Video Apology, Please Mr. Hansen!

Dr. James Hansen

Dr. Michael Griffin, NASA, chief administrator has come under fire for a couple of statements that he’s made about global warming. Dr. Griffin said that he is not sure that Global warming is a problem we [human beings] must wrestle with and secondly it is not NASA’s mandated charge to spend its resources, time, materials and man power validating the theory of global warming.

Dr. Griffin was excoriated for his views called ignorant and was made to apologize to a NASA scientific community of warm-earthers or anthropogenic global warming advocates on video no less.

James Hansen being one of the NASA scientist that demanded Dr. Griffin’s apology and chief whipping boy is director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. (Note his title refers to “space studies”) Hansen is the consummate warm-earther, shill for Global warming/climate change.

And as NASA’s resident name caller he has a lot at stake in making his boss bow down to the consensus and the theory of anthropogenic global warming. Why? Because most of the global warming models are built on Mr. Hansen work and if the theory is wrong, Mr. Hansen is wrong.

But that wouldn’t bias Hansen, no way, now would it?

Hansen was once profiled on CBS' "60 Minutes" as the "world's leading researcher on global warming," [And] Hansen acted as a consultant to Al Gore's slide-show presentations on global warming. [H]e endorsed John Kerry for president, and received a $250,000 grant from the foundation headed by Teresa Heinz Kerry. –Investors Business Daily

Remember when Hansen was asked about Dr. Griffin’s remarks concerning global warming his response was, "I almost fell off my chair."
"It was a shocking statement because of the level of ignorance it indicated with regard to the current situation," –James Hansen

James Hansen has the dubious distinction of being Al Gore’s brain and he is well connected in the warm-earther society enough to have received grant moneys from them but he’s not bias, nooo, because he’s a scientist. (Yeah right!)

However it’s NASA with all that rocket scientist brain power that is red faced when it comes to the controversial topic of global warming because a single retired executive, Stephen McIntyre, blogging in his pajamas discovered that the brain trust at NASA was putting out errant data in their attempts to support the theory of man-made climate change.

McIntyre discovered that NASA’s unadjusted data regarding Surface Temperature Analysis was the reason for their errant claims and called it to their attention which immediately voided the claim that 1998 was the hottest year ever.
NASA responded by this half-hearted acknowledgement and correction of their mistake.

(We wish to thank Stephen McIntyre for bringing to our attention that such an adjustment is necessary to prevent creating an artificial jump in year 2000.)

However because of Mr. McIntyre due diligence it has been determined that three of the top 10 hottest years are in the last decade not this decade and 1998 was not the hottest year ever.

Four of the top ten are in the 1930's, before either the IPCC or the GISS really think man had any discernible impact on temperatures. Further thanks to Mr. McIntyre the correct listing for the top ten hottest days are 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938 and 1939. Source Link

NASA claimed, largely due to James Hansen’s work, that 1998 ranked as the hottest year ever in the United States and published that so called finding to the “ooos” and “aahs” of their fellow warm-earthers.

These findings seemed to fit quite neatly into the warm-earther theorists claims that man made activity such as recent factory output producing CO2 emissions plus the thousands of SUV’s on the roads were the primary cause for the earth’s temperature reaching dangerous levels and the Greenland glacier melt.

However, recent research has found that Greenland has been warming since the 1880's, but since 1955, temperature averages at Greenland stations have been colder than the period between 1881-1955. Meaning that glaciers have been warming since the 1880’s (that’s 100 years, count them, of melting) that would put any melting of Greenland glaciers outside of the timeline for the claim of anthropomorphic CO2 emissions climate change.

What is so ironic about this whole sorted affair is that Dr. Griffin’s statements regarding climate change attempted to remove NASA out of the politics of global warming and into the business of space exploration which it is mandated to do and he did this graciously without attempting to prejudice anyones work.

For his efforts he was called ignorant and made to apologize. Dr. Griffin said:

“I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change.

First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.” – Dr. Michael Griffin, NASA, chief administrator

He also said:

“Nowhere in NASA's authorization, which of course governs what we do, is there anything at all telling us that we should take actions to affect climate change either one way or another.”- Dr. Michael Griffin, NASA, chief administrator

Dr. Griffin is right, James Hansen and NASA’s warm-earther contingency are wrong. As well Hansen and his colleagues are what is wrong with science, they are the epitome of what happens when scientists sell out to politically correct agendas to receive popular acclaim and grant moneys.

We demand the same treatment that was foisted on Dr. Griffin we want an apology for the wrong data that NASA published and an apology for the politicalization of the space exploration agency by shills such as James Hansen who represents a warm-earther agenda and we want it on video!

NASA owes us an Apology and we want it on Video!

Dr. Michael Griffin, NASA, chief administrator

(Warm-earther – one who advocates the theories and consensus belief of anthropogenic global warming to the extreme of resisting any and all scientific proof to the contrary)

Dr. Michael Griffin, NASA, chief administrator tried to tell them. But the politically correct consensus of the warm-earther scientific community of NASA would have nothing of it.

Instead they drove him to his knees and demanded that he renounce the contrarian denier’s spirit that had obviously possessed him. They then forced him to do twenty hail warmings and 40 our father of global warming, Al Gores!

Under tremendous puerile peer pressure Dr. Griffin prostrated himself on the floor with arms out streched at his sides (looking like an airplane) he proclaimed that he was in league with the devil (or fellow deniers, they’re synonymous) and from henceforth he would not perform the witchcraft of truth telling ever again.

Even if he is again asked his personal opinion he will never venture to say anything but what is the accepted warm-earther scientific theory (based on consensus opinion) on any matter. So help him Robert Hooke or Galileo Galilei the father of modern science. (Whom you chose is depended upon whether you agree with Albert Einstein or not.)

What? You don’t believe me? They got it on video!

Well all right, they have his renouncement of what he said in the NPR interview, I admit I am speaking with my tongue-in-cheek, I doubt he really laid prostrate on the floor while he gave his confession but they do have his apology on video!

Seriously though, you and I should understand that Dr. Griffin’s acquiescing to the warm-earthers means that he never can have an independent thought ever again.

Further it means that whatever he says for public consumption from this point on will undoubtedly be in consensus with the consensus. And whatever he says will be to appease his warm-earther scientific consensus and grand inquisitor high-council housed there at NASA. Kind of Big Brother and 1984, wouldn’t you say?

Dr. Griffin was attempting to state that NASA’s proper and official role is a space exploration agency not a shiny new Sharper Image™ global warming weather vane for warm-earther fanatics and for that truth Griffin was rebuffed.

Dr. Griffin explained:

“Nowhere in NASA's authorization, which of course governs what we do, is there anything at all telling us that we should take actions to affect climate change in either one way or another.”

What, blasphemy! Everyone knows that NASA’s primary directive coming from the politically correct warm-earthers is to provide data to support their on going theories of anthropogenic global warming, come on Dr. Griffin get with it!

So when Dr. Griffin intimated that NASA resources, materials, manpower and time where being diverted to concerns outside of the operating mandate of NASA he was called ignorant and the warm-earthers demanded an apology. And we all know what a demand for an apology means today! It is a not so subtle threat for either the good Dr. to recant his previous statements or lose this job. So Dr. Griffin do, he recanted!

This is an excerpt from the NPR interview in question:

(Q)It has been mentioned that NASA is not spending as much money as it could to study climate change — global warming — from space. Are you concerned about global warming?

(A)I'm aware that global warming exists. I understand that the bulk of scientific evidence accumulated supports the claim that we've had about a one degree centigrade rise in temperature over the last century to within an accuracy of 20 percent. I'm also aware of recent findings that appear to have nailed down — pretty well nailed down the conclusion that much of that is manmade. Whether that is a longterm concern or not, I can't say.

(Q)Do you have any doubt that this is a problem that mankind has to wrestle with?

(A)I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change.

First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.

There is nothing in Dr. Griffin’s statement that warrant’s an apology but never-the-less he was asked to renounce his personal beliefs and unlike Luther before the Diet of Worms in 1521 Dr. Griffin did!

Continued.

--Tommorow why NASA owes us an Apology!

Is Karl Rove’s announcement to quit a cut and run?

Mr. Bush, right, followed by Mr. Rove, center, and then-White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, left, exiting the worldstage

Effective August 31, 2007 Karl Rove will bow out of the position which he as held since 2001, adviser to the President of the United States of America.

