Monday, September 28, 2009
President Obama announced last week that he will abandon the European Missile Shield, part of a larger US effort to construct a global anti-ballistic missile system. The missile shield, aimed at stopping incoming nuclear ICBM’s from rogue states like Iran and North Korea...and possibly at deterring a larger attack from Russia was a key part of the Bush Administration’s defense strategy. Was this the right move, politically and militarily?
And now today:
TEHRAN, Iran – Iran tested its most advanced missiles Monday to cap two days of war games, raising more international concern and stronger pressure to quickly come clean on the newly revealed nuclear site Tehran was secretly constructing.
State television said the powerful Revolutionary Guard, which controls Iran's missile program, successfully tested upgraded versions of the medium-range Shahab-3 and Sajjil missiles. Both can carry warheads and reach up to 1,200 miles (2,000 kilometers), putting Israel, U.S. military bases in the Middle East, and parts of Europe within striking distance.
The missile tests were meant to flex Iran's military might and show readiness for any military threat.
"Iranian missiles are able to target any place that threatens Iran," said Abdollah Araqi, a top Revolutionary Guard commander, according to the semi-official Fars news agency.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Friday, September 25, 2009
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Czech President Vaclav Klaus sharply criticized a U.N. meeting on climate change on Tuesday at which U.S. President Barack Obama was among the top speakers, describing it as propagandistic and undignified.
"It was sad and it was frustrating," said Klaus, one of the world's most vocal skeptics on the topic of global warming.
"It's a propagandistic exercise where 13-year-old girls from some far-away country perform a pre-rehearsed poem," he said. "It's simply not dignified."
At the opening of the summit attended by nearly 100 world leaders, 13-year-old Yugratna Srivastava of India told the audience that governments were not doing enough to combat the threat of climate change.
Klaus said there were increasing doubts in the scientific community about whether humans are causing changes in the climate or whether the changes are simply naturally occurring phenomena.
But politicians, he said, seem to be moving closer to a consensus on climate change.
"The train can't be stopped and I consider that a huge mistake," Klaus said.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon organized the climate summit to help create momentum before a U.N. meeting in Copenhagen in December to reach agreement on new targets for reducing so-called greenhouse gas emissions.
However, new proposals by China and a rallying cry from U.S. President Barack Obama did little to break a U.N. deadlock about what should be done.
Klaus published a book in 2007 on the worldwide campaign to stop climate change entitled "Blue Planet in Green Chains: What Is Under Threat -- Climate or Freedom?"
In the book, Klaus said global warming has turned into a new religion, an ideology that threatens to undermine freedom and the world's economic and social order.
Why can't the USA have a president like Klaus who can be a real leader in the world, the way Ronald Reagan was? Are we destined to have either marxists like 0bama or RINOs like Bush or McCain? I hope not.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Friday, September 18, 2009
Madeleine Albright said during the meeting that America no longer had the intention of being the first nation of the world.
Oddlly enough Madeleine, thats exactly what he have been saying about the intentions and goals of you dirtbags on the left for years. But you will only admit something like this when you are kissing ass over in Russia. You scum don't want freedom, you don't want free enterprise, you don't want democracy. That's why you have been insisting that the USA drop its market capitalism and stop trying to stand in the way of foreign tyrants who want to enslave people.
The former US Secretary of State surprised the audience with her speech. She particularly said that democracy was not the perfect system. “It can be contradictory, corrupt and may have security problems,” Albright said.
America has been having hard times recently, Albright said.
Yes Madeleine, democracy has caused problems for the agenda that people like you and 0bama want to carry out. Most people don't want a stupid cap-and-trade scheme to combat a nonexistent global warming problem. Most people are fine with their health care and don't want it replaced with the medical equivalent of the post office. Most people don't want to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens who have caused massive crime, overburdened government services, and driven down the wages of unskilled labor.
And what's more Madeleine. We know quite well why you don't want democracy. Many of us have seen democracy in action this past summer when we tried to tell our elected representatives what we want and don't want. People like you don't even believe we have a right to our opinions.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Anyone who cares about the survival of our planet should start praying that Barack Obama gets his way on reforming US healthcare. That probably sounds hyperbolic, if not mildly deranged: even those who are adamant that 45 million uninsured Americans deserve basic medical cover would not claim that the future of the earth depends on it. But think again.
Next week, world leaders will attend the first UN summit dedicated entirely to climate change. Their aim will be to plunge a shot of adrenaline into stuttering efforts to draw up a new global agreement on carbon emissions. The plan is to replace the Kyoto treaty with a new one, to be agreed in Copenhagen in December. Trouble is, the prospects of getting a deal worthy of the name get bleaker every day.
Few deny that the world needs a new agreement. In the 12 years since Kyoto, we've emitted a whole lot more carbon – and gained a whole lot more knowledge of its dangers. The science is now clear that if we do not manage to keep the increase in the earth's temperature below 2C, we risk facing the effects of catastrophic climate change – with all the flooding, drought, mass migration and human suffering that it would entail. The experts tell us that the only way to stay below that 2C limit is for global emissions to peak in 2015 – and then start falling. In other words, we have set ourselves up at a nice corner table in the last chance saloon.
