll continue. If we finally stand up on our "hind legs" and say, "NO MORE," maybe they'll stop, so they can remain alive. (Detroit News, 2/1/07)

Egregious Media Lies

Charlie Wilson and Tom Hanks

"Media Bias: Hollywood would have us believe that Democrats defeated the evil empire in Afghanistan, and that President Reagan played only a minor role and even helped pave the way to 9/11." Actually, it was just the other way around. Charlie Wilson was a "playboy politician" and continues to be a playboy. His efforts were only peripheral in doing what it took to defeat the communists in Afghanistan while Reagan and The Pope led the way. "Charlie Wilson was a pro-abortion, Equal Rights Amendment-supporting congressman widely known as 'the liberal from Lufkin.' To his credit, he did play a role in facilitating support to the Afghan mujahadeen. But it is he who should be the historical footnote. It was Ronald Reagan, not Charlie Wilson, who gave the order to provide the mujahadeen with the Stinger missiles that denied the Soviet air supremacy and turned the tide of battle after 1986. Yet in the movie, the likes of Dan Rather and Diane Sawyer (director Mike Nichol's wife) are more prominently mentioned. To be fair, the movie doesn't mention Jimmy Carter either. It was his naiveté about Communist expansion that led the Soviets to invade Afghanistan in the first place. Had Reagan not beaten Carter in 1980 there would have been no Stingers and no victory in the Cold War. But don't expect a movie about Reagan's victory over communism or Carter's surrender to it." I spend most of my time pointing out the lies the media and Hollywood bring you, hoping you'll believe it. This is one of the biggest examples. (Investor's Business Daily, 12/24/07)

Entrenched Liberals

John Bolton

One of the problems we have with our form of government is the "entrenched liberals" who don't care who is in the White House or in the majority in Congress. They've been there since before the current crop of politicians came in, and will be there long after they are gone. We need to have a system whereby the president can fire all of them when he takes power and install his own people in critical positions so he doesn't have to fight their continued efforts to stop him (the president) from accomplishing anything. I'm really getting tired of watching Bush try and try to do things, only to fail because of the "entrenched bureaucracy" he can't get rid of. I know that would force him to have a "long list" of people to put into sensitive positions, and the liberal politicians would be fighting him all the way, especially on positions requiring their "advice and consent." I know this would work the other way, too, but since there are no "entrenched conservatives" in our government (to speak of), maybe we can create some. They stopped the approval of one of the best politicians to come along in a long time, John Bolton, from being approved for the post of Ambassador to the United Nations, so Bush had to give him a "recess appointment" that didn't last long. Now he's unemployed, but if Republicans get enough power in the next administration (a long shot) he should be appointed Secretary of State and Condi elevated to vice-president. (News Max, 12/25/07)

AlGore's Swindle

"It was five years before the turn of the century and major media were warning of disastrous climate change. Page six of The New York Times was headlined with the serious concerns of “geologists.” Only the president at the time wasn’t Bill Clinton; it was Grover Cleveland. And the Times wasn’t warning about global warming -- it was telling readers the looming dangers of a new ice age. The year was 1895, and it was just one of four different time periods in the last 100 years when major print media predicted an impending climate crisis. Each prediction carried its own elements of doom, saying Canada could be “wiped out” or lower crop yields would mean “billions will die.” [Emphasis mine. -RT] I love liberals! Because their tired, old "theories" are so easy to disprove. Such as the one where they insist that "there are no absolutes" by making an absolute statement. Global warming is the same. All you have to do is look at history to see how stupid are their "theories." Climate change is a "natural phenomena" and is "cyclical." It has been since the world began, without destroying, or even hurting the world in general. AlGore won't even debate global warming on its merits any more. If an eminent weather scientist disagrees with his ignorant claims, he simply says that scientist "is no longer in the 'mainstream' of science" and refuses to debate it other than that. He is now claiming that all those who disagree with him are simply "global warming deniers," as if that discredited them. He says global warming is "settled science," and bases that on what he calls a "scientific consensus." I've got news for you, Al. "Consensus" is not science. Science is or is not. No amount of "voting" by one scientist against another is going to change science. He calls such people "flat-earthers." But that's what I call the "snake-oil salesman" who are pushing Al's con and making millions on it by planting trees on your money. (BMI)

What A Difference A few Months Make!

That's how long it finally took Harry (Sleaze) Reid to figure out that "The Surge" has made a difference in the Iraq pacification effort (Not war -- the war part was over in a week). On April 19, he was still insisting the Surge didn't work. But on December 21, he admitted, "well, I might have been wrong" (not a quote, but might have been) and "The Surge" is working after all. And he was SO sure! Is there anything else he has been insisting on that's wrong?