Because he was apart of the Bush administration Democrats made him a target as they’ve done with all members of the Bush administration. And you do know that the President’s approval rates are directly a result of Democrat efforts to make everything about President Bush unpopular.

So Rove was made a target as all of the Republicans are made targets by Democrats who refused to believe that Americans rejected them in 2000 and 2004 so they declared their very own war of personal destruction against Republicans; John Ashcroft, I. Scooter Libby, Donald Rumsfield, Alberto Gonzales, Tom Delay and Karl Rove. (Just to name a few)

Democrats claim that they hate Republicans and everything that Republicans stand for so they feel totally and perfectly justified in attempting to bring down or dismantling the Bush administration.

We know that all of the negatively had it’s genesis with the Democrats and that they have projected their own corruption on the Republican Party. Democrats had 49 years of corruption controlling both house of Congress before the little twelve year Republican blip on the political radar screen.

Don’t get me wrong Randy “Duke” Cunningham was corrupted and got what he deserved but if everyone in Congress got what he or she deserved I’m willing to bet that more Democrats would be looking for work in 2008 and 2010 than Republicans!

Which brings me to my point, Democrats have been hunting and hounding Karl Rove since the President won 2000 because, again as they have stated, they hate Republicans and everything that they stand for. I believe that if Mr. Rove is leaving because Democrats have successfully made him a target, a negative for the Bush administration, then he is leaving for the wrong reason. Because as long as there is a Republican that will resist the Liberalization of America that person will be hated and despised by the left.

Liberals are like misguided delinquent teens that hate and despise their parents for raising them, feeding them, clothing them and attempting to give them morals with which to live a better life.

It is absolutely stunning that Liberals can spend almost eight years making Republicans polarizing figures and then turn around and claim that a Republican such as Mr. Rove is a polarizing figure!

Thus if Mr. Rove is leaving because Democrats have made him a polarizing figure then the Democrats have won. The terrorist have won!

It’s too bad that Democrats didn’t use their abilities to demonize against the enemies of this country; bin Laden, Hussein, Chavez, Ahmadinejad and terrorist. Had Democrats treated the enemies of this country like they treated Republicans we might have had a better go in Afghanistan and Iraq.

That instead of a valued Presidential adviser quitting his post under the steady drumbeat of Democrat negativity, just think maybe it would have been our enemies who are on the battle field of Iraq that would have decided to up and quit.

If just only half the Democrat's negatively was directed against our enemies; al Qaeda, terrorists and Islamic extremists maybe the suicide bombers would have decided that their deaths would be pointless and they would rather spend more time with their families and maybe just maybe it would be terrorists who would have resigned from the field of battle.

But because we have allowed one Party to totally politicize everything so that they might gain some sort of political advantage we have condoned the cutting off of our collective nose to spite our face.

Thus a valued political adviser is quitting because the other political Party ginned up enough hate to drive him away from serving America.

Whether you agreed with the politics of Karl Rove or not do we really want politics in America reduced solely to the politics of hate?

That’s intolerance and I will not support anyone or any Party that claims to be accepting of all things but hateful of White Protestant males and or Christians, or Conservatives or Republicans.

If you hate any of the above you are neither tolerant nor are you good for America.

And if Mr. Rove is leaving because of your intolerance he is cutting and running!

Democrats Now Telling the Truth About Iraq?

Anti-Iraq war advocates, US Democratic Senator from New York Charles Schumer (C) US Senate Majority Leader Senator Harry Reid (L), Democrat from Nevada, and Democratic Senator from Illinois Richard Durbin (R)

Democratic bumper-sticker message of a quick end to the conflict — however much it appeals to primary voters — oversimplifies the problems likely to be inherited by the next commander in chief. -- JEFF ZELENY and MARC SANTORA

Are you ready for the truth? No I don’t think you are. After all of the lies you can’t handle the truth!

You elected Democrats on their promise that they would immediately end the war. Thanks to you Democrats are the majority in both the House of Representatives and the Congress. So did they keep their promise?

No and as a matter of fact certain Democrats are hedging their bets, what I mean by that is, there are some Democrats finally telling the truth about Iraq and U.S. troops. The truth is that they really have no intention of ending the war rapidly.

Sen. Hillary Clinton says she would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north.

Sen. Barak Obama says he would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis.

Former Sen. John Edwards would keep troops in the region to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries.

A Change of heart for Democrats? No a change of polling, Democrats who do nothing without consulting the polling numbers see that there is a slight change in Americans opinion about the war so they are running to get out in front of the wave.

One Democrat senator said U.S. troops are routing out al-Qaida in parts of Iraq. Another insisted President Bush's plan to increase troops has caused tactical momentum.

One even went so far on Wednesday as to say the argument could be made that U.S. troops are winning.

Just what is going on?

Democrats are anticipating the report due by General Petraeus on the troop surge word is that report could be positive not negative and if that is the case Democrats see negative political ramifications. It’s all political, is all about winning elections for Democrats and if that means losing the war in Iraq so be it!

"If we don't handle a shift in the facts on the ground in Iraq well, some of that advantage will erode, the Republican position will be strengthened, and we'll have more of a jump ball, at least in the presidential election” --Daniel Gerstein, Democratic political consultant

However if by some way the troop surge works, well hey a few well placed words so that a Democrat can claim that they were for the war all along. Well at least they will be able to say they were for a winning surge and that’s just politicizing the issue like Democrats usually do.

And you thought this was about principle? Remember for a political philosophy that believes in compromising everything even principles and even beliefs, positions and platforms are in continual flux.

You know, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." That’s the Democrats way both sides of the issue all the time.
One thing that Democrats and Liberals don’t want is the truth. That’s the only thing that can explain the inconsistencies in belief, positions and the political actions of the left.

Mexican (gall)Stones!

I can’t believe the gall of Vincente Fox of
Mexico,being pissed at the US for causing
a drop in the amount of dollars being sent
from this country, by illegal aliens working
here. The tightening immigration rules
are finally working.

He thinks that we should continue to allow
this fiasco to go on, in order to mask the
deeper problems in Mexico. If the Mexican
government, would get a handle on the graft
and corruption that runs rampant there, they
might stand a chance of keeping their
population where it belongs..... at home,
holding jobs and and generating some income
for their government.

brooklyn

We need another 9/11, but not the kind you’re proposing Mr. Bykofsky

Stu Bykofsky

Stu Bykofsky’s, “To save America, we need another 9/11” is a classic example of the dumbing down of America.

In the most illogical exercise of pseudo problem solving since Senator Obama’s claim that he would withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq and then attack Afghanistan, Bykofsky opines that another 9/11 would unify the country again just like the days immediately following the infamous terrorist attack on America, but this fallacious fantasizing and selective memory is typical of what is wrong with this country.

Bykofsky says:

[I’m] sick of how splintered we are politically - thanks mainly to our ineptitude in Iraq - that we have forgotten who the enemy is.

Mr. Bykofsky way before 9/11 we were a politically splintered Nation you remember the Red state, Blue state divide that was being reported on during the 2000 elections? Enemy lines in America were drawn then much before the events of 9/11 or the war in Iraq!

This country had just gone through one of the most divisive elections in recent history. Al Gore reneged on his election night concession to George W. Bush thereby unleashing a partisan war in this country the likes which only differs from the American Civil War in that the bodies that were spewed across the American landscape were political bodies not the actual physical bodies of the original war that divided this Nation.

It is not the Iraq war which divides this nation it is the political partisan infighting that divides this nation and changed forever the way we do and view politics today. Gore and Democrats took this country on the most politically destructive course imaginable and along the way they made it their business to cast doubt upon the American election process by declaring that process fraudulent. As well some on the left, by association or by direct accusation declared an American President illegitimate.

We have had almost 12 years of this kind of political drama that is why we don’t know who the enemy is if you are a Democrat your party tells you that your enemy is a Republican. That is what started this divided nation!

What Bykofsky over looks is that 9/11 was just a brief respite in the middle of political anarchy that American partisan politics had just begun to evolve into not some mystical healing occasion for the Nation.

As proof of that, not days after that most tragic event Democrats where back at it blaming the President for not reacting and responding with appropriate command at the terrorist threat.

Bykofsk’s simplistic analysis misses that point all together. No disaster, political or natural, will bring America together again after the trauma of Al Gore’s Chadgate and the subsequent Supreme Court intervention that Chadgate caused.

