I always appreciate a good laugh, and this time we were all treated to a hoot!
As every person on the planet knows, then Senators Joe Biden and Barak Obama both voted against the surge in Iraq, and both worked tirelessly to give up in Iraq and pull out.
Now that Iraq has quieted down quite a bit because of the Bush "surge", Obama and Biden just jumped up with the statement, "Iraq may well be the crowning achievement of the Obama Administration."
The sheer, unmitigated gall of them trying to take credit for Iraq. I laughed so hard I nearly had to change my pants.
On second thought, the way the Obama administration is going, letting the Bush policy in Iraq work may well be his only achievement.
/
Monday, February 15, 2010
House of Cards
Every week it seems a new "bulletin" comes in to further prove the Global Warming alarm to be a hoax. This week is no exception, as the individual who actually wrote the original report cited by the U.N. and Al Gore has finally admitted that he did not really keep records, and much of what he wrote was just guesswork, and that there has been no substantial signs of global warming in 15 years. And he says that "warming periods" occurred two other times just since the Civil War, and each time it gave way to global cooling. He went on to say that the Earth has often warmed even more than this recent warming. Sounds just a wee bit like a cycle to me.
Really? Seems to me I have heard that somewhere before. Oh yeah, I remember. RIGHT HERE, on this blog. For two years I have been saying this, long before it was fashionable. For years I have been shouting from the rooftops that the normal temperature of the Earth is warmer than it is now, and the reason there are warming periods is simply because we are still coming out of the last ice age. In fact, the Earth experienced a mini ice age from approximately 1100 AD until approximately 1850. We are still coming out of that. So over time, we can expect additional warming periods as the Earth struggles to get back to normal.
So, now that Phil Jones has admitted his "science" was phony, and other senior "climategate" folks were discovered to have falsified data, you would think the idiots in Congress and the White House would back off - at least long enough to study this in detail. But no, the Democrats are intent on pushing forth their "global warming" bill (Cap & trade). Not because it would fight warming, but because it garnishes trillions in additional taxes, giving government even greater "Big Brother" control over our lives.
And that was the whole point in the first place. The United Nations, and many governments around the world want to "redistribute the wealth", and this global warming hoax was the perfect vehicle to help them do that.
/
Really? Seems to me I have heard that somewhere before. Oh yeah, I remember. RIGHT HERE, on this blog. For two years I have been saying this, long before it was fashionable. For years I have been shouting from the rooftops that the normal temperature of the Earth is warmer than it is now, and the reason there are warming periods is simply because we are still coming out of the last ice age. In fact, the Earth experienced a mini ice age from approximately 1100 AD until approximately 1850. We are still coming out of that. So over time, we can expect additional warming periods as the Earth struggles to get back to normal.
So, now that Phil Jones has admitted his "science" was phony, and other senior "climategate" folks were discovered to have falsified data, you would think the idiots in Congress and the White House would back off - at least long enough to study this in detail. But no, the Democrats are intent on pushing forth their "global warming" bill (Cap & trade). Not because it would fight warming, but because it garnishes trillions in additional taxes, giving government even greater "Big Brother" control over our lives.
And that was the whole point in the first place. The United Nations, and many governments around the world want to "redistribute the wealth", and this global warming hoax was the perfect vehicle to help them do that.
/
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Been Awhile
It has been some time since I have gotten a bunch of people in such a state that the veins would bulge in their necks as spittle flies from their mouths in rage. So I thought I would toss this out there.
Let's see - liberals love to rant how conservatives and Republicans are stupid or mentally retarded, but liberal progressives and Democrats are so much smarter. Remember how all the Democrat pundits and politicians kept calling G.W. Bush a "dumb cowboy"? Too stupid to be president? Couldn't "string three intelligible words together"? And now they are saying much the same about Sarah Palin.
And even though Bush graduated college, a bunch of Hollywood idiots who never went to college, and singers who don't even know how to spell "college" kept calling Bush "dumb".
Well, let's look at that. Bush graduated from Yale with higher grades than Kerry. Bush also went to Harvard. Graduated flight school. Was elected governor of Texas, and was twice elected President of the United States. But among all the liberals calling him dumb, not one has ever achieved anything of note. Not one. After all, who the Hell is Keith Olbermann? A nobody hack filled with his own self-importance who has never accomplished anything.
Sarah Palin graduated college. Won a beauty contest. Was a very successful mayor and a very successful governor. Got nominated for Vice President, wrote a best-seller, and gets paid $100,000 to speak for an hour. Among all those same liberals calling her (and Bush) dumb, not a one of them ever accomplished anything noteworthy.