Typical Political Meddling

The new energy bill just passed by the Senate bans incandescent light bulbs in favor of those silly-looking compact fluorescent bulbs that cost more but are supposed to last longer, thus saving you money in the long run. Are they afraid to let "the market" rule? If they truly are a lot cheaper in the long run, their supposed value to the environment won't matter. People will buy them and the old-style incandescent bulb will disappear. If not, it is they that will disappear -- unless the government meddles in "the market" again, forcing people to buy them whether they want to do so or not. Where in the Constitution does it say the government can force us to buy a specific kind of bulb? I can't believe Bush has said he will sign this one. Are they forgetting that if you break one, you have a "disaster cleanup" situation costing $3,000 or more (if you're stupid enough to ask a bureaucrat what to do) because of the poisonous mercury powder inside? When are they going to stop "forcing the issue" while refusing to consider the unforeseen consequences of their actions? (USA Today, 12/16/07)

Surprise, Surprise!

"Arizona raised the minimum wage and cost many jobs for young workers without salable skills. "Oh, for the days when Arizona's high school students could roll pizza dough, sweep up sticky floors in theaters or scoop ice cream without worrying about ballot initiatives affecting their earning power. That's certainly not the case under the state's new minimum-wage law that went into effect last month. Some Valley employers, especially those in the food industry, say payroll budgets have risen so much that they're cutting hours, instituting hiring freezes and laying off employees. And teens are among the first workers to go." And that's exactly what those "damned right-wingers" were predicting. Funny. Most of what they predict comes true because they know what's going to happen when the "pie-in-the-sky" liberals make their stupid laws. The liberals just refuse to admit it, and are "surprised" when our predictions come true. (Arizona Central, 2/10/06)

Is "Time Magazine" Communist?

I swear, is there a communist dictator or terrorist that Time Magazine hasn't named their "person of the year?" It's almost as if they want to irritate every American. I can't think of any other reason to name Vladmir Putin (a former KVD man responsible for the deaths of many, including some of his own political opponents) as "person of the year." What are the editors of Time thinking? How can they even consider awarding such a man their highest honor? Are they just ignorant? Or are they stupid? Naturally, the picture they choose to use on their web site is of Putin "looking down his nose" disdainfully at us from his "exalted" position on what appears to be a throne. Or did he choose it? (Time, /07)

Muslim Man Kills Daughter

Why would any man want to murder his own daughter? In this case, a member of a "peaceful religion" killed her because she refused to wear the traditional Muslim headscarf Muslim women are forced to wear in public. In another case, a former Muslim woman is in hiding from her own father because she converted from Islam to another religion. Another Muslim killed his daughter for "the dishonor" of having a boyfriend. Then there is the Muslim woman who killed her own daughter after her sons raped her because she was "afraid" she was going to be unfaithful (Warning: the language they use is less than inviting) . Another father actually cut off his daughter's nose (see photo above) to make her less attractive. Such stories are plentiful among Muslims. Even stories about the "Purity Police" beating young women when they fled from a fire without their head scarfs and robes. Muslim "authorities" tell us this is not allowed, when speaking in public, but encourage it in private, depending on our not understanding their language. (American Thinker, 12/5/07)

Global Hot Air

It's the "end of the discussion." I'm always skeptical when someone declares "the end of discussion" by citing computer models and false assertions instead of REAL science. Professor Thomas Sowell tells about Professor Fred Singer, who designed the very instruments other scientists use to measure global temperature and who has suffered from an attempt to "marginalize" him due to his opposition to global warming., "Other serious scientists who are not on the global warming bandwagon include a professor of meteorology at MIT, Richard S. Lindzen. His name was big enough for the National Academy of Sciences to list it among the names of other experts on its 2001 report that was supposed to end the debate by declaring the dangers of global warming proven scientifically. Professor Lindzen then objected and pointed out that neither he nor any of the other scientists listed ever saw that report before it was published. It was in fact written by government bureaucrats -- as was the more recently published summary report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that is also touted as the final proof and the end of the discussion." By whose authority is this "the end of the discussion?" That's how they get their "consensus." They lie about things and falsely include the names of top climatological scientists as those who have "approved" of their claims. (Thomas Sowell, 2/16/07)

Press Obsessions

I can't begin to list all the press obsessions, Even just recently. But it has become absolutely ridiculous. In the last two weeks (when this was written), it has been Anna Nichole Smith, who tried to become a billionaire on the death of her "filthy rich," elderly husband, but ended up dead amidst the claims of what seems like hundreds of men who claim to be the father of her latest baby. (I could file a claim and have about as much chance as most of them) Then Britney Spears, who must be jealous of all the press attention that wasn't going to her, shaved her head. Flashing her unshaved vagina for photographers didn't work. Now she's got a share of the publicity, and one hopes her hair will grow out eventually and she won't lose custody of her children (she did) because of stupid behavior. But she'd have to kill herself for it to last. Last week, not many people were killed by terrorists' secreted bombs, so the news media must be desperate for some kind of "news" to "report." So now they're "stalking" Jennifer Mee. Her "claim to fame?" She was hiccupping for about a month. NBC flew her to New York, and the entire press corps there literally put her under siege to get her story. You'd think they could report some of the good things happening in Iraq, but they won't. That would not advance their "theory" and would be "good press work." (St. Petersburg Times, 2/20/07)