An intervention, by the way, that derailed the Left’s attempt to force the Democrat Party on the people of the United States, as so many other leftist causes had previously been put upon the people. The left has forced every other one of their causes ranging from the illegitimate claim of separation of church and state to the “homosexual agenda” for constitutional rights to human caused global warming, the left has forced its agenda on the America people through the very courts a.

Another disaster will not fix this divide Mr. Bykofsky. Katrina didn’t, Rita didn’t, the felled bridge in Minneapolis didn’t, and another 9/11 won’t. The only thing that will bring this country together again is rejection of those who practice the partisan politics of personal destruction.

And just who is practicing such politics? Just listen to the debates and when you hear Bush bashing or the pronouncement that the war is lost or failed or wrong, you will more than likely find at the end of those politically charged statements a partisan that is the reason that this country is so divided.

You what to be like Europe? France and Italy recently elected Conservatives rejecting the Liberal ideology that had dominated those countries for years.

You what another 9/11 Mr. Bykofsky then let the country reject the partisan liberals that are in Congress and then let them elect a strong Conservative majority in the Senate and House, you want another 9/11, then reject the liberals who are campaigning for the Democratic nomination for President and lets all vote for a Republican for President.

I can see it now Republicans take control and both the House and Senate and a Republican President, and all liberals on the ground all across the blue states in the fetal position crying, “What happen another 9/11?”

Just drop the liberalism, you don't have to drop another bomb!

Why is China threatening to Crash the U.S. Dollar?

President George W. Bush China's President Hu Jintao

"If we will not endure a king as a political power we should not endure a king over the production, transportation, and sale of any of the necessaries of life."—John Sherman

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of the Telegraph of the U.K. reports that China is threatening the United States economically. Why would they do that?
Congress, it seems, is considering a law that would protect U.S. jobs and correct the current trade imbalance that the U.S. has with China and China doesn’t like it.

According to the Telegraph, [t]he Chinese government has begun a concerted campaign of economic threats against the United States, hinting that it may liquidate its vast holding of US Treasury bonds if Washington imposes trade sanctions against them as a bill drafted by a group of US senators, and backed by the Senate Finance Committee, calls for trade tariffs against Chinese goods, may do.
Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) called for changes in American trade policy in order to counter the unfair competition posed by countries that use illegal trade practices.

Senator Collins and Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) have introduced legislation to ensure that all countries doing business with the U.S. are operating under the same rules that help to ensure fair competition for American manufacturers.

The Stopping Overseas Subsidies Act (SOS) revises current trade laws to allow the U.S. to enforce anti-subsidy laws, known as countervailing duty laws, on all trade partners. Countervailing duty laws prohibit foreign countries from subsidizing industries and businesses in a way that allows those industries and businesses to sell their goods below the cost that American manufacturers are able to offer.

U.S. Reps Artur Davis and Phil English have also introduced legislation to deal with this the issue of trade imbalance.

An Economic Policy Institute study found that 1.5 million jobs were lost to lower-wage Chinese competition in the 14-year period between 1989 and 2003. During that time, the U.S. trade deficit with China rose twenty-fold, from $6.2 billion to $124 billion. It is expected to increase another 20 percent in 2004, to $150 billion.

What caused the trade deficit? The brilliant business interest that brought us NAFTA caused the trade deficit. The smarty pants who run U.S. Corporations thought that they could do business with communist China, a nation of 1.3 billion people whose government pays low socialist wages therefore everything that they manufacture cost less.

So the geniuses of Big Business make huge profits selling to you and me products that they buy at low socialist wages they forgo paying American wages and benefits and at the same time they uncut American manufacturers. All the while, the big picture is that, corporate greed is destroying America's economic sovereignty.

That’s not all; when these masterminds attempt to sell American made products to the communist country of China naturally the low wage earners can’t afford the American products and opt to buy their own country’s low cost products which produces a trade deficit.

The United States imports more goods from China than it exports to a tune of $202 billion dollars each year. All told, China alone accounts for nearly 26% of the United States' $725.8 billion trade deficit.

Interesting enough, big business also attempts to cut wages in the United States by corporate down sizing, outsourcing jobs and encouraging low wage illegal aliens and guest workers to enter into this country, Did these smart guys who run corporate America ever think that if low wage earners in China can’t and won’t buy the higher priced U.S. products, then didn’t they even consider the possibility that low wage earners in the U.S. won’t be able to buy that Ford Explorer, for instance, nor will most of us be able to buy that Cadillac Escalade?

You recall the talk about a North American Community one which the U.S., Canada and Mexico would become joined as an economic American version of the European Union. What you probably didn’t know is that the U.S. has a trade deficit not only with China but with both Canada and Mexico too!

• The goods deficit with Canada decreased from $5.8 billion in April to $5.2 billion in May. Exports increased $1.6 billion (primarily civilian aircraft, automotive parts and accessories, and fuel oil) to $21.8 billion, while imports increased $1.0 billion (primarily petroleum products, fish and shellfish, and automotive parts and accessories) to $27.0 billion.
• The goods deficit with China increased from $19.4 billion in April to $20.0 billion in May. Exports increased $0.5 billion (primarily semiconductors and civilian aircraft) to $5.3 billion, while imports increased $1.1 billion (primarily apparel and household goods) to $25.3 billion.
• The goods deficit with Mexico increased from $5.2 billion in April to $5.9 billion in May. Exports increased $1.1 billion (primarily automotive parts and accessories and electric apparatus) to $12.1 billion, while imports increased $1.7 billion (primarily crude oil, automotive parts and accessories and electric apparatus) to $17.9 billion. –U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Statistics

The bottom line is that American corporate Globalist have placed the United States in a economic position that we can now be economically black mailed by anyone of our allies or by a communist country such as China. (Did I mention that China is a Communist country?) As is evident by what China is attempting to do now!

No one told you that the sovereignty of our nation would be economically jeopardized by International Globalists who are attempting to link the world economies together for their benefit and control, but it is and here we are being threaten because of what international Globalists have done.

And if a nation like China decides that they would rather wreak havoc on the U. S. economy rather than allow the U.S. to even the economic playing field with them the U.S. is vulnerable to that threat.

Such is the legacy of Internationalism, Globalism, NAFTA, CAFTA, the North American Community or any of these front organizations for corporate global power.
We are vulnerable to threats from our enemies as well we are vulnerable to losing our sovereignty and freedoms from powerful corporate Oligarchies.

This is not what the founders envisioned, surely if they would not be ruled by a king they would not suffer kings over the production, transportation, and sale of any of the necessaries of life to rule over us!

Neither would they want America destroyed because of International Globalist designs and Corporate greed!

Pretendocrats and Domestic warriors

American’s elected Democrat Lead Congress

"It's Democrats, making a difference, doing the job they were elected to do. And we've only just begun,"—TV ad run by Democrats starting Thursday extolling their accomplishment this year

Democrats are Pretendocrats and Domestic warriors!

They haven’t accomplished a damn thing so they are going to run TV ads touting their non-accomplishments so that you will think that they accomplished something… Pretendocrats!

In addition to that some of the best fighting that I have seen in the 4 years that we’ve been in Iraq has occurred in Washington D.C. the Democrats war against President Bush and the Bush administration. They don’t want to fight in Iraq but they are the best damn domestic warriors that I’ve ever seen!

Two traits describes today’s Democrat Senators and Congressmen or women, two traits
that our now vacationing Congress will be forever known for, one Pretending that they have accomplished something to justify your vote for Democrats and to justify a Democratic victory in 2006 and two, producing so much rancor, conflict and partisan disunity in Washington D.C. that Iraq might appear to be a suitable vacation spot for the Senators or Congresspersons wishing a nice quite place to vacation.

Democrats disclosed plans Thursday for nationwide television advertising that praises Congress for raising the minimum wage, seeking expanded health care for children and "taking on George Bush to end a war gone wrong."

The commercial will air on cable television beginning on Monday, timed to coincide with the beginning of a monthlong congressional break.

As reported by David Espo, AP Special Correspondent "The Democrats have not made good on a single promise they made during 2006, especially when it comes to fostering a more open and deliberative House of Representatives," Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said. "Instead of making the House more open and deliberative, they've gone in the opposite direction, doing things we never even contemplated during our time in the majority."

Democrats broke their campaign pledge to run a more open and honest Congress during their much-ballyhooed "first 100 hours" in power when they introduced five bills on the floor without moving them first through committee or allowing Rules Committee Republicans to dissent. But each of those bills passed the House by a wide margin, illustrating the broad popularity of the legislation.
According to Josephine Hearn of Politico Democrats have only checked off on the minimum-wage hike, the anti-terrorism bill and the lobbying reform bill, three of the “Six in ’06” list of campaign pledges but nothing close to their grandiose promises to end the war.