Liberals scalded Palin and labeled her stupid for not having a ready answer as to which magazines she reads. But they conveniently overlooked Obama saying there were 58 states, or that Pelosi said we were losing 300 million jobs a month. Yes, they are obviously so much smarter than Palin or Bush.
So I have to ask - if conservatives and Republicans are stupid just because they are conservatives and Republicans, what does that make the ne'er-do-well liberals who look down on them?
And lest we forget, those liberals accused American voters of being ignorant and stupid because they elected Bush - twice. But to liberals, those same voters suddenly became intelligent and enlightened when Obama got elected.
I only hope that there is something to this "evolution" thing, where creatures evolve into higher forms of life. If so, then liberals and progressives must eventually evolve into conservatives, and then the world will be A-OK.
/
Let's see - liberals love to rant how conservatives and Republicans are stupid or mentally retarded, but liberal progressives and Democrats are so much smarter. Remember how all the Democrat pundits and politicians kept calling G.W. Bush a "dumb cowboy"? Too stupid to be president? Couldn't "string three intelligible words together"? And now they are saying much the same about Sarah Palin.
And even though Bush graduated college, a bunch of Hollywood idiots who never went to college, and singers who don't even know how to spell "college" kept calling Bush "dumb".
Well, let's look at that. Bush graduated from Yale with higher grades than Kerry. Bush also went to Harvard. Graduated flight school. Was elected governor of Texas, and was twice elected President of the United States. But among all the liberals calling him dumb, not one has ever achieved anything of note. Not one. After all, who the Hell is Keith Olbermann? A nobody hack filled with his own self-importance who has never accomplished anything.
Sarah Palin graduated college. Won a beauty contest. Was a very successful mayor and a very successful governor. Got nominated for Vice President, wrote a best-seller, and gets paid $100,000 to speak for an hour. Among all those same liberals calling her (and Bush) dumb, not a one of them ever accomplished anything noteworthy.
Liberals scalded Palin and labeled her stupid for not having a ready answer as to which magazines she reads. But they conveniently overlooked Obama saying there were 58 states, or that Pelosi said we were losing 300 million jobs a month. Yes, they are obviously so much smarter than Palin or Bush.
So I have to ask - if conservatives and Republicans are stupid just because they are conservatives and Republicans, what does that make the ne'er-do-well liberals who look down on them?
And lest we forget, those liberals accused American voters of being ignorant and stupid because they elected Bush - twice. But to liberals, those same voters suddenly became intelligent and enlightened when Obama got elected.
I only hope that there is something to this "evolution" thing, where creatures evolve into higher forms of life. If so, then liberals and progressives must eventually evolve into conservatives, and then the world will be A-OK.
/
Monday, February 8, 2010
Health Care Summit
President Obama wants a summit on health care, and has (finally) invited the Republicans to join in the discussion, supposedly in an attempt at bipartisanship. But is that what this is really about?
It's not a summit - it's a setup.
The president has already said he does not plan on changing what the Democrats have offered in their bill. He does not plan on starting over. So just what IS the game plan?
I will go on record right here and now - I think the "bipartisan summit" is a sham, and an intentional sham. There will be no real attempt at bipartisanship, and I can almost guarantee that Obama and the Democrats will let Republicans speak, but will refuse to adopt any meaningful Republican ideas.
One of two things will happen:
1) Either the Democrats will reject any meaningful Republican ideas out of hand, and then go forward saying, "Gee, we tried to be bipartisan, but those obstructionist Republicans just would not cooperate." Or...
2) The Democrats will choose some small, meaningless part of a Republican idea and offer to include it if the Republicans will back the Democrat bill. Obviously, the Republicans would be forced to refuse because they really are not getting anything at all. And again the Democrats will go forth and say, "Gee, we tried to be bipartisan. We even offered to adopt part of their plan, but those obstructionist Republicans just would not cooperate."
In other words, it will be business as usual, the same old Chicago-style politics we have been witnessing for a year. The health care summit will only be a bogus attempt to make the Democrats APPEAR to be bipartisan while making the Republicans APPEAR to be obstructionist. But the reverse would actually be the truth.
Suffice it to say that I seriously doubt the Democrats have any intention of seriously listening to, or adopting any Republican ideas to cut health care costs and get more people covered.
Time will tell. But for the last year, the Democrat's idea of "bipartisan" means they write the bill, then Republicans shut up and vote for it. I have a newsflash for the Democrats - that line of thinking is why you are now losing so many Democrat strongholds like Massachusetts and New Jersey.