Freedland reminds me of the character Dr. Smith, from the 1960s sitcom "Lost in Space.
Smith: "I am a Doctor of Intergalactic Environmental Psychology"
Robot: "You are a quack"
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
First we learned that Barack 0bama attended Jeremiah Wright's church in Chicago for 20 years and didn't have the slightest idea that Wright was regularly saying things like "God Damn America" and accusing the CIA of infecting black with AIDS.
Then we learned that 0bama has had a long and extensive relatiobnship with terrorists William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, but didn't have any knowledge of the couple's background.
Now we know that 0bama has had a relationship with ACORN going back years, as their attorney and as one of their 'community organizers', yet he didn't have any idea about the unlawful activity that two young journalists have so easily uncovered.
How stupid do you think the American people are, Mr. President?
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Saturday, September 12, 2009
We have heard a lot about 0bama's former client ACORN lately. About how ACORN staffers in Baltimore and DC gave advice to an alleged pimp and protitute who said they were going to illegally import 13 year-olds from El Salvador to run a prostitution ring. Now Brandon Darby, a former undercover FBI informant, tells us about Wade Rathke, founder of ACORN:
I returned to Texas after a couple of years adminst the political quagmire of post-Katrina New Orleans. My experience there with various groups was educational and life-changing, though some of these groups concerned me. Eventually I began to see some of them as dangerous and deceitful about their missions. This, along with a growing appreciation of my country helped lead me to work with the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force.
I was as proud of this new era in my life as I was of my time in New Orleans. I had the privilege of participating in efforts where lives were saved; both in the United States and in Israel. While working undercover with the FBI at the Republican National Convention in Minnesota, I helped to uncover a bomb plot. Two men had made firebombs with a homemade napalm mixture of gasoline and oil. Their initial targets were Republican delegates. These bomb-makers (domestic terrorists) later decided to attack a staging area for the Secret Service and other law-enforcement agencies. Fortunately, they were stopped and arrested.
I was asked, and agreed, to testify against them. As was expected, the more radical elements of the media began to attack both me as an individual and the FBI as a whole. One of the men accused plead guilty; the other hired an expensive defense attorney and concocted a story about the FBI building these bombs to “set up left-wing activists” and stop dissent. But once the facts became clear, the defense changed their story and instead tried to blame the FBI for ”influencing” the terrorists. Thankfully, after one hung jury and many months of intense media attacks against me, the other bomb-maker (domestic terrorist) decided to come clean and admitted to the judge that he had invented the whole story.
What does any of this have to do with ACORN? I wondered the same thing on January 31st of 2009 when I was reading an ACORN blog that is run by Wade Rathke (the man who claims credit for founding ACORN). He devoted an entire page to my work with the FBI. How did he describe the FBI’s effort and success in preventing innocent Americans, local police and federal agents from being burned, maimed and/or possibly killed by firebombs? He wrote that it’s “one thing to disagree, but it’s a whole different thing to rat on folks.” That is what ACORN’s founder had to say about my role in stopping a bomb plot.
So its a bad thing to rat on terrorists who want to kill innocent people, eh Wade?
Thursday, September 10, 2009
This woman may be the most notorious of the twenty. She has been repeatedly savaged in the press and called every name in the book. And I still think she is a fox, especially in her schoolgirl outfit from the "Baby One More Time" video.
Say what you want about Britney. No one has ever accused her of being overdressed. And she is absolutely gorgeous.
Watching both the health care and climate/energy debates in Congress, it is hard not to draw the following conclusion: There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today.
One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century. It is not an accident that China is committed to overtaking us in electric cars, solar power, energy efficiency, batteries, nuclear power and wind power. China’s leaders understand that in a world of exploding populations and rising emerging-market middle classes, demand for clean power and energy efficiency is going to soar. Beijing wants to make sure that it owns that industry and is ordering the policies to do that, including boosting gasoline prices, from the top down.
Our one-party democracy is worse. The fact is, on both the energy/climate legislation and health care legislation, only the Democrats are really playing. With a few notable exceptions, the Republican Party is standing, arms folded and saying “no.” Many of them just want President Obama to fail. Such a waste. Mr. Obama is not a socialist; he’s a centrist. But if he’s forced to depend entirely on his own party to pass legislation, he will be whipsawed by its different factions.
You can see what the fried man refers to as 'one-party democracy'. Simply because Republicans oppose ridiculous policies like taxes on carbon emissions or nationalization of the health care industry, it means that only one party is participating in the 'democracy'! So going by Friedman's twisted logic, if the Tennessee Titans oppose the Pittsburgh Steelers' attempts to win the football game they are playing tonight, it's only a one-team game and the Titans just want the Steelers to fail.
So Tom wants a one-party autocracy (totalitarian dictatorship) "led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today". In what way is the Chinese 'autocracy' reasonably enlightened, Tom? When they force women into third trimester abortions? Or how about when they condemn people to death in order to harvest their internal organs to be given to well-connected people who need transplants? China might not be as bad as they were under Mao Tse-Tung, but I would not care to live under such a system as they have today.