Hearn opines that the specter of spending a month with constituents often galvanizes lawmakers into fits of productivity; passing many bills before the August recess is common . all of that legislative action yet Democrats have only had a few bills signed into law by the President.

So they have not completely fulfilled all of their campaign pledges the only thing that they’ve managed to do is polarize the politics in Washington by incessant Congressional hearings, so much so that nothing is getting done.
Oh there is one other thing that they’ve done, they’ve made a television ad claiming that they have accomplished great things in hopes that you will disregard Congress’ lowest approval rating ever since records of such matters have been kept, that plus they hope you will vote for more Democrats in spite of the hate, incompetence and disfunction that a Democrat controlled congress has brought to American politics.

Pretendocrats and Domestic warriors, America deserves better we must have better!

Pelosi’s new direction: More pork for Democrats Part 2

Nancy Pelosi’s New Direction

Until 2006 Republicans had twelve years of control of the Congress. Before that Democrats control Congress for 49 years. 49 years of corruption. So much corruption that in 1994 Democrats were swept from power by an angry electorate, the “Contract with America” and the Republican theme, “Culture of Corruption.”

The more things change the more they remain the same.

“There’s a new Congress in Town,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi lead her party to electoral victory in 2006 using the Gingrich play book. Why, she even retooled the corruption meme, by which, she battered Republicans senseless with her own version of the 1994 “Contract” of course you know it as a “New Direction.”

Promising a new open honest government was enough to convince the American people to hand over both houses of Congress to the Democrat Party hoping for major reforms in our government.

So did Pelosi and her fellow Democrats live up to their promises. Did they end the corruption, bribes, kickbacks, and corporate influence on Capitol Hill?

Well, we do have some spiffy new House rules that Rep. Pelosi and Democrats voted into the house to end Congressional Republican corruption. So is corruption ended in Washington D.C.?

The Democrat controlled House and Senate passed measures requiring lawmakers to certify they have no financial interest in the request, as well as attaching their name to it and identifying the recipient. Until this year, Congress didn't require disclosure of earmark sponsors. [Is this helping to reform Congress?]

No! The new rules aren't uniform and they were never meant to stop corruption. They were only meant to give you and me the impression that Democrats wanted to end earmarks and other corrupt practices in Congress, not only that, some congressional panels make it difficult to track down specifics about an earmark. But other than that are the new Congressional rules working?

Has the “Culture of Corruption” ended because Democrats are in power? Again no, corruption has only changed directions, a new direction, a direction from Republican corruption to Democrat corruption. And this is the change that Pelosi promised? It’s too bad but in spite of their promises the Democrats are no better than the Republicans!

Different Rules

The rules may have changed for sure, but the only change in Congress is Democrats re-taking the mantle of “A Culture of Corruption.”
For example, the House Appropriations Committee provides the information in reports available online, although they aren't searchable by keyword. What's more, details about the projects are scattered throughout the documents. Is this the open government that Pelosi promised?

And what about the names of Democrat Congressmen whose earmarks and their sponsors are typically listed in the back of the reports, the amount of money provided for them is listed elsewhere, making identifying what Democrat is receiving earmarks a murky affair at best forcing inquiring minds to go on a laborious scavenger hunt according to Brian Faler and David Rosen of Bloomberg.com.
Faler and Rosen write that the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee make its earmark-request letters available only by appointment. Researchers must take notes, because the committee doesn't allow the public to make photocopies of the letters.

So they conclude that the new rules haven't stopped lawmakers from funneling earmarks to specific companies, some of them political donors, as well as to public projects such as roads, schools and parks or Democrats Senators and Congressmen haven’t stopped personally profiting from these earmarks the law is so written that you and I, the voters get the impression that Democrats have done something to change directions when actually its business as usual with Democrats now earmarking themselves into Jack Abramhoff and Randy “Duke” Cunningham like corruption.

Some companies stand to gain from Pelosi's earmarks. The California Democrat has won funding for six companies in a 2008 defense funding measure. One is a $4 million request to develop a ``novel viral biowarfare agent'' for Prosetta Corp., based in her San Francisco district. Tom Higgins, the company's chief executive officer, says he talked to the Speaker's staff directly rather than hiring a lobbyist and hasn't given money to her campaign. ``We're just a little company,'' he says.
Another of Pelosi's earmarks was $2.5 million to Bioquiddity, Inc., a San Francisco biotech company with nine employees, to continue developing drug-infusion pumps.

Bioquiddity President Josh Kriesel, who ran unsuccessfully as a Republican for the state legislature in 2002, has donated $6,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee since last September. The company received a total of $3.9 million in earmarks in the last two years. Kriesel declined to comment directly on the earmarks.

Pelosi has said some earmarks are ``worthy.'' And she said there is a distinction between those for public projects, which she sometimes touts with press releases and special interest earmarks.

Finally, there very well may be a distinction between earmarks Ms. Pelosi but there is no distinction between someone who lied to the American people, as you and your Party did to gain control of both the House and the Senate, and the Republicans that Democrats replaced in November of 2006.

This is hundreds of millions of taxpayer’s dollars Ms. Pelosi that you are throwing at your personal pet projects. And then your Party will have the temerity to stand before the American people and demand higher taxes especially if someone in your party is elected President?

Nope this is not a direction that I want to travel. And I hope the American people feel the same way too!

Are Democrats earmarking A.T.M. machines: Culture of Corruption II

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, touting a New Direction

“Democracy is a contact sport, and I’m not going to be shy about asking for money for my community, my guess is that next year I’m going to be putting in more earmarks.”—Rep. Nancy Boyda (D) – Kansas, who is being given tax payer money for a prison museum in her district.

You couldn’t have possibly forgotten the Democrats political rally cry, “A Culture of Corruption!” Nor could you have forgotten Democrat’s promises to clean up politics by sweeping Republicans out of office if you would vote for Democrats for Congress.

On those two devises and the anti-war hysteria that the radical left-wing arm of the Democrat Party was able to conjure up. Democrats received enough votes to control both the Senate and the House of the U.S. Congress. Democrats increased their numbers in the House from 201 to 233 giving them a 32 seat swing and a 31 vote advantage. In the Senate Democrats increased their numbers by 7 giving Democrats a 2 vote advantage and majority status in the United States Congress.

So has Democrat control of Congress taken the country in a new direction or is it politics as usual under a new corrupt Democrat Congressional Oligarchy?

Edmund L. Andrews and Robert Pear’s New York Times report, “With New Rules, Congress Boasts of Pet Projects” tells of a Culture of Corruption but only this time Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are the leaders of the United States Congress and Democrats are the purveyors of the very corruption that you dear voter removed Republicans from office for.

Last year, Democrats denounced the explosive growth of earmarks as a central part of what they called the “culture of corruption” under the Republican-led Congress. They skewered the infamous $200 million “bridge to nowhere” that Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska, had tried to finance.

Last year’s outcry against earmarks was fueled in part by scandals surrounding Jack Abramoff, the disgraced former lobbyist. The concerns were heightened by the conviction of Representative Randy Cunningham on charges of taking millions of dollars in cash and gifts in exchange for inserting earmarks for a military contractor.--Edmund L. Andrews and Robert Pear, NYtimes

But this year according to Andrews and Pear , House lawmakers have put together spending bills that include almost 6,500 earmarks for almost $11 billion in local projects

The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, has obtained about $63 million worth of projects, most of them in or near her district in San Francisco. But Ms. Pelosi was overshadowed by Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense, who obtained $163 million in pet projects — more than anyone else in Congress and more than his own previous record of about $100 million. Not to mention Senator Diane Feinstein’s Iraq war earmark profiteering that makes Halliburton look like a nickel and dime operation.

Among the thousands of earmarks tucked into House or Senate spending bills: $2.6 million for a new grape genetics research center at Cornell University; $738,000 to study cancer-fighting chemicals in raspberries at Ohio State University; a contract for Texas A&M University to study the “root causes” of post-traumatic stress disorder; and $3.6 million to design a Coast Guard Operations Systems Center in Kearneysville, W.Va.

These are tax payers dollars being used to fund private boondoggles which Democrats in control of the White house and Congress will certainly raise your taxes so that they can send your money to some private concern to grow peanuts or build a museum to honor criminals.