Court Blocks Liberal Insanity

"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that civilian courts no longer have the authority to consider whether the military is illegally holding foreigners. Barring detainees from the U.S. court system was a key provision in the Military Commissions Act, which Bush pushed through Congress last year to set up a system to prosecute terrorism suspects." I think this is the FIRST time ever that a court decision of this kind was necessary. Did anyone think we should release WWII combatants (Germans or Japanese) so they could go out and kill more Americans? Did we even consider demanding the Germans or Japanese release our POWs by their own court decisions? Even CONSIDERING such a thing should be evidence of INSANITY and those pushing it should be "put away" to protect them. The evidence that liberals in this country are ON THE SIDE of Islamic terrorists is getting to the point where they can no longer deny it and be believed by ANYBODY. (Breitbart, 2/20/07)

Hillary's "Soft Side?"

That's what they're all (liberals) talking about now after she found it necessary to fire Bill Sheheen (He'll [pop up somewhere else quietly) and apologize for his "selling drugs" crack about Obama. Of course, again, we heard her famous "I didn't know about that" whine. But it's not a "soft side." It's the recognition that she made a big mistake when she told Sheheen to say what he said. Oh. Do you believe her when she says she "didn't know?" I don't. How do you tell of a Clinton (Bill or Hillary) is lying? Their mouths are moving. There is no "soft side to Hillary, and she has no experience in the White House except for waiting outside while Bill gets oral sex in the Oval Office. Funny; every time somebody criticizes her, she whines about "not being ready for a woman president," while doing everything she can to prevent a run by a conservative woman. I'd vote for Condoleeza in a second, and she's a member of two favored groups: black, and a woman. But Hillary won't hear of it. She constantly talks about "change." But don't ask her what she wants to change because she can't answer. Besides: what "change" is there about a Clinton in the White House? (Breitbart, 12/14/07)

Colorado Alpine Rescue Team

Why is mountain rescue not a "budget item" for Colorado? Why should those who come and get you if you get lost or hurt in the mountains pay for it themselves or rely on "contributions" from concerned citizens? It seems like not a week gores by that we don't hear about somebody lost in the mountains of Colorado, requiring rescue. So why do the politicians in Denver not make mountain rescue a "budget item" like police or fire protection? It's obviously something that is needed, so why not? Does somebody have to die because they waited to call for help because they thought they'd be charged for rescue? (Alpine Rescue Team,)

The "Global Warming Religion"

Global warming is a "religion." Nobody could have done more to show that than the moderator of the last Republican debate before the Des Moines vote, Des Moines Register's Editor and moderator Carolyn Washburn did when she demanded a "show of hands" if you believe in global warming" from presidential candidates. Aside from insulting them by treating them like third-graders, she compounded the error by refusing to give candidate Fred Thompson one minute to give her a real answer. This is not the way you run such a debate. In real life, you give the candidates meaningful questions, and the time to answer them properly while monitoring their answers to make sure they actually address the questions asked. You do not demand the answer you want of all of them. Fred Thompson, alone among them, stood up and refused to "raise his hand" and asked for time to give a proper answer, which she refused to give him. Why these candidates fall for the liberal trick of having them attend a "debate" that is stacked against them by liberal-leaning groups such as the Des MoinesRregister, I don't know. But they do, and subsequently give the liberals "talking points" to use against them. Yes, global warming is real. But it is cyclical and has been going on as long as this world has been in existence. It is not "caused" by man and could not be caused by man. Nor can it be reversed by man, as Global Warming Pope AlGore and his acolytes say, while collecting millions of dollars from "carbon offsets" and other scams promoted by the global warming swindle. AlGore would call me a "global warming denier," as if there were something wrong with that. People who insisted the world was round and circled the sun were similarly ridiculed until "wiser heads" took over. Frankly, I get tired of hearing the "sky is falling" pronouncements by Gore and his henchmen and his feeble attempts to debunk everybody who disagrees with him without having to debate it on the issues. (Town Hall, 12/13/07)

Hillary Wants to "Take" Oil Profits

In a recent speech before other Democrats, Hillary Clinton said she wants to TAKE oil company profits and put the money into a "strategic energy fund. "What she really wants, is just to TAKE the money and use it to make her position more concrete by giving it away to people who didn't EARN it. Yes, the oil companies are making "record profits." But the "why" is important. The money they would normally be spending to hunt for more oil is now "profit," while the "greenies" keep them from hunting for oil anywhere withing sight of the United States while we start to run out of oil in this country and are forced to more and more rely on our enemies for or oil. (Breitbart, 2/1/07)

