About Me

Name:Steve
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

Thou doth protest too much

Lately, there have been news reports that detail the over the top sensationalism that is the global warming crowd. All of their claims are so over the top that it is hard to imagine how they came up with the ideas. Now, some are questioning how much they want to pay to make their dent in global warming. We can then assess whether the amount is worth it or not. We could then judge if we would rather spend some of the funds stopping terrorists from bringing in nuclear devices to our cities.

When we discussed this issue in my class at school, I made the point that a funding source will look at competing proposals. One proposal will say there is a chance of a 1 degree rise in 100 years. The next says there is a chance of a 4.5 degree rise in 100 years. The third says there is a chance of a 6.5 degree rise in 100 years. Who would you fund? If you were ignorant of the science, you would fund the 6.5 degree claim. That way you could get the most bang for the buck. If you knew anything about science, you would fund the one that was the most scientifically valid. In this case it would be the 1 degree rise in temperature.

Why do global warming proponents make such outlandish claims? The answer is simple, to get noticed. If you came in with a claim that the temperature would go up 1 degree, nobody would get excited about it. If you make an outlandish claim, everyone gets excited. The more the claim will impact where the person lives, the more likely they will get excited and believe. The whole idea is to sell you a load of baloney. If you look at the facts, you notice it is outdated and bad. So, they get you to get excited that the load of baloney is even there.

In schools, they make sure that there is no argument with their claims. Those that do not believe in global warming are silenced by pressure. If you question global warming, you get intense pressure from other teachers, some not even in science, to change your mind. They will shout you down until you give up. They cannot allow anyone to teach science. They have to teach the religion of global warming. Anyone not teaching the "true religion" of global warming will be looking for a new position soon. Times are really tough for those of us that believe in science. We will not bow down to the altar of a religion based on false science. It is a religion. It is taught like a religion. It is discssed like a religion. It is just dressed up like a science. It has fooled many, some even say they are scientists. I fear my science has been hijacked.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

True Believers - Global Warming

In the debate on global warming, one thing is perfectly clear, believers in global warming are not interested in facts and non-believers are. That is similar to many religions, facts do not come into play. You can show someone facts and they will not believe because it does not conform with their belief system.

In reading about the global warming debate in the paper and on the internet, facts are used in articles against global warming and no facts are used in support of global warming. That is because there are no facts to support global warming. It has not warmed in 16 years and we only had a brief period between 1976 and 1990 where it did warm. The total rise in temperature in the last 100 years was 1 degree fahrenheit. That is a very small increase. The increase is almost within the margin for error on those early thermomotor. 

Why are we having this big controversy? The reason is to destroy the US economy. The leaders of the environmental movement have as their goal to destroy the US economy and bring us back to the pack. The rank and file truly believe that they care about the environment. The leaders know the difference. As many talk show hosts have said, environmentalism is the refuge of the communists after the fall of communism. 

The truth of that can be seen in the goals of the environmental movement. If you take out the talk of saving the environment, you have the goals of the communist party. But, wrapped up in environmental doctrine, it is difficult to see. 

What can we do about this? There is not much we can do about this. To say that the environmental movement is lead by communists will get you branded a crackpot and dismissed. You have to fight them point by point. That is a slow process. Unfortunately the practice only works with small groups. The propaganda of the environmental movement is being propagated in mass quantities every day. The net result is that more are subjected to the environmental half-truths and lies than are subjected to the truth. The other problem is that the half-truths and lies are sexier. The truth is not as exciting. 

Until we get the truth funded at a level greater than the lies, we will not have any success. Even showing that all the computer models are wrong does not faze the true believer. In my class, we discussed this issue and when it was pointed out that the computer models are wrong, my students still believed. When I pointed out that we project the future based on the past and the past showed little increase, they still believed. When I made the projection that it should go up 1 degree fahrenheit, not 6.5 degrees centigrade, they still believed. I do not know what will get through to them to get them to question what is being taught to them. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Global Warming in Danger?