Bipartisanship means both sides get to provide input and write the bill, so members of both sides can vote for it. It's called compromise. But that is a word that the administration, Pelosi and Reid simply do not understand.
/
It's not a summit - it's a setup.
The president has already said he does not plan on changing what the Democrats have offered in their bill. He does not plan on starting over. So just what IS the game plan?
I will go on record right here and now - I think the "bipartisan summit" is a sham, and an intentional sham. There will be no real attempt at bipartisanship, and I can almost guarantee that Obama and the Democrats will let Republicans speak, but will refuse to adopt any meaningful Republican ideas.
One of two things will happen:
1) Either the Democrats will reject any meaningful Republican ideas out of hand, and then go forward saying, "Gee, we tried to be bipartisan, but those obstructionist Republicans just would not cooperate." Or...
2) The Democrats will choose some small, meaningless part of a Republican idea and offer to include it if the Republicans will back the Democrat bill. Obviously, the Republicans would be forced to refuse because they really are not getting anything at all. And again the Democrats will go forth and say, "Gee, we tried to be bipartisan. We even offered to adopt part of their plan, but those obstructionist Republicans just would not cooperate."
In other words, it will be business as usual, the same old Chicago-style politics we have been witnessing for a year. The health care summit will only be a bogus attempt to make the Democrats APPEAR to be bipartisan while making the Republicans APPEAR to be obstructionist. But the reverse would actually be the truth.
Suffice it to say that I seriously doubt the Democrats have any intention of seriously listening to, or adopting any Republican ideas to cut health care costs and get more people covered.
Time will tell. But for the last year, the Democrat's idea of "bipartisan" means they write the bill, then Republicans shut up and vote for it. I have a newsflash for the Democrats - that line of thinking is why you are now losing so many Democrat strongholds like Massachusetts and New Jersey.
Bipartisanship means both sides get to provide input and write the bill, so members of both sides can vote for it. It's called compromise. But that is a word that the administration, Pelosi and Reid simply do not understand.
/
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Question
Two days after the "Christmas Bomber" was Mirandized, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told Chris Wallace that from just 50 minutes of interrogation, "We got everything out of him that he knew."
Let us assume that statement was true.
But a month later, the same White House spokesperson tells the Press Corps that, "He's talking again, and we are getting actionable intelligence."
Now if we still assume the White House spokesperson was telling the truth the first time, then he must be lying now. Or, if he is telling the truth now, he must have been lying last month. Because both statements cannot be true.
In either case, the White House has lied to us. Plain and simple. No, it was not a "mistake". They stated both as facts.
So here's my question:
If the White House lies to us, and it is a fact that liars cannot be trusted, then why in Hell do we allow these people to run our country????
If you do not trust someone, you do not let them run your business, drive your car or watch your kids. But you let them run the country!
In 10 months you have an opportunity to start on the road to correcting what is wrong with this country. Stop voting for cowards, crooks, liars and politicians who work for special interests instead of YOUR interests.
/
Let us assume that statement was true.
But a month later, the same White House spokesperson tells the Press Corps that, "He's talking again, and we are getting actionable intelligence."
Now if we still assume the White House spokesperson was telling the truth the first time, then he must be lying now. Or, if he is telling the truth now, he must have been lying last month. Because both statements cannot be true.
In either case, the White House has lied to us. Plain and simple. No, it was not a "mistake". They stated both as facts.
So here's my question:
If the White House lies to us, and it is a fact that liars cannot be trusted, then why in Hell do we allow these people to run our country????
If you do not trust someone, you do not let them run your business, drive your car or watch your kids. But you let them run the country!
In 10 months you have an opportunity to start on the road to correcting what is wrong with this country. Stop voting for cowards, crooks, liars and politicians who work for special interests instead of YOUR interests.
/
Friday, February 5, 2010
Pathetic
This today from the liberal Associated Press, in an attempt to spin a story to favor their agenda:
"AP - The outlook for jobs became a bit less bleak with January's unexpected decline in the unemployment rate, which fell to 9.7 percent from 10 percent as more people said they had jobs"
Yes, the "unemployment rate" dropped to 9.7%. But not because anyone "said they had jobs". In truth, no one even ASKED. The reason the rate fell even though 22,000 more first-timers signed up for benefits is because so many others dropped off as their benefits expired. Several months ago Congress extended benefits for millions, but those extensions are ending.
NOTE: The unemployment rate is NOT the actual percentage of people out of work. It only represents those who are out of work and still collecting benefits. Once an unemployed person stops collecting, he is no longer counted as unemployed even though he may still be out of work.