As a matter of fact Andrews and Pear reports that it has already been done, When Representative Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, recently ridiculed a provision on the House floor to spend $100,000 on a prison museum near Fort Leavenworth, Kan., Representative Nancy Boyda, Democrat of Kansas jumped to promote her district’s heritage.

Leavenworth County, she boasted, had more prisons than any other county in America. Its inmates, she added, have included Machine Gun Kelly and the Birdman of Alcatraz (before he was sent to Alcatraz).

“The local residents are proud of their heritage, and rightly so,” Ms. Boyda told Mr. Flake during a debate on the House floor. The House voted 317 to 112 to keep her earmark.

According to the Times article, Mr. Flake met similar defeat trying to block [Democrat earmarking] $50,000 for the National Mule and Packers Museum in Bishop, Calif.; $150,000 for the Burpee Museum of natural history in Rockford, Ill.; $250,000 for the Walter Clore Wine and Culinary Center in Prosser, Wash.; and $750,000 for the Alliance for NanoHealth in Houston.


“We’re lying to the American people when we say we’re fixing earmarks when we’re not,” said Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, during debate this week on the Senate floor.

“This is just sour milk,” Senator Dianne Feinstein of California said of Mr. Coburn. “If he could have blocked the whole bill, he would have.”

Interesting that Senator Feinstein would defend a bill that allows Democrats to profit politically at the tax payers expense though it’s nothing new for this one woman culture of corruption. And by the way Senator the expression is Sour Grapes!

The largest percentage of earmarks this year went to the Democrat House leadership, including Speaker Pelosi, according to calculations by The New York Times and based on records assembled by Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Democrats have proven to be as corrupt as what they’ve accused Republicans to be. Not only corrupt but political ATM machines with your money, tax payers money.

And this is a new direction?

Who Said the Dems Are Dishonest????

In clear violation of yet another campaign
promise, Democrats maneuvered last night
to forcibly reverse the outcome of a vote that
would have barred illegal immigrants from
receiving taxpayer-funded benefits.

After a majority of the House initially passed
the measure barring illegal immigrants from
receiving taxpayer funded handouts, Democrat
leaders stepped-in to strong-arm their politically
vulnerable members into switching their votes
in order to defeat the measure and deliver
benefits for illegals. And what's even worse --
they did this in the dead of the night, when they
hoped no one was watching.

Democrats are quickly proving that they are
politically tone-deaf to the issue of illegal
immigration. Their latest move to provide
illegal immigrants with taxpayer funded benefits
is an outrage and we need to stop it.

Despite their claims of being in touch with the
American voters on this issue, the liberal
Democrat party remains out of step with the
views and values of this country.

Send a clear message to Nancy Pelosi and the
"vote-switching" Democrats- that we will not
stand idly by while they attempt to run roughshod
over the will of the American people.

brooklyn

Ravings of a Mad Lunacratic

Democrat Strategist Dan Gerstein

Lunacy and Lunatic are the musings of a mad hatter by the name of Dan Gerstein in his column written for the Politico entitled, “Forget about a Bush impeachment -- it's Gonzales” In this column Gerstein lays out the minds of Liberal Democrats. And man is it a frightening place!

In his informative but startling article Mr. Gerstein confirms everything that sensible people were attempting to warn the country about regarding Democrats gaining political power.

Let’s unravel some of the twists and turns of a purely partisan mind, one which is partisanly delusional to the moveon.org extreme, shall we. And after that I think even the most neutral Independent voter will retch at the prospect of Democrats leading this country in 2008 especially after this candid examination of the way which ultra-partisan Democrats thinks.

Impeachment

Why is Impeachment of President Bush even a discussion in Liberal circles? And because it is, Mr. Gerstein presents an argument stating why Democrats want to impeach ergo Cindy Sheehan but can ill afford to because it is not politically expedient for Democrats to do so. Gerstein’s solution? Why simple silly impeach Alberto Gonzales!

The truth is Democrat Liberals hate Conservatives and everything that Conservatives stand for, according to Democrat National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, and if it were up to these haters they would impeach the whole lot of you Conservatives! 50% of the country would be censured by Russ Feingold because if you happen to be a Conservative Republican you are criminally wrong in everything that you do and believe.

That is what this talk about impeachment of President Bush is; Democrats are criminalizing policy differences between themselves and the President. Just like their plans to criminalize all Conservative belief and religious belief.

So look for the fairness doctrine to shut up your Conservative talk radio, look for hate speech legislation to shut up your churches from speaking biblically regarding the act of homosexually and look for the quick and thorough dismantling of any sign or symbol of Conservativism when Democrats achieve control of the American Government.

Understand it isn’t actually about George W. Bush. It isn’t George W. that Democrats wish to impeach, censure or just run out of Washington on a rail, sure Democrats put in a lot of work to destroy his Presidency, but it would be the same thing if any other Republican candidate representing Conservative ideology would dare to lay claim to the most powerful elected office in the world.

Democrats can’t stomach the thought of a Conservative leading this nation. So they’ve skewered President Bush for almost 8 years and so having the chance to impeach him and drive him out of office in shame would give Democrat haters orgasmic shivers of ecstasy which even sex couldn’t duplicate for the ardent Liberal Conservative hater.

Gerstein writes,

“Is impeachment in the best interests of the country? Is the evidence strong enough to convince 67 senators that the president has shown himself to be unfit for office and/or a danger to the country? And not least of all, what are the costs to the country and to the impeaching party of bringing charges and then losing?”

You see in the mind of a Liberal Democrat when they speak about the interests of the country they are not speak for the 50% of Conservatives that reside in this country. Democrats equate this country with themselves only.

So in an almost equally split Senate Democrats would have to come up with 17 to 18 Republican senators to achieve the Democrat wet dream of impeaching President Bush.

But in a political climate that holds Congress at an all time historical low the politicizing Dems wouldn’t even think of attempting something so politically disadvantageous because according to Gerstein, American discontent is not nearly broad enough or deep enough to sustain what would start out and likely continue as a wholly partisan campaign to forcibly remove Bush from office a year early.

Dan Gerstein is an ultra-partisan who like most liberal Democrats would impeach President Bush if he and they thought that you’d let them. They’re thinking about it really hard, so hard in fact that nothing else in Congress is getting done.

Gerstein’s dilemma is that though Democrats pretend that they are the whole country they know for a fact that there are enough Conservatives in this country to stop them from winning the Presidency in 2008 and from fully controlling Congress so they won’t be doing anything to piss off Conservatives at least until they can get control of the government and then it’s Katie bar the door.

Gerstein and liberals like him understand that impeaching President Bush would create a firestorm of Conservative political action much like the immigration bill did.

Can’t have that now, huh Mr. Gerstein? Not just before Democrats get what is owed to them from 2000 and 2004 elections. So they’ll just impeach Alberto Gonzales.

Admittedly it’s not as satisfying as stripping the big guy of his executive privileges but it’ll have to do, so not to awaken the sleeping dog Conservatives before the Democrat Presidential candidate is raising his right hand on the January 20, 2009 with his hand over a Qu’ran swearing to protect and defend Liberal Democrats sensibilities, so help him international law and the Hague of which it stands three nations a North America Community with liberty and freedom to whomever comes across our borders to destroy us and destroy any traditions that made us the great country and power that we once were.

Anthropomorphic Social Change

NSCAT scatterometer image of Greenland

The conversation of climate change in this country and the world is an extraordinary effort in changing social attitudes by social engineering. The green movement along with its special interest and government co-conspirators is attempting to change your mind regarding how you live your life and ,as well, they intend to get into your wallet.

The whole topic of anthropomorphic climate change has been a farce from the very beginning. From Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth Alive Earth World Concerts to the Greenland glacier meltdown consensus, where everyone but deniers agree that man is the cause of global warming and because of the popular consensus everyone is expected to believe in the unproven conjecture of anthropomorphic climate change (ACC).

But what if I told you that latest scientific studies refute the theories of Greenland glacier meltdown? You are probably so thoroughly brainwashed that no amount of scientific proof will change your mind.

However, according to a Danish study researchers from Aarhus University Greenland's glaciers have been shrinking for 100 years. Do you understand the implication of this? If this is the case then to connect the phenomenon of Greenland glacier melt with anthropomorphic climate change is morally and criminally wrong. Criminally wrong when proponents of climate change intend to profit at the expense of sheeplessly conditioned followers of the hype of global warming (GW).