The report by the UN is coming under attack by people who actually know something. The core of the UN report is a survey that supports the idea that there is pressure in the work place to force people to be against Global Warming. The questions were worded such that people that were pressured to toe the global warming line answered yes to the questions. This artificially raised the numbers of scientists who felt pressured at work over global warming. I feel that pressure every day. If my true feelings were known, I would have no chance at a full-time position within the college.

As time goes on and people examine the "science" that went into the global warming claims, the claims fall apart. There is no scientific evidence to support global warming that is caused by man. The temperature of the earth has gone up 1 degree in 100 years. There has been no increase in the last 15 years. What evidence would suggest that there will be a big increase in the next 100 years. We discussed this issue in my class last night. My students saw that we predict the future by looking at the past. In looking at the immediate past, there is no evidence to suggest a big increase in the next 100 years.We could take the 1 degree Fahrenheit rise and project a 1 degree rise into the future. We might even say that things will be much worse than they are today. That might call for a 2 degree rise in temperature. The UN is projecting between 4.5 and 6.5 degrees Celsius rise ( about 10+ degrees Fahrenheit). That is a ridiculous projection. The person that made the projection just pulled the number out of the air.

But, look at it from a funding source's point of view. You have two scientists come to you with a plan to study the possible effects of global warming. One projects an increase of 1 degree Fahrenheit. The second projects an increase of 10 degrees Fahrenheit. Who are you going to fund? You will fund the one who projects the bigger increase. Why, because that will give you a bigger bang for your buck.  If you fund the 1 degree project and it solves global warming, you solved something that is not very dangerous. If you fund the 10 degree project, you can solve a big problem with your money. That is how the funding sources look at the issue.

What does this mean for you and me. It means that bad science gets into the literature. The scientists that make wildly inaccurate projections will get funding and then published. That puts their stupid ideas into scientific journals and because they have these big grants, nobody questions their validity. The good science does not get published in the big journals and so gets put into the back water of scientific thought. Bad science gets reinforced and supported. Good science relegated to second level or third level journals if they get published at all. The black listing of the good scientists by bad ones goes on all the time. My brother is fighting this right now. Not on global warming, but it is still a good science/bad science argument.

What can be done? The only way is to debunk the bad science. That can only be done by recognizing the good science and laughing at the bad science. That is a slow process as you have to do it one issue at a time. If you get lucky, you can pick off a big time bad scientist. But, that would be difficult to do. It will be a long slow fight to get good science back to the front burner. It can be done, but funding sources will have to look for good science, not just the biggest bang. If funding starts to go to serious scientists instead of the quacks, the science community will turn around in a hurry. Unfortunately, most of the funding sources lean left and they are not interested in the science. They are interested in the politics of the science. That is how they fund their projects. My brother is running up against this. Even though his politics are quite in line with theirs, his science is real science. He is not willing to compromise on the truth. That has cost him money for project funding.

Things are starting to turn around. Five years ago, the UN report would have been taken in hook, line and sinker. Now, people are questioning it and it is falling apart. There is hope for the future. I hope to live to see the day where real science is respected again. I am so tired of junk science ruling the day.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Global Warming Hysteria

The left is promoting hysteria over global warming. They are even starting to go over the top in their claims. Some of their latest claims are that there is nothing that we can do to stop global warming from occurring. This actually defeats their arguments. If there is nothing that will stop global warming, why should we try to stop it from occurring.

There is finally reports of scientists that do not believe in global warming hit the news. That is great. It lets everyone know that we are not all sheep and believe anything that comes along. These scientists that do not believe in global warming are big name scientists. They are not the type that rely on government grants. To get government grants, belief in global warming is important.