So why does Tom want this autocracy? For one thing, I am sure that he thinks he would be counted as one of the 'reasonably enlightened' so he can help tell all us hillbillies in the red states how we are supposed to live our lives. And for another thing, democracy just isn't going to give him what he wants in terms of government policy. Most people have more common sense than Friedman. They can tell that the climate is not warming, that the source of our heat is the sun, and that the addition of a few carbon dioxide molecules to the atmosphere will not cause the earth to retain any more of the sun's heat.
Most people have experience in dealing with government and know that allowing the federal government to take over the health care system will only harm the quality of health care they receive. They don't want what Tom wants. Therefore, Tom wants to take the decision-making authority away from them. They should not be allowed to vote for the people who run our government. They should not be allowed to protest against congressmen who make decisions they don't like, as many have done recently at town hall meetings.
Anyone who falls for the notion of 'social democracy' or anything of the sort is an idiot. As Hayek most eloquently demonstrated in "Road to Serfdom", democracy is only possible with a limited government.
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Monday, September 07, 2009
Gerry Adams, leader of a marxist terrorist organization responsible for the deaths of thousands, will honor his fellow mass murderer Che Guevara in a movie called "Chevolution"
Yeah, Gerry. That 'revolutionary spirit' that Che infected you with led you to become a mass murderer of innocent people just like him. Only to your misfortune the Ulstermen decided to fight back.
In his talking head role, Adams claims that Che’s iconic image fired Northern Ireland’s civil rights marches in 1968 with a revolutionary spirit before they exploded into the Troubles.
He adds that it also fuelled the Paris student riots and Vietnam War protests in the US.
Once again correct. There were some people in the USA who didn't like the fact that we were trying to prevent a marxist takeover, with the inevitable mass murder, in Indochina. Had the IRA been successful in 'liberating' Ulster from the UK would we have seen consequences similar to what happened in Vietnam and Cambodia after 1975? I suspect so.
And while the film flashes up a montage of gable-end murals in Belfast emblazoned with Che’s face, Adams adds: “I suppose people from my background were drawn to that image, because of what Che Guevara represented.”
Yes, and what Guevara represented to you was the dream of an Northern Irish version of La Cabana, with nightly executions of Ulster Unionists.
Sunday, September 06, 2009
Saturday, September 05, 2009
Friday, September 04, 2009
Thursday, September 03, 2009
The 1990s were the Arctic’s warmest decade in the past 2,000 years, says a study released in Friday’s edition of Science. The warming -- due to the release of greenhouse gases into the Earth’s atmosphere -- overpowered a natural cooling trend that should have otherwise continued.
Scientists used “natural” thermometers -- such as glacial ice cores, tree rings and sediments from lakes -- to calculate the temperatures of the Arctic over the past two millennia. Instruments have been used to measure the actual temperature of the Arctic since the late 1800s.
“This study provides us with a long-term record that reveals how greenhouse gases from human activities are overwhelming the Arctic's natural climate system," reports study co-author David Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo.
This 'study' has more holes in it than a sieve. See Steve McIntyre's blog for the full story. A brief summary of some of the bigger problems:
(1) Some of the proxy data, sediment from lakes as computed by Mia Tiljander, is used *upside down*, so that it shows warming when it is actually cooling, and vice versa. Here is how Tiljander's data should actually look:
(2) The Kaufman et al (2009) study engages in data mining, i.e. the use of data that support their preconceived notion that CO2 emissions have warmed the plane in the 20th century and discarding the data that do not support their theory. As McIntyre explains it:
The most cursory examination of Kaufman et al shows the usual problem of picking proxies ex post: e.g. the exclusion of the Mount Logan ice core and Jellybean Lake sediment series; or the selection of Yamal rather than Polar Urals - a problem that is even pernicious because of the failure to archive "bad" results (e.g. Thompson's Bona-Churchill or Jacoby's "we're paid to tell a story").
The mind boggles. If some researcher in economics had used such fraudulent techniques he would be laughed right out of the profession.
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Jeff O'Bryant has an interesting essay on the left:
We can, of course, continue to try and get along with each other, but that is becoming increasingly difficult. The more the Left gets, the more it wants, and nothing will satisfy them until everyone pays 100 percent in taxes and government runs every-thing. No, the ultimate answer is for one side to defeat the other. Either we become a nation built upon the dark fantasy of liberalism and socialism or one that stands on the realities of conservatism and capitalism.
Very true. The left will never be satisfied with anything less than totalitarian control of all aspects of our lives.
This desire to destroy lives is especially apparent, however, when the Left feels threatened by “one of their own,” someone who is part of a minority they feel needs their special protection. Sarah Palin, who doesn't fit the mold of a feminist, was sued to the point of having her life completely disrupted. Since she respects life, loves her husband and believes in the institution of family, the Left had to try and destroy her. Here is a sterling example of a successful woman, and they only wanted to tear her down. Feminists don't care about women, it seems, only femi-nism.
Also very true. Remember when Bill Clinton was accused of sexual harassment on Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey, and also accused of raping Juanita Broadrick? The feminists on the left could care less if some particular woman gets sexually harassed or raped. They only want to use these issues selectively as a political weapon against those who oppose their agenda.