And then there are the cataclysmic and dire forecast of monster storms in the Atlantic, FrankenStorms, hurricanes caused by ACC but where are these storms now?

During the active 2005 hurricane season, the usual doom-and-gloom prophets blamed the storms on global warming (GW). "Nature's wrath," we were told, "hath been unleashed". Aided by a complaisant media, we were told this was our wakeup call, come to punish us for our SUV-driving ways.--Dailytech.com

Once again proponents of Global warming are wrong so far.

Finally if you are a person that does not believe in ACC you could be threaten with death or the total destruction of your creditability and livelihood as Marlo Lewis was by Michael T. Eckhart, president of the American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE).

Eckhart an apparent global warming fanatic wrote to Lewis in an e-mail,

"Take this warning from me, Marlo. It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on."

Eckhart seriously needs to take a chill pill! Why are these GW fanatics so emotionally disturbed regarding their defense of climate change?

The July 27-29 2007 U.S. Senate trip lead by Senator Barbara Boxer to Greenland to investigate fears of a glacier meltdown revealed an Arctic land where current climatic conditions are neither alarming nor linked to a rise in man-made carbon dioxide emissions, according to many of the latest peer-reviewed scientific findings. Recent research has found that Greenland has been warming since the 1880's, but since 1955, temperature averages at Greenland stations have been colder than the period between 1881-1955.

Did you get that GW fanatics? In Greenland current climatic conditions are neither alarming nor linked to a rise in man-made carbon dioxide emissions and according to many of the latest peer-reviewed scientific findings. Recent research has found that Greenland has been warming since the 1880's

Let’s see the glaciers have been warming since the 1880’s that would put the any melting of Greenland glaciers outside of the timeline for the claim of anthropomorphic CO2 emissions climate change. Humm, seems like the internet is not the only invention of former vice President Al Gore.

In spite of the apparent debunking of human caused global warming liberal minions will continue to buy their Priuses while defending the junk science of global warming they will do this in spite overwhelming evidence that yes climate is changing as it has done since the inception of earth and weather but as in the begin as it is now man is not the cause of weather change.

So those of us who believe in facts will continue to be threatened, defamed or financially ruined by GW fanatics like Michael Eckhart. So much for scientific method and reason for the left!

Lucy, Democrats may have a problem!

At the very least they’ve got some s’plaining to do! Democrats are attempting to beat back any positive news, message or event related to the war in Iraq or President Bush. They would love to keep the political conversation on these two subjects all negative all the time but a crack seems to be developing in Democrat strategy.

First Michael E. O’Hanlon, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and Kenneth M. Pollack, director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings two long time liberal anti-war critics published a piece in the New York Times that offers hope that the war can be won and possibly is being won!

And then, Frank J. Gaffney Jr., Victor Davis Hanson, Clifford D. May, Senator John McCain, Mackubin Thomas Owens, James S. Robbins, Peter W. Rodman, Joseph Morrison Skelly, and Michael Yon all chime in that, yeah there are some positive things happening in Iraq.

Finally, U.S. HOUSE Majority Leader James Clyburn, D-S.C., the third ranking Democrat in the House is interviewed by Chris Cillizza and Dan Balz of the Washingtonpost.com when asked concerning Gen. David Petraeus September progress report on Iraq the Congressman seem to view it as problematic if the General’s report would come back positive. (see interview)


The UnionLeader.com writes:

U.S. HOUSE Majority Leader James Clyburn, D-S.C., [the third ranking Democrat in the House] acknowledged on Monday that his party has called for withdrawing from Iraq while victory, or at least a better situation than exists now, might yet be attained.

If Gen. David Petraeus delivers a September progress report showing real gains, instead of the mixed report many have expected, it would "be a real big problem for us," Clyburn told The Washington Post.

Why would American success in Iraq be "a real big problem" for Democrats? Oh, yeah. They've already called the war "lost" (Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid), have tried seven times this year to end it, and have staked their majority in Congress and their hopes for winning the White House on an American failure there.

But all of a sudden things are starting to look a little more positive in Iraq -- the "surge" is producing results -- and some Democrats are getting nervous.
"We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report," Clyburn said of any more Democratic calls for specific action in Iraq.

Now there's an idea. Wait to see if the new strategy is working before demanding an end to the war. Why didn't the Democratic leadership try that before?
Oh, right. Because pledging to end the war was more politically beneficial. Now that sticking around and trying to win might, just might, turn out to be the better political choice, Clyburn suggests that his party gather all the facts before making the call. –UnionLeader.com

I couldn’t have said it better myself UnionLeader! What next Democrats claiming that they always knew that President Bush was a good President?

Think about it if Democrats would not have bad mouth this effort and actually used their acumen for political fighting to work with the Bush administration instead of almost 8 years of undermining the Presidency, maybe just maybe this war could have been waged and won already with a united front.

We’ll never know. But this thing is certain if this war is won and the United States is successful in Iraq no Democrat can take any credit for it.
And no Democrat should expect to be rewarded by being elected President of these United States of America because it is obvious that as, House Majority Whip James Clyburn inadvertently exposed, success in Iraq in a real big problem for the Democrats.

That is only so because Democrats chose to politicize this war, in essence hyping the negative aspects of the war for Democrat political gain.
So if America wins the only ones who lose are the terrorist and the Democrats. And that’s just sad!

Is It Alive?

Former Senator Walking Arlen Specter

Senator or mad scientist? No just a “Former Senator Walking,” meaning that the good people of Pennsylvania should do the country a favor and recall Arlene Specter at best but at the very least Pennsylvanians need to look for a Republican challenger for the Senate seat in their state, Arlen Specter’s seat.

Specter who first gain notoriety by chairing the Senate Judiciary Committee and making it harder for Republican judicial nominees than present chairman Patrick Leahy, D-VT ever could is again show his lack of understanding of what it means to be a Republican.

In a complete act of senility or rather general political incompetence Arlen Specter is attempting to dig up and revive the Immigration bill.

That’s right the one bill that split President Bush from the base of the Republican Party, the one issue that will guarantee Republican disaster in 2008 Senator Specter has dug it up like a dog retrieving a buried bone. Like a dog returning to his own vomit Senator Specter is on the verge of offering a new immigration reform package.

Not only is Specter waving this corpse of a bill around in the faces of Republicans, he like Mary Shelley’s Dr. Victor van Frankenstein, is doing patch work surgery on this monstrosity of Immigration reform in an attempt to revive it from the dead.

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s senior Republican said on Thursday that he is on the verge of offering a new immigration reform package, making significant changes that could win over recalcitrant members from both parties.

Specter believes that cutting out the controversial “Z visa” program, which would have granted the nation’s 12 million illegal immigrants immediate citizenship will make his bill appealing to Republicans. Removing the Z visa would stop conservatives from seeing this bill as “amnesty.” But he would leave intact the family reunification standard that this spring’s defunct immigration bill partially replaced with a skills-based system.

Family reunification is Democrat speak for if a Mexican national manages to sneak into the United States and if he or she establishes his or her self, once the United States grants these Illegal aliens some type of legal status through Senator Specter’s proposed bill the Mexican national would have the right to legally bring in Mexican family members, mothers, fathers, children, and various other immediate family members. This would result in exponential Hispanic population growth, 20 million illegals would multiple into 80 million and up in a matter of years.

Specter’s efforts are meant to remove the illegal status of 12 to 20 million Mexican nations who are in this country illegally. Specter wishes them to be no longer perceived as fugitives from justice. The Senator has admitted that this is an attempt to bring Mexican nationals who are in this country illegally out of the shadows so that they will no longer have to fear deportation which is the normal consequence of their illegal act.

Senator Specter you are so gone this next election cycle and believe me you will not be missed!

Did Oprah sink Hillary’s Presidential Bid

Oprah Winfrey and Hillary Clinton

It’s Star Wars but not in a galaxy far away, no its happening right here on planet earth during the campaign for the 2008 elections! David Geffen, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Oprah Winfrey, Steven Spielberg, and George Soros all are attempting to use their "Force" to influence events around who the next Democratic Presidential nominee will be, its big Liberal money and insidious politic manipulation which will be the determinate in choosing who will carry the Presidential banner for the Democrats.

Clinton or Obama, Obama or Clinton, will Hillary’s negatives be to stifling for Democrat support? Will Obama’s inexperience prevent Democrats from embracing his candidacy?

The most influential and popular woman in TV has said that Barak Obama is her guy and is putting all the force of her endorsement behind his candidacy.