Scientists are supposed to question what is going on around them. The sheep that believe in global warming do not question anything. They accept everything everyone says about global warming as true. They only question information that contradicts their belief in global warming. If you quote the warming period in the 1500's they do not believe that it exists. The UN report even deletes the information from the database.  When you tell them of the little ice age in the 1300's they do not believe it happened. They tend to only believe information from the 1900's and later. That information has scientific accuracy. Information from the 1300's is not as scientifically accurate. We do not have the high and low temperatures for Oslo, Norway on March 13, 1342. We only have tree ring data and information from writers of the age.

We talk of record highs and record lows on specific dates. That is true as far as the records go back. The records only go back into the late 1800's in the most developed areas and maybe not until the early 1900's for many others. One hundred years of data is good, but hardly indicative of what the record highs and lows really are.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Climate change caused by man?

We have discussed this numerous times in this column. But, the UN came out today with a report that says that they are 90% sure that global warming is caused by man. If they are that sure, why not go the whole way and say 100% sure. That is because they know the truth and are giving themselves wiggle room.

To come to that conclusion, the scientists (?) are ignoring history and scientific information of a historical nature. My textbooks in elementary school, junior high and high school all stated that there were periods of time that were warmer and colder than today. They all talked about the fluctuation of the climate from hot to cold. That explained the ice ages and the warm periods in between.

There was a little ice age in the 1300's. Priests were taking congregations up to glaciers to pray that they would not take over farm land. In the 1500's there was a period where the temperature was warmer than it is today. How do the scientists (?) from the UN explain this bit of information? The problem is that they do not, they removed this information from their database. In data released 10 years ago, the data clearly showed the two periods mentioned above. In the latest report, this data is missing. The only reason to doctor the report to remove the data is to remove inconvenient truths.

Obviously the data the scientists (?) used to come to their conclusions was flawed. From bad information, you get bad results. Computer people have a saying for this situation, "garbage in, garbage out". The only reason this report was released the way it was was to put pressure on the US to make changes in our economy. The changes requested to our economy would destroy our ability to compete with other countries. That would bring us down to the level of other countries economically. They do not think that it is fair that we have a higher standard of living than they do.

As Neal Boortz says, the environmental movement is the refuge of the communists and socialists. The people that lost the economic argument found a way to still carry on their argument. They chose the environmental movement. Global warming was a convenient ruse to use to destroy economies around the world. There is no way that we can have the economic boom in the US that we now have with the Kyoto protocol in effect. An economically strong US is a strong US. An economically weak US is a weak US.

Those of us who do not believe in the global warming hype do not have the ear of the media. The reason  is that we do not have a doom and gloom scenario to preach. We cannot say the world will be destroyed because of whatever. The global warming crowd can say the world will be destroyed. That is their upper hand. They also have their hands on lots more money than we can ever dream of working with. All we are really asking for is a little honesty in this question. Right now, there is no honesty, just religious furvor.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Whether Our Standard Bearer?

There is a lot of talk about the Democrat nomination for President. Everyone breathlessly touts this person or that for President. Joe Biden comes out of the chute and shoots himself in the foot with his mouth. They are having an interesting time. Whether the Republicans? Where are our standard bearers? Who is making a move? Who is even running at this point in time?

There are three front runners, McCain, Giuliani and Romney. One of these three is most likely to get the nomination. Sam Brownback, Senator from Kansas, has thrown his hat in the ring. He is best known in the pro-life circle. He is little known outside of that group. Huckabee, Governor from Arkansas, just announced this past week. He is little known outside of Arkansas. We have had too many Arkansas candidates in the past 15 years. We do not need more from that state, unless they are truly different than the last disaster from Arkansas or his wife.

Giuliani is playing things close to the vest at this time. If he does not make a stand for the war pretty soon, he is likely to be lapped by the other candidates. McCain is getting himself trapped by his desire to look good for the media and his desire to appeal to the conservative base. In the dueling bills in congress, he is looking bad. It is looking like he is trying to cook up another gang of 14 compromise that will get conservatives upset. If he does, it will doom his chances for the nomination. If both Giuliani and McCain tank, Romney will ride in on the white horse. He is playing his cards close to the vest. He has not come out strong enough for the war, but has not put his foot in it either. He needs to take a stand for the troops and let the chips fall where they may.

