Friday, April 27, 2007

Drive by media Lie re: Iraq seeking Uranium in Nigera

They keep saying it over and over hoping everyone will forget the truth.  Thanks to Opinion Journal Best of the web for pointing the media lies.


The Big Lie
The Associated Press casually slips a falsehood into a story about congressional efforts to investigate the administration:

By 21-10, the House oversight committee voted to issue a subpoena to Rice to compel her story on the Bush administration's claim, now discredited, that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa.

The New York Times, in a story posted on its Web site yesterday, similarly referred to the claim as "discredited," but this reference later was edited out. Reuters refers to the "administration's warnings, later proven false, that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger for nuclear arms."

In fact, the claim has not been disproved or discredited at all, as the nonpartisan explained in 2004:

After nearly a six-month investigation, a special panel reported to the British Parliament July 14 that British intelligence had indeed concluded back in 2002 that Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy uranium. The review panel was headed by Lord Butler of Brockwell, who had been a cabinet secretary under five different Prime Ministers and who is currently master of University College, Oxford.

The Butler report said British intelligence had "credible" information--from several sources--that a 1999 visit by Iraqi officials to Niger was for the purpose of buying uranium:

Butler Report: It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible.

The Butler Report affirmed what the British government had said about the Niger uranium story back in 2003, and specifically endorsed what [President] Bush said [in that year's State of the Union Address] as well.

The erstwhile Iraqi regime's quest for uranium appears to have been in vain. But the claim that Iraq didn't seek uranium is simply false. News organizations that repeat it are serving, wittingly or unwittingly, as propaganda outlets for those who oppose the U.S. war effort.

(Credit to



Thursday, April 26, 2007

Contact your Senators and Congressman and shut this Global Warming bill down cold!

I'm on a liberal mailing list so I get their calls to action messages. I just got one that calls for support of Boxer's latest power & money grab under the guise of fighting their new bogyman, the Global Warming Monster.  I edited it (slightly :-) and fired off a copy to my representatives. I hope you will do the same.  This nonsense has to stop somewhere, and it will have to start with us. This "man-made global warming"  lunacy is going to accomplish nothing but more government control, more taxes and higher cost of goods and services.  We are not just uninvited tenants of Earth.  We are indigenous too.
I hope you agree.
Easily find your representative's email contact here:
Then just copy/paste if you want (or write your own), and pass this along to anyone else you can get to write as well.

Dear [representative],
I've been following news of the Sanders-Boxer Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act (S. 309) closely, and as your constituent, I hope you WILL NOT sign on as a co-sponsor of this bill!
The "global warming problem", as the libs call it is a HOAX. You people can't manage a checkbook and you're going to mandate controlling the planet's climate?  GET REAL.
The Sanders-Boxer bill calls for a gradual reduction of U.S. emissions to 80% below 1990 standards by 2050. THAT'S INSANE. That would be an ECONOMIC NIGHTMARE. However, conservation is almost always a good thing. So, you first. Lead by example instead of by mandate. When your light bill is lower than mine we'll talk.
The bill would also promote the use of renewable energy sources. So what? Every President and politician for the last 20 years has touted alternative energy schemes. But it has all been hot air. (Maybe THAT'S our problem). Fact is, oil is a naturally occuring resource as much as wind is. Get over it.
This bill would also establish a cap-and-trade system that FORCES businesses to meet impossible pollution reduction standards and will cost them millions of dollars in BOGUS "trade credits". Trade credits; further proof that P.T. Barnum was right.
Co-sponsoring this bill would mean the end of your political career if I have anything to say about it.  NOW is your chance to take a real stand against these global warming whackos, by standing up to them and telling them to go fly a kite.
I hope you'll take it.

Dutch Consider Tough Biofuels Criteria

"In the rush to develop biofuels,
forests are burned in Asia to clear
land for palm oil, and swaths of the
Amazon are stripped of diverse
vegetation for soya and sugar
plantations for ethanol."

So what do you think about your fancy bio-fuel bus now, eh Cheryl Crow?

Inhofe dares Hollywood to take warming pledge - Nation/Politics - The Washington Times, America's Newspaper.htm

What unbelievable (literally) hypocrites these people are.  This woman, Cheryl Crow is traveling around the country, claiming she's being environmentally conscious because her bus uses "bio diesel", when in fact -- one she conveniently fails to mention -- her entire entrourage on this tour includes a caravan of three tractor-trailer rigs, four buses and six cars!
Elitists like this are like the pigs in the classic book Animal Farm, where "All Animals are Equal. Some Animals are More Equal than Other Animals."


Sunday, April 22, 2007

The Debate is Over

When someone declares that 'the debate is over',
it means they are losing the debate and they
simply want it to end.  It's akin to flipping over
the Chessboard -- after seeing their impending
doom in Checkmate -- and stomping out of the room.
                                                      -- Larry Wright

Monday, April 16, 2007

Global Warming: Just a thought

Global Warming is not only our fault in the U.S., it's the Republican's fault
What kind of sick, half-baked moron mentality could come up with that logic?