While other Hollywood illuminates are aligning behind their political choice Democrats are polling to see if the Democrat front runner has any dreaming chance of winning the Presidency.

Two in five people recently polled by The New York Times hold an unfavorable view of Hillary Clinton and of those with an unfavorable view, 71 percent have a "strongly unfavorable" view, while those with a favorable view aren't as passionate.

In another recent poll, more than half of respondents said they wouldn't consider voting for Clinton in the November 2008 election.

In the recent Times poll, for instance, 46 percent said they would definitely vote for her or consider voting for her, while 34 percent said they would definitely not vote for her.

If Clinton still has high negative numbers once the primaries start in January, Democratic voters in primaries and caucuses might vote against her even if she is their preferred nominee. Out of the White House for eight years, Democrats are hungry for a winner. They don't want a candidate who can't deliver the general election. –J. Patrick Coolican, Las Vegas Sun

Will Oprah’s endorsement cause Hillary the black vote and the women’s vote? One thing is for curtain, with such high negatives Hillary can ill afford to lose these two voters blocs and remain a viable candidate.

Can a Oprah endorsement deliver a presidential nominee and are Hillary’s negatives so impacting that Democrats will jettison her if they feel that her candidacy in 2008 will cause them to lose the White house?

With no more Bush to kick around Democrats will be forced to look at their own faults for a change. They may even come to the conclusion that the “anybody but” meme, is fitting for someone who Democrats wouldn’t even vote for in their own primaries.

“Anybody but Clinton,” now that would be ironic wouldn’t it? Maybe that’s the message that Oprah has already sent.

Partisan Nation

Republican vs. Democrat Protestors

Whose side are you on? You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists. Terrorists in this case would be the Democrats or the Republicans depending upon which party you are affiliated with.

If you are a Democrat the Republicans are the terrorist and if you are a Republican the Democrats are the terrorist. Why? Because you are an Ultra-Partisan and this is a Partisan Nation. It doesn’t matter who’s to blame for it the reality of it is we are at war with ourselves. A very acrimonious “Uncivil” war if you will.

We are in the midst of a partisan war in our nation’s capitol but unlike the war in Iraq Democrats have no intentions of cutting and running, no, Democrats have launched this war and they are in it to win it!

Leaders are instructing Democratic lawmakers to blitz their states with anti-Bush messages as the Senate gears up for an all-night debate on Iraq withdrawal, according to an internal memo provided to The Politico by a Democratic official.—Mike Allen, The politico

You remember the all night Senate debates which were designed to draw attention to the fact that Democrats wanted troops to withdrawal from Iraq don’t you? Of course you do.

Would it surprise you if I told you that it was a staged political partisan event meant to weaken Republican support for the war in Iraq? Naw you wouldn’t be surprised.

According to the Politico Senator Harry Reid’s office issued the following, “We need every Senator’s help throughout the next two days to amplify our message and highlight Republican obstructionism,” says the memo from the Senate Democratic Communications Center, part of the office of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.). “This is a caucus-wide effort and your help is needed.”

It’s not like the Democrats didn’t employee the same obstructionist methods for twelve years when they were in the minority. In fact they are so successful at it that the 109th Congress was named the “Do nothing Congress.” And guess who named them that? That’s right the Democrats did!

But according to a George Washington University Battleground Poll the American people are tired of all of this partisan wrangling and are growing cynical about government and politicians of both Parties.

U.S. voters are growing cynical about politics as the newly Democratic Congress has been unable to fulfill promises made. Promise which got Democrats elected into the majority of both houses of Congress.

A new direction was promised by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. But with their highly charged brand of partisan and divisive politics they have not been able to deliver on their promises sadly it has been more of the same strident and off-putting polarization with nothing being accomplished.

In the Battleground Poll 71 percent of those surveyed saying their member of Congress put partisan politics ahead of voters' actual concerns.

93 percent of voters' surveyed said members of Congress put partisan politics first.

A record 70 percent said the country was on the wrong track and the bipartisan poll found that 52 percent of the 1,000 likely voters surveyed disapproved of the job Democrats were doing in Congress this year.

Republicans measured a 61 percent disapproval rating. The same number said they disapproved of President George W. Bush's job performance, though 57 percent said they approved of him as a person.

In electoral matchups Democrats were only supported by 49 percent saying they would vote for the Democratic candidate for president if the election were held today, while 38 percent said they would vote for the Republican candidate.

In congressional races, 47 percent said they would vote for the Democrat, while 40 percent said they would vote for the Republican.

But respondents preferred leading Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani over leading Democrat Hillary Clinton 49 percent to 44 percent. Clinton tied with likely Republican candidate Fred Thompson at 46 percent each.

Democrat Barack Obama fared better against Republicans, beating Giuliani 52 percent to 42 percent and beating Thompson 56 percent to 35 percent.
The survey had a margin of error of 3 percent.

Partisan politics has divided this nation into two polar opposes and depending on which side you vote from determines who you blame for the worst Congressional relations in American history.

This perhaps is the worst Congress ever it is not what the Democrats promised but ironically it is a different direction, a direction that only worsens with every partisan fight.

If only we could replace our troops in Iraq with the representatives in Congress who want to fight Partisan wars.

You think we’d be winning in Iraq then? Pelosi, Reid, Clinton and Murtha want to command the troops from Washington D.C. why don’t they take their fighting acumen to the front lines?

We’d surely win the war then wouldn’t we? Clinton did say she was in it to win it. Just think if that attitude was used deployed when thinking about our troops in Iraq.
Not only would we be able to bring our service people home, we would be able to bring them home victorious!

To bad the furious fighting that has engulfed D.C. can not be transferred to the battle grounds of Iraq along with the slogan, “The United States of America is in it to win it!”

And after we’ve won we bring the boys home victorious!
One thing’s for certain there should be a lot of incumbent Senators and Congresspersons looking for work after 2008 because Americans are tried of nothing but partisanship all of the time.

We didn’t vote anyone into office to make fellow Americans the enemy. And when you target the President and your colleagues from across the aisle that is exactly what you’ve done.

If fighting is what you do best do it on your own time or enlist. We need people who will stop at nothing to win this war. Sounds like a job for our Congressional leaders and a few of the Presidential candidates.

What if the Troops would come Home Tomorrow?

A new CBS News/New York Times poll out Monday shows that most Americans want to see U.S. troops start coming home from Iraq.

Here’s a thought, what if America stop fighting would the war stop? Think about it a minute all of you who wishes the war to end. Would the war end if the United States brought the troops home?

Democrats promise to end the war, Hillary Clinton has promised as much Gov. Bill Richardson said he could get all the troops out of Iraq in five months. Sen. Christopher Dodd claimed he could do it in seven months, while Sen. Joe Biden was insistent that it would take a full nine months to a year. So if Liberal’s dreams were realized and U.S. troops were brought home what would happen? REMEMBER…

War was declared on America first in 1996 and again in 1998 by Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden has been indicted for terrorism by the U.S. States District Court.

The indictment states that beginning in 1993, Al Qaeda began
training Somali tribes to oppose the United Nation's humanitarian
effort in Somalia. In October, members of Al Qaeda participated in an
attack on U.S. military personnel where 18 soldiers were killed and 73
others wounded in Mogadishu. In another reference, the indictment
noted that an unnamed "co-conspirator" transported weapons and
explosives from Khartoum to Port Sudan for transshipment to the Saudi
Arabian peninsula.

The indictment noted that Al Qaeda, Bin Laden's international terrorist group, reached an agreement with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons development and forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in Sudan and with the government of Iran and with its associated group Hezballah to "work together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States." (That’s right true believers evidence filed in U.S. District Court has al Qaeda, Osuma bin Laden and Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq working cooperatively!)

It is important to note that although bin Laden is under indictment for agreeing to cooperate with Iraq in terrorist pursuits, by the Clinton administration, there are those who oppose the war in Iraq claiming that there is not any connect between bin Laden, terrorism and Iraq. (I guess all the, ‘What are we doing in Iraq’ nonsense is pure ignorance, now isn’t it?)

But remember before the United States had one boot on the ground, before Congress gave President Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq and before Congress voted to fund one single dollar for the war in Iraq there were multiple acts of war committed against the United States and American interest.