After the dust settles on these dueling bills in the House and Senate, we shall see who wins. Right now, the Republican leadership is thumbing their nose at the rank and file Republican voter. They are trying to appeal to the Democrat base. Why they are doing this, baffles me. They should be appealing to their base, but for some reason, they are tone deaf right now. That may spell doom in 2008 for everyone. It will be an opportunity for someone to come out strong and be a leader. Who has the will to be a leader and not a follower of polls? Whichever Republican grabs the bull by the horns and takes the lead will lap the field and run away with the Republican nomination. Whoever tries to play to the polls will find themself on the outside in 2008 wondering what happened.  Who has the iron balls to take the lead? Stay tuned for the identification of the Republican leader of 2008 and beyond.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Joe Biden, What were you thinking?

Joe Biden is quoted in an interview and says that Barak Obama is a "clean, articulate black man". That kind of comment would get a Republican crucified. The main stream media would be all over a Republican and he would be making amends for the next 20+ years. For Joe Biden, there will probably be no fallout.

Joe Biden has said other racist things in the past couple of years. He said that most of the recent immigrants to Delaware were of Indian descent and that you had to have an Indian accent. He was asked about it by a reporter and he said he made a mistake. The reporter instantly forgave Joe Biden for his mistake and went on to other issues.

Remember when Trent Lott made a comment at a party for Strom Thurmond. He said that he thought Strom Thurmond would have made a good President and was what the people needed. The main stream media hounded him out of his Senate position. He is still feeling fallout for that position. That was just expressing sympathy for an old friend. He was probably not thinking that, at the time Strom Thurmond ran for President, he ran as against integration. He was just honoring a friend that had run for President. When the firestorm hit him, he was taken aback. He then started to make amends and still is. The main stream media has long memories when the person is a conservative Republican. When it is a liberal Democrat, they forget almost as soon as the comment is made.

The difference today is that the blogosphere is alive and well. Comments by liberals are picked up by the blogosphere and sent around the world like lightning. The comments are well documented and accurately reported. The main stream media does not control all the news today. They still control a large portion of the news, but the internet is gaining ground. More and more people get their news from the internet. That makes it more likely that stupid comments are going to be picked up and remembered. Politicians cannot tell the people in Iowa they like ethanol and the people in New York that they will vote against ethanol. That kind of comment will be picked up and spread to enough people that the politician that tries it will be put on the spot by a reporter.

The world of politics is changing. We are on the cutting edge of what will be normal in the future. Today, we have blogs and the internet spreading the news. This is volunteers spreading the information. Is the information less accurate? No, it is probably more accurate. The main stream media has a bias. They only cover events that they deem necessary. That means they add a bias to the news reporting. Having amateurs report the news should take a lot of the bias out of the reporting. The problems come in that the amateurs might not have the background necessary to understand exactly what they saw. This would come out in the analysis of the reporting in the blogosphere. News organizations are being rendered less important. They will never be unimportant. There is a need for people to seek out and report the news. My only hope is that the reporters of the future take much of their biases out of their reporting.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hillary, Stranger to the Truth

Mrs. Clinton in running for President is having the chickens come home to roost. Everything she has said is coming back to bite her in the behind. Of course, the main stream media is ignoring this obvious case of a candidate saying one thing to one audience and another to another audience. If a Republican said the same things, he would be out of the race in another week or two. Mrs. Clinton's adversaries better watch what they say. What they say will be used against them in the court of public opinion.

Why the silence on Mrs. Clinton? What makes her so special? I do not know the answer to this one. I do know that the main stream media has been salivating over a Clinton Presidency ever since Bill Clinton was elected President in 1992. They tout Mrs. Clinton as the smartest woman in the world. The smartest woman in the world would not have the Rose Billing records found in her office with her finger prints and writing all over them. There were few if any other finger prints on the records. They just magically appeared in her offices.