Methinks He Doth Protest Too Much

"Cuban leader Fidel Castro's recovery from intestinal surgery is satisfactory, his eldest son has said. The son, also named Fidel, said his father could eventually make a complete recovery from his illness. The 80-year-old leader was taken ill last July and is believed to be suffering from diverticulitis, a weakening of the walls of the colon." Do you believe that? I believe it about as much as I believe Osama bin Laden is still alive, the harder they try and convince us he is. I think bin Laden was made into a "crispy critter" years ago when we bombed one of his caves with him in it. They've been trying to convince us he's still alive ever since. I think they're trying to convince us Castro is not dying. And when he does, it'll take the world a long time (as is usual in communist countries) to find out. (BBC News, 2/16/07)

Global Warming Scam Based on False Data

"In the United States, the calendar year 1998 ranked as the hottest of them all -- until someone checked the math. After a Toronto skeptic tipped NASA this month to one flaw in its climate calculations, the U.S. agency ordered a full data review. Days later, it put out a revised list of all-time hottest years. The Dust Bowl year of 1934 now ranks as hottest ever in the U.S. -- not 1998. More significantly, the agency reduced the mean U.S. 'temperature anomalies' for the years 2000 to 2006 by 0.15 degrees Celsius. NASA officials have dismissed the changes as trivial. Even the Canadian who spotted the original flaw says the revisions are 'not necessarily material to climate policy.' [Of course. -RT] But the revisions have been seized on by conservative Americans, including firebrand radio host Rush Limbaugh, as evidence that climate change science is unsound." [It is. -RT] Unfortunately for them, the data they used IS "unsound. It always HAS been unsound. Notice how they try to "play it down." Notice also that they made no effort to change anything in their predictions, and AlGore ignored it completely, as he always ignores ANYTHING that tends to prove his scam wrong. Yes, those who believe Gore's scam is wrong use this as "evidence" that the science is unsound. We ALWAYS use TRUTH to prove these people wrong, and we always will. (The Star, 8/14/07)

Typical Politics

Wait until somebody dies, then "fix the problem" and take credit for it, ignoring all those who have, in the past, pleaded with you to fix it. Then get rid of them so they can't tell that they tried. Ed Stein, elite liberal cartoonist with the Rocky Mountain News in Denver, Colorado, doesn't often get it right, but once in a while he "hits it right on the head." He does so in this case, using the collapse of the bridge in Minneapolis as a good example of how fast Congress (or any legislature) can act when they want to. I was personally involved in a good example years ago in Florida when I was a paramedic. Where we worked, they used a "zone system" where patients must be picked up by an ambulance from the zone they were in. We happened upon an emergency on the way back from a hospital that was a block outside our zone and offered to transport the patient, who was under cardiac arrest treatment. Remember, we were ONE BLOCK AWAY from the hospital. But NO! We were in somebody else's zone! So the cops waited around for another fifteen minutes while the zone ambulance, which was at the other end of their zone, got there. The patient died, and I went ballistic. I made such a fuss that the man in charge of emergency medical services in the county lost his job and best of all, a new rule was instituted that allowed the ranking EMT (Emergency Medical Technician) on the scene to order the transport in a "life and death" situation. A good move. But unfortunately too late for the patient whose death caused it all. However, that change may have saved many other lives and I'm proud of my part in it. (Rocky Mountain News, 8/15/07)

What About "The Religious Left?"

The Liberals say that "the religious right" is more than two-thirds of conservatives, as though to be a non-liberal is to be, in their milieu, a "religious bigot." But what about the "religious left?" Nobody (except people like me) say anything about the lies the "religious left" tell because those lies are told by liberals. Liberals don't get questioned in today's media because they cannot answer. And the media knows it and wouldn't dream of embarrassing them. They don't want non-liberals to know the National Council of Churches and its ilk exist because then they couldn't speak so strongly against the "religious right." Frankly, except for the lies told by the "religious left" about conservatives, there is nothing wrong with EITHER side being "religious." Not that they would agree with me. Frankly, coming down so hard on "the religious right" is simply another liberal attempt to divides us into "warring groups" who are so busy arguing over their lies we don't have time, or interest, in stopping their crimes. (Washington Post, 5/21/05)

Aussie PM Does About-Face on KYOTO

He gave the U. S. a hard time about "carrying your weight" on global warming and made a lot of noise about "joining KYOTO" when he knew nothing about what that would entail even though people who pay attention know global warming is the biggest swindle in history. But I'll give him credit for doing what is necessary when he found out what it would cost his country. Most politicians (mostly liberal politicians) wouldn't do that. They'd just "tough it out" and hope you'll forget. Hey, Kevin: maybe you ought to look at the figures. Just because America won't sign KYOTO doesn't mean we aren't better than most countries (many of whom are excluded from compliance) at cleaning up our own messes. (Herald-Sun, 12/7/07)