OpinionJournal - Case Closed

Case Closed
Tax cuts mean growth.

Saturday, April 14, 2007
I hope this guys runs. It's looking like he may be my guy.

Friday, April 13, 2007

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

Let's do a little math.

Review the data at the link and you'll see that man contributes about 0.28% of the total contribution to the so called "Greenhouse Effect" which "experts" are touting is the cause of Global Warming. (This little number gets left out of all the screeching about saving the planet. Most of the idiot celebrities are totally unaware of these facts.)

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

95% of the "Greenhouse Effect" is created by natural water vapor, NOT CO2. Folks, we can't do ANYTHING about that. The Earth's surface is 70% water! I live in the Smoky Mountains. Why do you think they call them the Smokies? WATER VAPOR! A large Oak tree can put out up to 900 gallons of water vapor into the air IN A DAY. (Should we ban trees?)

It is estimated that the U.S.'s portion of the total of all man-made contribution to the "Greenhouse Effect" is about 24%.


Even if we turned off EVERY LIGHT, stopped EVERY car, shut down EVERY generator, power plant and factory in the U.S. and even all held our breath until we were blue in the face, we would only affect the total "Greenhouse Effect" by ONE FOURTH of 0.28%

Do you get how infinitesimally small that is??? It doesn't matter how much measured "Greenhouse Effect" there is in the atmosphere. We're only contributing ONE FOURTH of 0.28% of it!

Do you see how absolutely stupid it is to think that we are somehow going to "Save the Planet" and change the climate through conservation, frugal consumption and outright abstention?
It's absurd! All of these environmentalist whacko tree huggers, celebrities and politicians are confusing environmental conservation with PLANETARY CLIMATE CHANGE. They are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. We're not going to "Save the Planet" with nutty ideas like switching from plastic bags back to paper (Didn't we switch from paper to plastic to save the planet's trees?).

The climate may well be changing. That's what has happened since the planet began. But WE'RE NOT DOING IT. And NOTHING we do will stop it.

But just because we can't stop it doesn't mean I subscribe to the doom and gloom of the so called "experts". No one knows how long this trend will last. Could be a few years, maybe more. It could reverse itself, sort of self-correct in the next few years, making all their 100 year model predictions totally worthless (not that they aren't useless anyway). Let's not forget all the "experts" were also touting the imminent coming of the next Ice Age in the mid 1970's. I'd take anything any "consensus" of "experts" have to say with a grain of salt and a lot of wait and see. Remember, it wasn't all that long ago that it was common "consensus" by all the "experts" that the world was flat, and anyone who disagreed was branded a heretic.

But even if the trend doesn't change and the climate continues to warm, we'll deal with it. Man has battled the elements of this planet since the beginning. There's no reason to suggest that we will not adapt and continue to thrive. And it might even be a good thing. What if you had to buy less heating oil? Aw gee.

My Thoughts,


Philadelphia Magazine: Al Gore Is a Greenhouse Gasbag
Penn professor Bob Giegengack has a few quibbles with the former VP on this whole global warming thing

Canada Free press: Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?


Thursday, April 12, 2007

Elizabeth Edwards afraid of neighbor

Charlotte Observer | 04/09/2007 | Elizabeth Edwards afraid of neighbor.htm

This article speaks volumes about the hypocrisy of John Edward's "Two America's" mantra.  His wife wouldn't dirty her hands with one of the "other Americans", who happens to be her neighbor.  These people live in an elitsist world.  Sure, John went out and earned a fortune chasing ambulances, but now they're upper crust.  They're special people.  Just try walking onto their property and see how many guns come out.

Edward's tired speech about his 'two Americas' focuses on poverty and the negative aspects of a free society.  But such poverty is a tiny fraction, around 5% or less of the populace (of which I came from, by the way). Why not focus on the positive side and give these people something to shoot for and encourage them to pull themselves out of poverty?  There are countless programs of assistance and traning already available they can use to better themselves. Why not help them set goals and teach them how to strive for them (like he did. like I did) rather than talk about how they just need his help (and your tax dollars) to even survive.

Instead, he sees them as his sheep and he is the shepherd and he will take care of them (at your expense of course).  He sees them as incapable of improvement, of getting jobs and providing for themselves. He insists, as do most of the Democrats, that we need 'cradle to grave socialism for every American', when in fact, most Americans don't need their help at all.  They are not speaking for all Americans.

Most Americans have jobs with medical benefits.  Most Americans get up every day and go to work.  Most Americans are producers.

Yes, there are some who are incapable of taking care of themselves and truly need help.  Some need a hand to get going. Others will need help for their entire lives. And we should help them.  But the number who really need such help is relatively small and Edwards and the rest would be far more credible if they focused on the positive aspects of a free society, and if they truly saw every American as 'one of us'.

But Elizabeth tipped her hand and showed her true feelings with her words.  Without ever having met her neighbor she has labeled him an enemy, to be feared and avoided. His sin?  He's a Republican.

The truth comes out.

That's my thoughts,