This woman lied under oath to a grand jury. If you or I tried to do that, we would have spent some time in a penitentiary. She committed securities fraud when she played with cattle futures. She does not have an honest bone in her body. For one of the many crimes she has committed, any of us would have spent many years in jail. Yet, she is the front runner for the Democrat party nomination for President of the United States. I would not trust her to get anything right or keep any secrets.

This woman is dishonest. She is as phony as a $3 bill. She expressed sympathy for the communist party as a student in college. She has advocated socialist positions over the years. We could expect that she would continue to a socialist agenda. She is soft on islamo-fascism. She is soft on defending America. Do we want her making decisions on our security?

If this woman gets elected President, I fear that there will not be a United States of America to give to my grandchildren. We will have to fight the islamo-fascists in the streets of America. Our military would fold like a wet blanket. Our military would not fight under this commander in chief.  We would have big problems if we elected her President. I cannot believe that we have fallen so far as to elect someone so bad as our leader.

In the Book of Mormon, the people would occasionally get so bad and elect corrupt leaders. When that happend, freedom was taken from the people. I do not want my freedom taken from me. It is being stolen now by Democrats a piece at a time. We need less laws not more laws. A moral people will act morally and do not need lots of laws. An immoral people need lots of laws to make up for the lack of morals. I hope we have not fallen that far. In the Book of Mormon, when the people fell that far, it took a lot of bloodshed to get back their liberty. In this day and age, killing means lots of deaths.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hillary is Not Telling The Truth

Today on the way to work, I heard Rush Limbaugh play some clips of Mrs. Clinton talking about her vote on authorizing the US to go to war against Iraq. Today, she claims that George Bush tricked her into voting for the war. She hints that he manipulated the data to make it look like we needed to go to war when we did not. She says that if she knew then, what she knows now, she would not vote for Iraq.

In 2002, she was recorded talking to the code pink group about her vote on Iraq. She makes it clear that she had studied the issue for 10 years. She talked to trusted advisors to keep it from being a political motivated vote. She also indicates that she put a lot of study into her vote and that the vote to authorize the US to go to war with Iraq was the right thing to do. She also indicates that this is an outgrowth of what her husband had been trying to do when he was President.

Which one is right? I suspect that neither one is really correct. The one in 2002 is more correct than the one today. She did talk to trusted advisors, but they were political advisors, not military. She is trying to fool people into believing that George Bush is an evil person that tricked her and other Democrats into voting for a war. What hogwash. Does she really think, in this day of the internet, that her earlier comments would not come out? Now, the sound quality of the 2002 comments is nothing like the sound quality of those in 2007. Does that make 2007 more believeable? No, it actually makes no difference. It just makes the 2002 comments seem more realistic.

Mrs. Clinton is like all Democrats. She thinks that the public is stupid. She believes that you can say something today and something else tomorrow. She also believes that nobody is smart enough to record the information and use it against her. She has to know that people have the recording from 2002. If she was an honest person, she would try to square her position of today with what she said then. She is not an honest person. She is not even making an attempt to be honest. She is just saying what she thinks the public wants when they want it.

There was a time in America when this type of politician could get away with that sort of thing. That type of politician existed not that long ago. With today's technology being everywhere, you cannot get away with saying everything to everybody. You will get caught. Mrs. Clinton just got caught in a bald faced LIE!!! Will she pay a price for her dishonesty. Not from the main stream media (msm). They will continue to carry her water for her.

She will pay a price for her dishonesty on the blogosphere. Everyone who uses the internet for news will know about Mrs. Clinton and her dishonesty. The left leaning kool-aid drinkers will ignore the dishonesty. Everyone else will spread it around and soon she might even have to answer a question about the difference. If she ever faces an interviewer with integrety, she will be in big trouble. She will be called on the carpet for everyone to see. That will be fun. Unfortunately, there are few, if any, interviewers that have integrety that she will allow near her. She only goes on fluff shows. She cannot answer a tough question. I would love to see Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Prager and/or Michael Medved have an hour to ask her any question they want. They would have a huge audience to hear that interview. She would be made to look as stupid as she is. She cannot think on her feet.