Typical Liberal Smear Destroyed

They tried to say Ann Coulter voted in the wrong district and by so doing, "criminalize" her. But it didn't work. The election commission said it didn't happen the way it was described and she did nothing illegal. So do you think the liberals will stop saying it? No. Finding out the truth has never stopped the liberals from pursuing their nefarious claims before, so why should it now? The interesting thing is, if that's all they have against her, what does that tell us? (News Max, 12/10/07)

Pelosi Approves of "Waterboarding"

"Four top members of Congress, including now House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, got a close look at CIA overseas detention sites and interrogation techniques in September 2002 and offered no challenge to their legitimacy, according to a news article out Sunday, in the Washington Post. On the contrary, at least two lawmakers involved in the briefing that day questioned whether the CIA was pushing hard enough, even after hearing the details of the now widely criticized technique known as waterboarding, two US officials told The Washington Post. that The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough, one official is quoted saying. ... Waterboarding has since become the pariah of interrogation techniques. Porter Goss, a former CIA director and congressman who chaired the House intelligence panel at the time of the briefings, told The Post, 'Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing, and the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement.' " Yet today, all of them are complaining about it being "too much. "Even Pelosi, who succumbed to the Islamic demand that she "cover her head" when she was in an Islamic land. [Emphasis mine. -RT] (Rush Limbaugh, 12/10/07)

I Toldya So!

Rush Limbaugh loves to be able to say, "I told you so!" So do I, especially when it saves even one life. Jeanne Assam proved me right again when she shot and killed an assailant at a Colorado Springs church when he was busily killing as many people at that church as he could. He did manage to kill two, and had 1,000 rounds in his backpack, many of which I'm sure he planned to use on these parishioners. But his plan, and his life, ended when he met Jeanne. At Columbine, even while the shooters were killing people, the principal told of peeking around a corner and watching while one of the shooters fired into a room. I thought about what could have happened if this principal (presumably a responsible person) had a "carry permit" and had a gun he could use to put a couple in the heads of the killers before they could kill more people. But no. All schools are "no-gun-zones," by law. The only person allowed to carry a gun there is a uniformed policeman who could be "taken out" early because he was easily identifiable (they tried). But if even one (responsible) person had a concealed weapon the shooter(s) didn't know about, the shooter(s) could be "taken out" early, thus saving many lives. But you can count on those asinine "anti-gun freaks" to miss this point entirely and move for many more anti-gun laws that such killers will ignore, as do other criminals (who don't obey laws). It's a shame we must have "armed security" in a church, even if that "security" is nothing more than an armed parishioner. But in today's world, you're not safe anywhere. And if someone points a gun at me and shoots, I want it to be the last thing he does in his life. (7 News Colorado, 12/10/07)

America Doesn't Offend Americans

In Broken Arrow, OK, school "authorities" remove "God Bless America" signs from the schools because they fear than might "offend" someone. So what? That offends ME. In Long Island, NY, Channel 12 News orders flags removed from the lapels of reporters and red, white, and blue ribbons from the newsroom. Why? Management didn't want to appear "biased" and felt that our nation's flag might give the appearance that "they leaned one way or the other." Seems to me they ought to "lean one way or the other" when it comes to respecting the symbols of our country. If they don't, some day, the Islamic terrorists will kill them. In Berkeley, CA, they banned the displaying of U. S. flags because they didn't want to "offend anybody." I am "offended" by such actions, so what are they going to do about that? Or do they care about what offends me? Do they only care about what offends people who have come here to live, but want to bring their own culture along with them? If I were to move to, say, France, to live, I'm going to learn the French language and I am not going to demand that the French cater to my needs and learn my language in order to deal with me. I am going to become as "French" as possible so as to not inhibit my own life in France. I personally don't care what "offends" immigrants who come here to live. This is America, and if they come here to live, they'd better learn how to be Americans and not demand we cater to them, because most of us won't. Those who do are ignorant. Every word out of my mouth offends someone and every word that goes on one of my blogs offends someone. That's the plan, because my blogs support truth, and some people hate the truth. It "offends" them. I couldn't care less. (Daily Mail)

Mass Killings

Nobody seems to know what's behind the recent spate of mass killings, mainly in schools, some in other venues, such as a mall in Omaha. Some blame the easy availability of guns. That's silly. If guns were not available, they'd use swords; or knives; or baseball bats; or anything else that would kill. The availability of the means to kill has nothing to do with the motivation to kill. What's behind these mass killings is the "shielding" of our children from failure, which does not allow them to learn how to deal with failure and they blame others for it. The urge to kill those they blame is not far away. (Ray Thomas 101)

Are The Poor Getting Poorer?

