We have noticed recent charges that those who publicly oppose the current superstition of global warming are in the pay of "Big Oil."
We await our check. If Mr. (or Ms.) Big Oil will contact us, we will be happy to provide information regarding our Swiss accounts.
For the record, we are unpersuaded by the current hysteria. For example, how did the last Ice Age end without the assistance of industrial pollutants from humans?
Those fattening off junk science as cynical hysteria need not worry; they already have the next world-ending threat in the wings. When the world does not melt down on schedule, we will be deluged with demands for massive spending to defeat -------- killer asteroids.
Now how will WE make money off that?
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
The Rehabilitation of Richard Nixon
Senator Barack Obama, stepping up his effort to prove that he is more than just a pretty face, has decreed that he would actively strike at terrorist bases in other nations, whether or not their government consents. Specifically, he has said he would attack terrorists in Pakistan, whether or not the Pakistani government consents.
With some astonishment, we must admit that we concur with this proposal. It is incumbent upon our government to strike our enemies wherever it can find them. Those who give them sanctuary must do so at their own risk.
But the Senator has not explained:
1. How he would justify such actions under his party's understanding of "international law," and,
2. How such exercises would differ from the "incursions" into Laos and Cambodia ordered by President Nixon.
Could it be that Mr. Nixon had it right all along?
With some astonishment, we must admit that we concur with this proposal. It is incumbent upon our government to strike our enemies wherever it can find them. Those who give them sanctuary must do so at their own risk.
But the Senator has not explained:
1. How he would justify such actions under his party's understanding of "international law," and,
2. How such exercises would differ from the "incursions" into Laos and Cambodia ordered by President Nixon.
Could it be that Mr. Nixon had it right all along?
Friday, July 27, 2007
Freedom From Religion
Perhaps it has become trendy for the media to report on Muslim demands that society accomodate their religious practices, or perhaps these demands are truly on the rise. In either case, some thoughts on the limits of "freedom of religion" are in order.
The Constitution prohibits the creation of a state religion - the government may not tell us where or when or how or what to worship. That prohibition has been expanded to also prohibit government interference with religion and government support of religion. Thus every December some atheist brings suit against some municipality that has foolishly erected a creche on public land. It has also driven the criticism of the Bush Administration support for "faith-based initiatives."
Yet all these concerns seemingly disappear if the faith in question is Islam:
Muslim cabbies in Minneapolis want to be free to deny transport passengers carrying alcohol.
That is discrimination based on religion and a clear violation of federal law. Pretend the cabbies were white Christians who did not want to transport non-whites.
If the cabbie doesn't want to offend his religious principles, let him find another job. The government should not let him impose his PREJUDICES on others, particularly when it vigorously prevents from others from imposing their prejudices.
Muslim students and workers are pressing for foot washing stations so they may wash their feet before they pray. If that is part of their religion, well and good. But let them pay for it.
There is the crucial limit to the "freedom of religion." One may worship as one pleases, but one may not require the rest of us to subsidize it. Imagine the outcry if a Baptist church demanded use of a public swimming pool for baptisms. (To tell the truth, if they wanted to pay a reasonable rental fee, we would not be offended.)
Clearly being a Muslim should not make one a second-class citizen. Neither should it entitle one to special rights, privileges or treatment not available to non-Muslims.
The Constitution prohibits the creation of a state religion - the government may not tell us where or when or how or what to worship. That prohibition has been expanded to also prohibit government interference with religion and government support of religion. Thus every December some atheist brings suit against some municipality that has foolishly erected a creche on public land. It has also driven the criticism of the Bush Administration support for "faith-based initiatives."
Yet all these concerns seemingly disappear if the faith in question is Islam:
Muslim cabbies in Minneapolis want to be free to deny transport passengers carrying alcohol.
That is discrimination based on religion and a clear violation of federal law. Pretend the cabbies were white Christians who did not want to transport non-whites.
If the cabbie doesn't want to offend his religious principles, let him find another job. The government should not let him impose his PREJUDICES on others, particularly when it vigorously prevents from others from imposing their prejudices.
Muslim students and workers are pressing for foot washing stations so they may wash their feet before they pray. If that is part of their religion, well and good. But let them pay for it.
There is the crucial limit to the "freedom of religion." One may worship as one pleases, but one may not require the rest of us to subsidize it. Imagine the outcry if a Baptist church demanded use of a public swimming pool for baptisms. (To tell the truth, if they wanted to pay a reasonable rental fee, we would not be offended.)
Clearly being a Muslim should not make one a second-class citizen. Neither should it entitle one to special rights, privileges or treatment not available to non-Muslims.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Bush Lied - IMPEACH HIM!!!