I would also like the Republican nominee to submit him(her)self to the same interview with the same interviewers. That would only be fair. The contrast would be astounding. I would be willing to bet that anyone with a brain would see that the Republican is better prepared to be President than Mrs. Clinton.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

McCain showing his true colors

John McCain is trying to broker a compromise between those that support the war and those that oppose the war. He is trying to avoid the problem of a sense of the congress action that would say that the surge in troops is not a good idea. The problem with a compromise is that there is no middle ground. You are either for the war on islamo-fascism or you are for hiding in your hole. That is the only option.

McCain is trying to find a middle ground. You cannot trust Democrats. They will only go along with your idea if it undermines your position. He will only find Democrats willing to stand against their party that will find the right time to stab him in the back. If they want him to be the Republican nominee, they may even allow him to succeed. That way they make him look good and when the time is ripe, pull out the rug.

For Republicans, they have only two options, vote against the Democrat bill or filibuster. Filibuster is the best option, that way the bill does not hit the floor at all. If they cannot muster 40 Republicans that support the troops, we are in big trouble. As Dean Barrett says, we conservatives are standing up and saying that we want our elected representatives to support our military. If they do not, we will not support them in the next election. This is a litmus test for our elected representatives. We generally say what Ronald Reagan said, someone who is 80% for me is better than someone who is not. Well, it is time we got someone who is not 80%, but 90%. That way we can count on them in a pinch. Right now, we cannot count on all of our Republicans to act like Republicans when the chips are down. We are Republicans, see us roar.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Iraq War Resolution

During the confirmation hearings for the new commander for the US forces in Iraq, he said that a resolution condemning the troop surge would demoralize the troops and embolden the enemy. So, what was the first item on the agenda after confirming him as the new commander, unanimously, the Iraq war resolution. Talk about stupidity, I cannot imagine doing anything quite that dumb. I have done some dumb things, but not after being told that it was a dumb idea.

One of the worst parts of the Iraq resolution is that Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska voted for the resolution. He is a Republican in name only (RINO). Whenever the Democrats need a Republican to make a fool of himself, they call on old Chuck Hagel and he agrees. The Democrats in Washington are even so impressed that they think that he should run for President. He would not get more than a handful of votes in any state but Nebraska.

I like a lot of other people signed a petition that said that we would not give money to the Republican Senate Committee if any Republican for re-election voted for the resolution. Chuck Hagel is up for re-election. That one fact will doom the Republican efforts to elect Republican Senators in the 2008 election to being underfunded. They could have had much more funding, but are choosing to give funds to Senators that are not supportive of the US military.

If they can get Senators with no backbone to not run for re-election, then the committee will get the funding they need. They will also need to recruit good candidates to defeat the awful Democrats up for re-election. The unfortunate fact is that there are far more Republicans up for re-election than there are Democrats. That will make it more difficult to pick up seats. It can be done, but the mountain is high. The task will be easier if Republicans start acting like Republicans, not Democrats. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Early Polls

Early polls are reporting in Arizona that we prefer John McCain and Barak Obama for President. Early polls do not mean much, except for the fact that people know your name. For a well known person like Mrs. Clinton, that means trouble. If you cannot get a lead during the time you have your biggest advantage, you have problems.

Right now, people do not know much about Barak Obama. They know he is a Senator from Illinois. But that about covers all anyone knows about him. He has only been a Senator for two years. He held elective office in the Illinois state legislature for eight years before that. He has only held elective office for most of his adult life. In all that time in elected positions, he has not accomplished much.