The IRS and the Census Bureau disagree. "Anyone who follows the media has probably heard many times that the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and incomes of the population in general are stagnating. Moreover, those who say such things can produce many statistics, including data from the Census Bureau, which seem to indicate that. On the other hand, income tax data recently released by the Internal Revenue Service [Those who deal with REAL figures. -RT] seem to show the exact opposite: People in the bottom fifth of income-tax filers in 1996 had their incomes increase by 91 percent by 2005. The top one percent -- 'the rich' who are supposed to be monopolizing the money, according to the left -- saw their incomes decline by a whopping 26 percent. Meanwhile, the average taxpayers’ real income increased by 24 percent between 1996 and 2005. How can all this be? How can official statistics from different agencies of the same government -- the Census Bureau and the IRS -- lead to such radically different conclusions?" That's easy. One is run by bureaucrats who are only interested in what liberals want (Census Bureau) and the other is one that has to deal with REAL figures and couldn't care less what liberals want) Economist and professor Thomas Sowell 12/4/07)

Who The Hell Does Kennedy Think He Is?

Senator Teddy Kennedy has the biggest mouth in Congress, while he really should be at home sipping mint juleps after serving a long prison term for murdering his pregnant girlfriend, Mary Jo Kopechne. He has no right to criticize anybody or anything. He should be a felon and forever banned from elective office. Yet, like his former Grand Kleagle colleague (the only senator older than he is), he continues to ignore his felonies and criticizes his betters. Kennedy was a well-known drunk driver in that area and has been caught many times driving drunk. It was only a matter of time before he killed someone, but little did anyone know it would be his pregnant girlfriend. He "ran from the cops" many times and once was found hiding by laying down on the front seat of his car. I question why his colleagues have allowed him to remain in the Senate, and especially as an "honored" senator. "Chappaquiddick has been called 'the most brilliant cover-up ever achieved in a nation where investigative procedures are well developed and where the principles of equal justice prevail, at least during some of those moments where people are watching.' -The Last Kennedy by Robert Sherrill. (International Herald Tribune, 12/7/07)

Good for Democrats, Bad for Us

Anything that's good for the country is bad for the Democrats. Did you hear the same excitement in their voices as the stock market moved to new record highs, time after time -- if they reported it at all? The stock market every once in a while has a "pause" and that's healthy. But if you go back and look at what it has done over time, it's ALWAYS generally in an UPWARD movement. When it goes down, it's time to BUY! But not according to the liberal media. Any downward movement, no matter how sort of duration is "panic time." Rush Limbaugh said, "Was the Drive By Media this excited when the stock market was torching along through the 14,000 mark? They're stoking the flames of economic misery. It's irresponsible, but we're used to that. They ignored the market on the way up and they're doing all they can to drive it down. Remember Dick Gephardt salivating a few years ago that every 100-point drop in the market translated to another Democrat seat in Congress? The state of the economy, the housing slump, and the Democrat desire to exploit them, became a show-long discussion (on a Friday Rush show). From what I've been hearing, I've been through several stock market 'crashes,' but I never noticed because it didn't affect me. Look back to the first of the year. If the market goes back there, we'll STILL finish the year at record highs." (Rush Limbaugh, 8/17/07)

Press Twists Figures, As Usual

The New York Times did a story recently in which it blatantly twisted figures to make you think the economy is going downward. They did it in the simplest manner, emphasizing two years (at the end of Clinton's "reign" and during which the economy was reeling after 9/11) and completely ignoring three later years (under the Bush tax cuts) in which the economy continued the rise that began under Reagan by 4.1%. The Boston Globe did a similar story, using the same scam. And you think the press doesn't lie to you? (Thanks to "News Busters") (News Busters, 8/21/07)

Zippy's So Right! (This Time)

I don't much like the "Zippy the Pinhead" comic strip because it usually makes no sense at all. But this particular strip (at least in the last panel) made so much sense I thought I'd bring it to your attention. His point is that the only reason Democrats are able to raise so much money and get elected time after time is because of the "short attention span" of so many voters. Add to that the fact that most voters "pay no attention to politics" until a few months or weeks before an election that there's no way they can get the right information with which to vote intelligently. This accounts for the relative success of the DNC, except for short periods of sanity in which Republicans get elected. (Zippy, 8/7/07)

The War's A Failure Because...

If you're wrong, change the subject. That's the system the Democrats (liberals) use. First they told us we couldn't win in Iraq and if we did, there'd be attacks in America and Israel and Turkey would invade. Also that Saddam would use WMDs on our troops. "We took Baghdad in about 17 days flat with amazingly few casualties. There were no al-Qaida attacks in America, no attacks on Israel, no invasion by Turkey, no attacks on our troops with chemical weapons, no ayatollahs running Iraq. We didn't turn our back on the Kurds. There were certainly not 100,000 dead American troops. But liberals soon began raising yet more pointless quibbles. For most of 2003, they said the war was a failure because we hadn't captured Saddam Hussein. Then we captured Saddam, and Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean complained that 'the capture of Saddam has not made America safer.' [Yeah, but we won the war! -RT] (On the other hand, Howard Dean's failure to be elected president definitely made America safer.) Next, liberals said the war was a failure because we hadn't captured Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Then we killed al-Zarqawi and a half-dozen of his aides in an air raid. Then they said the war was a failure because ... you get the picture." It doesn't matter what we accomplish, it's not good enough for the liberal Democrats -- unless they win the presidency in 2008. Then they'll start saying every terrorist captured is a "victory for our side." Sheesh! Whatta buncha joiks! (Ann Coulter 9/12/07)