Under the Clinton administration a series of terrorist acts were carried out against the United States on American soil and against American interest they included; the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center (WTC I); the 1996 attack on the U.S. military barracks Khobar Towers, in Saudi Arabia; the 1998 attacks on U.S. Embassies in Africa; the 1999 "Millennium" plot; and the 2000 attack on U.S.S. Cole.

Multiple terrorist attacks against the United States only progressively increasing in violence and death with each additional attack becoming grander in scale finally commentating in over 3,000 deaths on American soil on September 11, 2001.

America was not at war at the time of any of these terrorist attacks. America was at peace. America did not have troops deployed for war.

So my question is if Liberals and Democrats get what they want and the troops come home will the war end? What I suspect will happen is Iraq will become another Darfur were ultra-Liberal rights groups will cry about the human devastation and atrocities being committed there but will do little else to lift a finger to help!

It is likely that at least 100,000 people have died from violence [of war], disease and other conditions related to forced displacement, [ethnic cleansing] and insufficient access to humanitarian assistance. The toll of death and displacement continues to rise. Those left homeless are still at risk: camps are poorly protected, and women and girls are frequently the targets of sexual attacks when they venture from the camp to find firewood and food for their animals.

While Darfur is a trendy slogan for Hollywood types to pitch while wearing a cute “Save Darfur” button no one not the United Nations or anyone else in the world is doing anything about the human casualties caused by Islamist killing and the religion of death that is spreading there.

Remember America didn’t start the war with terrorism and unless the one who started the war against the United States calls for its end this war will not end. Just ask Solomon Rushdie who is still under a 1989 Islamic fatwas which is a death warrant, Rushdie wrote a book and Islam has been warring against him for 18 years.

Rushdie has been in hiding for 18 years. I suspect that Islam’s war against Rushdie will not end until he dies.

If Democrats were able to bring the troops home tomorrow I suspect that the war would not end. America would just go into hiding like Rushdie and the war would not end until America dies.

It seem to me someone ought to be singing give peace a chance to Osama bin Laden maybe a camp Casey right outside the cave of bin Laden right outside the Afghanistan Pakistan border.

Cindy you up for a little plane ride?

Hate? You’ve got to be kidding,it’s subversion of American laws Stupid!

Hillary Clinton before the NCLR

The nation's largest Hispanic advocacy group [The National Council of La Raza] says it must come up with a strategy to combat "a wave of hate" its leaders say came from talk radio's efforts to sink the Senate's immigration bill.

Orwellian Machavellianism is the telling of carefully constructed lies for the manipulation and deception of the political masses. Lying with hopes that the lies which you’re promoting will be forced on the masses politically.

Liberals have become quite adapt at this technique; Roe vs. Wade, Separation of Church and State, Homosexual Marriage, the President lied about Iraq are just a few of carefully constructed lies that Liberals have deceived the masses with and thereby have forced political changes or are forcing political changes into the laws that govern us forcing their liberal beliefs on half of the country that is not supportive of their beliefs.

Using this same pattern of ideological fascism Hispanics and organizations that promote Mexican nationals who, illegally enter into the United States, are now attempting to use Orwellian Machavellianism to reinvent the facts surrounding the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens who have disrespected the sovereignty of this Nation by entering into this country illegally.

Hispanics are calling the fact that Americans told their own Congress, an American Congress, and a Congress that is sworn to up hold the constitution of these United States, to up hold the rule of law. Americans don’t want their immigration laws violated and to call that desire“a wave of hate”is simply unconscionable. Can you believe the audacity? The out right blatant lie, that the National Council of La Raza is attempting to introduce? This would be a total redefinition of an act of patriotism, defining patriotism as a wave of hate. Hispanics join a long line of Liberals and liberal organizations who have redefined right by calling it wrong purely for self serving purposes.

Stung by the collapse of the immigration bill in the Senate last month, NCLR leaders and members at the group's annual convention in Miami Beach, which began yesterday, say they will have to start a campaign to register and mobilize voters, to warn against crossing the line in the debate and to force lawmakers to take a clear stand on what they are willing to tolerate. – Stephen Dinan, The Washtimes

Our nation has allowed for such redefinitions in the name of tolerance and progressive ideology these lies are the only way that liberal ideologies would ever be accepted in a sane rational society. These redefinitions are classic Orwellian deception a Liberal political staple.

George Orwell coined the term doublethink in his classic novel 1984. Doublethink is the power to hold two completely contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accept both of them.

"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself.

Just what is it about illegality that NCLR, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama doesn’t understand? Americans are not against Hispanics, Immigrants or workers. The operative word here is “illegal” and no amount of ignoring the fact that Mexican nationals are breaking American immigration laws is going to stop American’s demand for justice and obedience to the law.

NCLR's convention continues today with addresses by the two leading Democratic presidential candidates, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.

With Hispanics already considered a key swing voting group, both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama are trying to win those voters for themselves in the primaries and for Democrats in the general election.

If Sen. (s) Clinton, Obama and the NCLR have no regard for the laws of this country then those Senators are not fit to be considered to be President of these United States of America. As well the NCLR should be brought up on charges of subverting the laws of this country and disbanded forthwith.

As should any group that willingly lies to the American people in attempt to place it’s ideology above the laws and the people of this country.

The Wassup Democrats

(L-R) Former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel (D-AK), U.S. Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), former U.S. Senator John Edwards (D-NC), U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, and U.S. Senator Joe Biden (D-DE). (Chris Keane/Reuters)

Cooler than an ice cold bottle of Budweiser in a snowman’s hand Democrat Presidential hopefuls debated for the YouTube, Moveon.org, netroots radicals.

It was an electronic digital sock puppet show, it was Kukla, Fran and Ollie; it was Sesame Street on anabolic steroids and it was so fitting that the very first question to these candidates, who would be President of the United States of America was WASSUP?

Panning from the candidates on the stage and mounted flat screen TV monitors from which YouTubers asked questions, questions which were scatter all over the political spectrum like shot from a shotgun and as eclectic as furniture at a garage sell.

The first Hip-hop, YouTube, pop-Presidential debate was underway.

Shawn Jackson from Ann Arbor, Mich. Questioning Democratic hopeful via YouTube (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

To Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York a question was, Are you feminine enough? Referring of course to the question that former Sen. John Edwards wife has recently raised regarding the Senate’s apparent ducking of feminist issues. "I couldn't run as anything other than a woman," responded Sen. Clinton.

Her answer drew a challenge from former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, who said he was the best advocate for women on the debate stage. "I have the strongest, boldest ideas," he said.

Yeah, I always suspected that John Edwards was more of a woman that Hillary! Thank you for confirming that Mr. Edwards!

Sen. Obama was asked whether he felt that he was down with the homies and whether he was representin’ or not (as a Blackman). The University of Kansas student wanted to know if Sen. Obama felt that he was authentically black enough. (What to be President?) Obama said, "You know, when I'm catching a cab in Manhattan -- in the past, I think I've given my credentials." What!?! Senator you should have had a much better answer for this instance.

Senator Hillary Clinton

What a huge missed opportunity to point out that you don’t speak Ebonics as well as Hillary and her salmon color jacket was a bit ghetto however you’re the only candidate running who will inevitably be called nigger if you win! Not even Hillary is black enough to boast of that.

A gay female couple appeared on the screen, asking if the candidates would allow them to be married. Sen. Dennis Kucinich said yes; Sen. Chris Dodd and John Edwards said no but that they support civil unions for gay couples.

"The honest answer is I don't [support gay marriage]," said Edwards. "But I think it's wrong for me as the president of the United States to use my faith to deny anyone their rights."

Finally went asked whether any of the Senators would work their job for minimum wage, which goes from $5.15 per hour to $5.85 on Tuesday, former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel responded: "Oh, yes, I would.”

Now come on who you kidding Mr. Gravel? Just last June in a 244-181 vote, Democrats and Republicans alike killed a bid by Reps. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, and Lee Terry, R-Neb., to get a direct vote to block the COLA, which is automatically awarded unless lawmakers vote to block it.

The Senate has not indicated when it will deal with a similar measure. In essence the house just voted itself a $4,400.00 raise that would increase their salary to $170,000 a year. Yet these supposed supporters of the proletariat haggled over $0.70 an hr raise in the minimum wage for you and me.

So let’s recap, Lesbians asking about gay marriage. Two unrelated parents with sons in Iraq asking about ending the war, a question about minimum wage and a snowman asking about global warming I’d say yep that’s the Democratic platform in a nutshell.

I guess that’s WASSUP with the YouTube Democrats… Jeez God they can’t be serious can they?