But the problem with the story as presented by the AP is simply that they are trying to make it look as though people who were no longer collecting benefits were contacted and "said they had jobs". That did not happen. As usual, the AP, ever in the pocket of progressives, is using its power to brainwash the folks and shore up the sagging poll numbers of the current administration.
And THAT is the story here.
Add that to Obama saying yesterday that we, the people need to listen more to him and stop watching the news on cable. Yeah, sure. Of course he does not want us getting the news on cable - the truth is killing him! He would prefer to co-opt the entire conversation, and that you only get his side of things. This, from the man who told 22 blatant lies in his State of the Union message (as proved by Factcheck.org).
Strange, considering during the Bush years these same progressives like Obama were saying dissent was the purist act of democracy. Now that the dissent is working against them, it is suddenly a bad thing.
What a joke these people have become.
/
"AP - The outlook for jobs became a bit less bleak with January's unexpected decline in the unemployment rate, which fell to 9.7 percent from 10 percent as more people said they had jobs"
Yes, the "unemployment rate" dropped to 9.7%. But not because anyone "said they had jobs". In truth, no one even ASKED. The reason the rate fell even though 22,000 more first-timers signed up for benefits is because so many others dropped off as their benefits expired. Several months ago Congress extended benefits for millions, but those extensions are ending.
NOTE: The unemployment rate is NOT the actual percentage of people out of work. It only represents those who are out of work and still collecting benefits. Once an unemployed person stops collecting, he is no longer counted as unemployed even though he may still be out of work.
But the problem with the story as presented by the AP is simply that they are trying to make it look as though people who were no longer collecting benefits were contacted and "said they had jobs". That did not happen. As usual, the AP, ever in the pocket of progressives, is using its power to brainwash the folks and shore up the sagging poll numbers of the current administration.
And THAT is the story here.
Add that to Obama saying yesterday that we, the people need to listen more to him and stop watching the news on cable. Yeah, sure. Of course he does not want us getting the news on cable - the truth is killing him! He would prefer to co-opt the entire conversation, and that you only get his side of things. This, from the man who told 22 blatant lies in his State of the Union message (as proved by Factcheck.org).
Strange, considering during the Bush years these same progressives like Obama were saying dissent was the purist act of democracy. Now that the dissent is working against them, it is suddenly a bad thing.
What a joke these people have become.
/
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Pluto
Found the following article today. Thought it was particularly interesting that Pluto (and also Neptune, by the way) are ALSO getting warmer, with melting ice - yet it cannot be atttributed to man's pollution.
Maybe this whole warming thing is a natural, cyclical phenomenon, as I have been suggesting for years.
WASHINGTON – Spurned Pluto is changing its looks, donning more rouge in its complexion and altering its iceball surface here and there.
Color astronomers surprised. [Editor's note - color Gore embarrased - again]
Newly released Hubble Space Telescope photos show the distant one-time planet — demoted to "dwarf planet" status in 2006 — is changing color and its ice sheets are shifting.
The photos, released by NASA Thursday, paint a Pluto that is significantly redder than it had been for the past several decades. To the layman, it has a yellow-orange hue, but astronomers say it has about 20 percent more red than it used to have.
The pictures show icy frozen nitrogen on Pluto's surface growing and shrinking, brightening in the north and darkening in the south. Astronomers say Pluto's surface is changing more than the surfaces of other bodies in the solar system. That's unexpected because a season lasts 120 years in some regions of Pluto.
"It's a little bit of a surprise to see these changes happening so big and so fast," said astronomer Marc Buie of the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colo. "This is unprecedented."
/
Maybe this whole warming thing is a natural, cyclical phenomenon, as I have been suggesting for years.
WASHINGTON – Spurned Pluto is changing its looks, donning more rouge in its complexion and altering its iceball surface here and there.
Color astronomers surprised. [Editor's note - color Gore embarrased - again]
Newly released Hubble Space Telescope photos show the distant one-time planet — demoted to "dwarf planet" status in 2006 — is changing color and its ice sheets are shifting.
The photos, released by NASA Thursday, paint a Pluto that is significantly redder than it had been for the past several decades. To the layman, it has a yellow-orange hue, but astronomers say it has about 20 percent more red than it used to have.
The pictures show icy frozen nitrogen on Pluto's surface growing and shrinking, brightening in the north and darkening in the south. Astronomers say Pluto's surface is changing more than the surfaces of other bodies in the solar system. That's unexpected because a season lasts 120 years in some regions of Pluto.
"It's a little bit of a surprise to see these changes happening so big and so fast," said astronomer Marc Buie of the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colo. "This is unprecedented."
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)