Franken Serious -- No One Else Is

Former comedian Al Franken says his run for the Senate is "no joke." It is to me. But then, the Democrats have elected many "jokes" to office, and Franken is one of the biggest. He's a good example of why the Democrats will ultimately become the "forgotten party" when the citizens of this country come to their senses in large enough numbers. Remember, this guy is the one who thought "Air America" was going to be a whopping success, and who was the "first rat to leave the sinking ship" when it couldn't pay the "talent." Will he quit the Senate when he finds out they're operating at a deficit? Or does he just want to work for someone who can still pay his salary, even if they have to "print money" to do it? (New York Times, 12/5/07)

Ahmadinijerk Thinks He's Winning

Isn't that an ugly mug up there? Take a look in those eyes. This is a man who wants to kill you and everyone else who doesn't believe the same way he does. He's a terrorist who somehow got himself elected president in a terrorist country and has the ignorant feeling that he can ultimately whip the United States. He will be disabused of these notions. Meanwhile he, like most terrorists, will be responsible for many deaths. This is the man who was visibly involved in the kidnapping of U. S. diplomats during Jimmy Carter's "reign." He's the one who decided to release them right after Reagan was elected to make it look like Reagan had made a deal. When are his countrymen going to deal with him? His policies have already been responsible for much suffering among the people he thinks of as "the little people." They will be responsible for the deaths of many more as he continues to push us into a war with him -- which WE will win, as we did in Iraq, in a week. (My Way, 12/5/07)

Hope for Border Agents?

"Judge E. Grady Jolly, one of three judges from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said today that federal prosecutors (Johnny Sutton and his team) 'may have overreacted in their case against' Ramos and Compean. The agent's attorneys are asking the 5th Circuit to throw out the charges--especially in light of the recent arrest of Osvaldo Alrete-Davila, the drug smuggler whose testimony put the two border agents in prison! Referencing the harsh, decade long prison terms, Jolly questioned Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Steimach saying, 'It does seem to me that the government overreacted here.' No word was given as to when a ruling might be handed down." [If any. -RT] (Grassfire.org,)

Ignorance

Ignorance is doing the same things over and over again while expecting different results. Some say that's the description of insanity. The "Prickly City" comic strip is right more often on things political than some strips that lean toward political comment. This one is about as right as it gets. This is strange, because when this strip was drawn, Stantis (the artist) was being replaced while he was away by several other artists, some even liberal. (Prickly City, 11/15/07)

Ungratedul

Another gem from Carl Spitzer: "A U.S. Navy Admiral was attending a naval conference that included Admirals from the U.S., English, Canadian, Australian and French Navies. At a cocktail reception, he found himself standing with a large group of Officers that included personnel from most of those countries. Everyone was chatting away in English as they sipped their drinks but a French admiral suddenly complained that, 'whereas Europeans learn many languages, Americans learn only English.' He then asked, 'Why is it that we always have to speak English in these conferences rather than speaking French?' Without hesitating, the American Admiral replied 'Maybe it's because the Brits, Canadians, Aussies and Americans arranged it so you wouldn't have to speak German.' You could have heard a pin drop" (Just common sense)

KYOTO Is A Scam

This photo is a scam that has been completely debunked. Polar bears don't get "stranded." They can swim more than 100 miles and float for a long time. They don't get cold. They love the cold. It's well-known in circles where people "pay attention to politics" for more than a few months before an election that the United Nations wants two things of its members: 1: more power over them; and 2: more money from their citizens. President Clinton refused (rightly so) to sign the KYOTO Treaty because it contained provisions that would destroy our sovereignty and cost us BILLIONS in tax dollars. Just because he's a "sexaholic" and a socialist doesn't mean he's dumb. Now KYOTO is revealing its true nature by "assessing" many of its members for "not meeting" the impossible standards it imposed on them. That's the scam. Get them to sign and agree to abide by their "standards." Then the "standards" change, becoming impossible to meet, and the taxpayers in the signatory countries suffer. Notice this item comes from "News Busters." That's because you won't find any reference to it (or buried reference) in most liberal news sources. (News Busters,

11/30/07)

Ten Years to Solve Global Warming

AlGore said that -- 15 years ago. In 1988, Ted Danson (you know, that well-known environmental expert) told us we had ten years to fix the oceans. In 1984, Michael Oppenheimer told "This Week With Brinkley" we had about 20 years to fix global warming or we all die. That has been 23 years ago, but none of these people have retracted their statements. They just repeat them. There is NO scientific evidence (except for "junk science") to support them, but they continue to bray. Apparently they're all students of Hitler's PR man, who said the way to make a lie into truth is to repeat it, over and over, to anyone who would listen. Soon, the lie would be "truth," and the "believers" would fight you if you tried to deny the lie. Now they're calling those who oppose them "global warming deniers," as if there's something wrong with that. One of the latest to repeat this lie is "The Inquirer" in The Phillipines. Funny -- I can find no mention of it on their web site. (The Inquirer,)

Non-Partisan? Gimme A Break!