When I talked about this with my son, he said that Condeleeza Rice and Collen Powell hadn't done much either. He was talking about in elected office. Neither Ms. Rice or General Powell have held elective office. They are both accomplished for their work outside of the elected office field. Either would make good candidates. Neither want to be President, but either could be if they really wanted to be. It is a good commentary on the country that two people of color could be talked about in that  manner. 

John McCain leading in Arizona should come as no surprise. If anyone were even close to him, you would know he was in trouble. I am not sure where John McCain stands in national polls, but I am sure it is near the top. Right now, my favorite Mitt Romney comes in third. But that is understandable, he is a relatively unknown governor from Massachusetts.

It will be interesting to see how things turn out. John Kerry was the first casuality of the Presidential sweepstakes. That is a shame for the talking heads and radio personalities. It is a great day for the US, when he pulled out of the race. Many more will fall in the coming months, tracking who is ahead will be an interesting thing to do. My guess today is Mitt Romney and Mrs. Clinton. I hope I am wrong about Mrs. Clinton. We shall see what happens over the next eighteen months.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

President's Speech

The President made his State of the Union speech last night. It was typical of a State of the Union speech in that it had a laundry list of things he wanted to accomplish during the next year. The best part was where he tied the security of Iraq to the security of the US. That is telling it like it is. The Democrats were not amused. They do not see it that way. They believe that if we leave Iraq, everyone will love us and all will be well with the world. How misguided.

The worst part was the illegal immigration portion of the speech. He still wants to make it possible for people who broke our laws to get citizenship, before people who want to abide by our laws. That is misguided. If someone wants to follow our laws, they should have first crack at citizenship no matter how long an a person who broke our laws has lived here. The only exception I can see to that is those that came here as little children and had no choice in whether they broke the law. We need to first, secure the border to make sure that no more people come here illegally. Second, we need to tighten up our ability to identify people who are working here illegally. If we do both of those, the people here illegally will leave the country and come back legally.

The Democrat response was insipid. They laid out some platitudes and tried to make themselves look good. They did not tell it like it is. They should have had the guts to say things like it is. They are for socialized medicine. They are for opening the borders so we can have anyone come here no matter who they are. They are for surrendering to the terrorists and pleading with them not to attack us. That really worked well for the Spanish. They voted in a government to pull out their troops from Iraq and still the terrorists hit them with an attack. The Democrats are for taking money from the people that earn it and giving it to those who do not earn any money. Democrats believe that anyone earning more than $40,000 should be paying taxes. The more you earn, the higher tax you should pay. They also believe you should pay a high tax after you are dead.

Of course, the Democrats tried to make their socialist agenda sound like it is the best thing since sliced bread. I cannot understand what is good about a socialist agenda. Lowering the standard of living for everyone to make everyone equally miserable does not sound appealing. Raising the standard of living to make everyone happier sounds better. Capitalism will raise the standard of living for everyone, if it is given a chance to succeed.

The over riding concern in the speech and in the world today is the war against Islamo-Fascism. We need to confront and defeat the islamo-fascists wherever we find them. Right now, that means we have to defeat them in Iraq. If we succeed in Iraq, we will probably have a chance to succeed in Iran and Syria as well. When we clear out those nests of thieves, the world will be a better place. Will this happen in the next few months, no. Will it happen in the next ten years, probably not. Will it happen in the next twenty years, hopefully. Will it happen in the next thirty years, yes. But, we have to take a stand now. If we go wobbly now and allow ourselves to be defeated in Iraq, then we can double the times and multiply by 20 or more the casualties in the conflict. If we go soft and retreat, we can expect it to be a lot harder and a lot bloodier to defeat these evil people. 

President Bush will not go wobbly during his term of office. We can rest assured that the US will stand as strong as it can for the next two years. If we elect another Republican, we can add another 8 years to that total. If we elect a Democrat, we can expect to be learning Farsi within 10 years.  We will also be living under Sharia law. We cannot let that happen. We have to maintain our strength of character. We cannot allow ourselves to be diverted from the road ahead by Democrats trying to score political points at home. I for one will not.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Global Warming, Man or Nature?