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
“Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
“Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”
Rep.Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction… So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
“Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
“Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”
Rep.Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction… So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Senator Feingold, Please Clarify
The distinguished senator from Wisconsin, Russ Feingold, showing that he is a true successor to that other great Wisconsin legislator, Joe McCarthy, has proposed to censure President Bush.
Senator, Please advise which part of the Constitution gives Congress this power?
By the way, it is amusing to note that the last president "censured" by Congress was Andrew Jackson. He was so disgraced that his portrait was expunged from the public record and appears only on the $20 bill.
Senator, Please advise which part of the Constitution gives Congress this power?
By the way, it is amusing to note that the last president "censured" by Congress was Andrew Jackson. He was so disgraced that his portrait was expunged from the public record and appears only on the $20 bill.
Why We Fight
It is said that, when Eisenhower learned of the Nazi death camps, he ordered Allied troops to tour them, commenting "I want them to see what we are fighting against."
With that in mind, we offer a simple illustration.
We are fighting in Iraq so that women may CHOOSE to dress like this:
Not Like This:
Questions?
Friday, July 20, 2007
Eat Your Heart Out, John Kerry
The question of John Kerry's war record is back in the news.
We do not question that he is indeed a hero - to the enemy.
We therefore offer a glimpse at the record of a genuine AMERICAN hero:
For gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty on 6 June 1944 in France. After 2 verbal requests to accompany the leading assault elements in the Normandy invasion had been denied, Brig. Gen. Roosevelt's written request for this mission was approved and he landed with the first wave of the forces assaulting the enemy-held beaches. He repeatedly led groups from the beach, over the seawall and established them inland. His valor, courage, and presence in the very front of the attack and his complete unconcern at being under heavy fire inspired the troops to heights of enthusiasm and self-sacrifice. Although the enemy had the beach under constant direct fire, Brig. Gen. Roosevelt moved from one locality to another, rallying men around him, directed and personally led them against the enemy. Under his seasoned, precise, calm, and unfaltering leadership, assault troops reduced beach strong points and rapidly moved inland with minimum casualties. He thus contributed substantially to the successful establishment of the beachhead in France.
---Medal of Honor citation (posthumous) of Brig. Gen. Theodore Roosevelt, Jr.
A few additional facts to illuminate Gen. Roosevelt's accomplishments:
He was the son of President Roosevelt, well off and getting on in years. He could easily have stayed home and let others fight for him. Given his age, no one would have faulted him. Instead he volunteered, was the highest ranking officer in the first wave of the invasion and was the first soldier off his landing craft.
Discovering that the ocean currents had carried his force a mile off course, he improvised brilliantly and made a material contribution to the success of the invasion. On the beach he played every possible role, from commander to inspiration to traffic cop.
His bad heart killed him a month later. He is buried in Normandy, beside his brother Kermit, who was killed in WWI.
Now then, let's imagine Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, John Kerry, John Edwards, George W or any of our other make-believe leaders performing any one of these acts, let alone all of them.
We do not question that he is indeed a hero - to the enemy.
We therefore offer a glimpse at the record of a genuine AMERICAN hero:
For gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty on 6 June 1944 in France. After 2 verbal requests to accompany the leading assault elements in the Normandy invasion had been denied, Brig. Gen. Roosevelt's written request for this mission was approved and he landed with the first wave of the forces assaulting the enemy-held beaches. He repeatedly led groups from the beach, over the seawall and established them inland. His valor, courage, and presence in the very front of the attack and his complete unconcern at being under heavy fire inspired the troops to heights of enthusiasm and self-sacrifice. Although the enemy had the beach under constant direct fire, Brig. Gen. Roosevelt moved from one locality to another, rallying men around him, directed and personally led them against the enemy. Under his seasoned, precise, calm, and unfaltering leadership, assault troops reduced beach strong points and rapidly moved inland with minimum casualties. He thus contributed substantially to the successful establishment of the beachhead in France.
---Medal of Honor citation (posthumous) of Brig. Gen. Theodore Roosevelt, Jr.
A few additional facts to illuminate Gen. Roosevelt's accomplishments:
He was the son of President Roosevelt, well off and getting on in years. He could easily have stayed home and let others fight for him. Given his age, no one would have faulted him. Instead he volunteered, was the highest ranking officer in the first wave of the invasion and was the first soldier off his landing craft.
Discovering that the ocean currents had carried his force a mile off course, he improvised brilliantly and made a material contribution to the success of the invasion. On the beach he played every possible role, from commander to inspiration to traffic cop.
His bad heart killed him a month later. He is buried in Normandy, beside his brother Kermit, who was killed in WWI.
Now then, let's imagine Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, John Kerry, John Edwards, George W or any of our other make-believe leaders performing any one of these acts, let alone all of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