The Pew Research Organization says they are "non-partisan. Yet they run ads regularly promoting the idea that the government is "kowtowing" to the car companies by not making a law to REQUIRE that they invent a car that gets 35 or more MPH by 2010, something that a majority of scientists say is impossible under current technology. They also say it could be done without a reduction in performance or an increase in cost. I've heard THAT before. Funny. I can't seem to find a single reference to this on their web site. Maybe you can. If you do, please let me know. (Pew Research, /07)

Bureaucrat's Revenge

When California passed Prop. 13, limiting the California politicians' ability to raise tax money, they promised to cut appropriations . . . for police and fire services, while continuing to support their favorite "pork" programs. When they passed the "Tabor Amendment" in Colorado, doing something similar, they actually created a verb: "To Tabor." Similarly, they promised to cut appropriations, for essential services, and they did. Meanwhile, they blamed every funding problem that came up on Tabor, creating a "straw man" they could blame for everything. Recently, they asked the voters to allow them to keep the money that hasn't been spent because of Tabor and they got it, increasing the fund they could spend by millions. Then in Denver, they passed 13 (count 'em, 13) new tax and spend measures giving Denver alone 5-1/2 BILLION dollars in new taxes. There are constantly new "Tax and spend" measures under "consideration" while the Denver Post buries them.

Some Comics Get it Right

"Prickly City" gets it right more often than most, and this particular day they get it righter than even most conservative sources when they describe Hillary as a U. S. Senator without much of a record who grasps at power by clinging to a man who turned their marriage into a national joke, and by being the "one woman who didn't fool around with Bill while he was president is now the Democrat's front-runner." When you think about it, the "35-year's-of-experience" she claims is while she was Bill's "caboose." when HE was "in office." The only "experience" I think she should get is being defeated in her next election. (Prickly City, 11/21/07)

Hell Must Have Frozen Over

That's what I thought would happen before Rep. John Murtha admitted we were "making military progress in Iraq. But it happened, and it got him in trouble. Now he's "clarifying" his earlier statement after a "trip to the woodshed" last week. There'll be no apology from him for making all those nasty remarks about American soldiers in Iraq. At least, I'm pretty sure, going by the actions of the many other Democrats who have been proven wrong. They don't apologize. They just "move on (that's where the name "moveon.org" came from -- their tendency to just "move on" without apologizing.)" and hope you'll forget they ever said it. "How much coverage has his turnaround received? Zero. Nada. Zipadeedooda. Iraq has fallen of the radar of the media's attention. It was barely mentioned in the Republican debate the other night and Democrats have suddenly lost their voice when it comes to talking about the war. What will historians say about this remarkable, agonizing, maddening situation? The towering unfairness of it all will have to be corrected by those who study this period in American history and, when looking back over a hundred years time, marvel at the stupidity and deviousness of those who would rather lose a war and win an election than support the United States in its hour of need." (American Thinker, 11/30/07)

"Peaceful Muslims" Want to Kill Teacher

Remember Gillian Gibbons, the teacher who was jailed for "allowing" her students to name a teddy bear Mohammed? She could have been flogged (45 lashes), but wasn't. They put her in jail for 15 days and plan to deport her. But those "peaceful Muslim citizens" aren't satisfied. They want her executed. One was even heard to say, "If I find her I'll kill her myself." Is this how "peaceful people" react to someone who doesn't understand how bloodthirsty Muslims are about their "prophet?" Would they like to kill ME for this blog item? Remember, these aren't (necessarily) those Islamic terrorists speaking. It's everyday Muslim citizens. Those "peaceful" people. Seems to me I've heard a lot about "tolerance" for the Muslim religion. Should "tolerance" only go in one direction? (The Sun, 12/1/07)

Drug Eradication: Too Little, Too Late

"According to a recent report from the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime [certainly not a "right-wing extremist" organization. -RT], 19,047 hectares of poppies were eradicated in Afghanistan this year, 24 percent more than in 2006. Meanwhile, the number of opium-free provinces more than doubled, from six to 13. Those victories were somewhat overshadowed by the news that the total amount of land devoted to opium poppies in Afghanistan rose from 165,000 to 193,000 hectares, an increase of 17 percent. Due to “favorable weather conditions,” estimated opium production rose even more, hitting an all-time high of 8,200 metric tons, 34 percent more than the previous record, set last year." The number of people in the United States abusing drugs are about twice as many now as when the "drug war" began. Tell me again why we are "fighting a war on drugs." (Jacob Sullum/The Atlasphere, 11/26/07)