There is still a lot of debate about global warming, even if those that believe in it don't think so. The biggest issue is, if global warming exists, what caused it?  There are two possible answers, man or that it is natural.

First, let's look at man as a cause. If man is a cause, we are saying that we impact the environment so much that everything we do is a major impact. We are also saying that if we wanted to cool the environment, we should be able to do so. If we wanted to raise the temperature, we should be able to do so. In other words, we have the technology to impact the environment any way that we want. This argument is easily shot down. If anyone was charged with the job to raise the temperature of the earth 5 degees over the next 10 years, we could not do it. We do not have the technology. If we cannot do it deliberately, how can we do it accidently?

If someone says that we are polluting the environment and changing it, they have a problem. One volcano eruption puts more pollutants into the air than we can put into the air in 50 years. The air is cleaner today than it has been in decades. The water is cleaner today than it has been in decades. There is nothing we are doing that can impact the environment enough to change it.

Now, let's look at the possible natural caused warming. For the past 20 years, we have been in a sun spot activity cycle. That means the sun has been warmer than usual. Think that may have an impact on us here on earth?

If you think pollutants are the cause of global warming, we have been in a period of volcanic activity for the past 50 years. Each volcano puts out more greenhouse gases than we as humans have put out since the industrial age began. If the preceding sentence is not completely accurate, the total of the volcanic greenhouse gases is far greater than the man produced greenhouse gases.

The earth also goes through periods of warm and cold spells. In the middle ages (1500's) it was warmer than today. Between 850 and 1100 it was warmer than today. Around the year 0 it was warmer than today. There are numerous other warm periods documented throughout history. Since temperature records are only about 100-150 years old, we can only guess at actual temperatures. In the case of the warming between 850 and 1100, the Vikings had a colony in Greenland with over 20,000 people living there. The colony was thriving during most of that time. They had a primitive agricultural technology. A colony could not survive in Greenland today using the same technology. The temperature had to be warmer in Greenland for that to occur.

If global warming is occuring, the evidence is clear. Man cannot be causing global warming. We do not have enough technology to have the ability to impact the environment enough. Other periods in history have been as warm or warmer. This has to be a natural occurance. We are just deluding ourselves in claiming that we can control the environment enough to induce climate change.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Race to the left?

Dick Morris is reporting that the Democrat candidates are trying to run to the left for the primaries. That is undoubtedly true. They need to run to the left in order to win the nomination. The voters on the left will determine the next Democrat candidate for President. The voters in the middle do not vote in large numbers in the Democrat primaries. The voters on the far left vote in large numbers in the Democrat primaries.

This poses a big problem for the Democrat candidates that hold elective office. If they vote the way the election in November will be, they will have a difficult time winning the nomination. If they vote to appease the voters on the left for the primary, they will have a difficult time in the election in November. That does give an advantage to those candidates that are not holding elective office or hold offices in state positions. The two front runners are Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama. They both are US Senators and are caught up in this dilemma.

The talk coming from the Democrat candidates is leaning heavily left. So far, the actions have not mirrored the talk. But, it is still early in the game. There have not been any votes taken on important issues in the last month. These votes are coming. They will be interesting to see. There are a number of people, some are even Democrats, who do not want Hillary Clinton to be President. If they are Democrats, they cannot say or face the consequences. When dealing with a Clinton, the consequences could be permanent.

I like this dilemma on the left. Of course, we have a similar problem on the right. Our candidates have to run to the right to win the nomination. Running to the right is not as big a problem as running to the left. The right is a larger bloc of voters than the left. The problem on the left is that the left believes that they are really the middle. If you are the middle, you do not have to make changes when it comes general election time. The candidates know the difference. The voters are caught up in their own importance and fail to recognize the problem. Richard Nixon used to say you ran to the right to be nominated and tack to the center to be elected.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive