CNN: The Left’s Mainstream Propaganda Machine

For as long as I have been browsing the web (going on 14 years). CNN has been my homepage. Even though I’ve never cared for their reporting, I always found their website to be somewhat balanced and extremely well-designed and easy to navigate. However, over the last year I have noticed a marked shift on the page in the direction of becoming a left-wing propaganda machine. Today, it became too much to bear.

Just take a look at today’s headlines. The lead story: “iReporters Call Debate for Obama”. The fact that Obama’s performance tops their version of today’s news doesn’t surprise me (despite the very real economic meltdown taking place). The fact that iReporting is considered mainstream news, does. But it gets worse. Listed under their top stories are no less than 4 articles negative of McCain (down to 3 by the time I copied the picture). Negative articles about Obama? Zero.

When an opinion is repeated often enough as news, people start to believe it as fact. This is proven psychology and has been tested again and again by left wing dictatorships throughout history. In CNN’s case, it’s their spin that is the most frightening. They can’t come right out and lie about a candidate, or report their own opinions as news. So they contract that job to their liberal iReporters, and punt risky headlines under their “ticker” banner. The net result is a list of top news stories that portray republican candidates negatively.

What CNN is doing is nothing less than propagandizing. They’re just a little less “in your face” than their fast-becoming contemporaries like the Daily Kos.

CNN has employed underhanded techniques like this for over a decade. Years ago, I wrote them a letter blasting them for shameless bias in their reporting of political scandals. I catalogued a series of stories in which democrats in trouble were simply referred to as “A Congressman from Illinois,” or “A lawmaker on the Hill...” When a republican found himself in similar hot water, the story was always, “The republican Congressman from Illinois,” or “A republican lawmaker on the Hill…” You see? Blatant.

Things like this may seem small, but they leave a lasting psychological impression: Republicans are bad and democrats are, well, not really. Over time, and repeated often enough, you have a generation of people who have effectively been brainwashed. Is it any wonder why Obama supporters can’t really articulate why they like him so much (despite not having achieved anything of importance), and why people who hate Bush repeat the same things they heard on the news, over and over without adding any original thought of their own?

So as of today, I’m removing CNN from my browser. I suppose it’s about time, too. After all, I stopped watching the ratings-starved channel years ago.

And This Man Wants to be President...

I'm sure most of you have seen the following Obama quote this morning:

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72
degrees at all times... and then just expect that other countries are going to
say OK... "

This is coming from a man who is running for President of the United States. Is this the much-ballyhooed "change" we keep hearing about? If so, I don't want any part of it. Since when has it become a moral crime to make life better for Americans as President? This guy is truly scaring me. And not in the, "Bill Clinton is a despicable man" way the former democratic President scared me. This is true horror. The awfulness of it rests with the fact that so many people are taken in by his message. Self-loathing, it would seem, qualifies you as a better American.

I'm not saying his statement is incorrect. Sure, I would expect others to be upset wth the fact that we use so much. But it's not like the US doesn't share back more of it's wealth with the rest of the world than all other nations combined. And heck, if they don't like it, tough luck. We're not asking them to be "OK" with it. It's not as if the rest of the world will suddenly lift itself out of poverty overnight if we start setting our thermostats at 60 degrees in the winter and 80 in the summer. Zimbabwe won't miraculously turn into a democratic state once the US stops using so much oil. If anything, there will be less American wealth in foreign markets, and things would get worse for those who already have a crappy run at life.

But none of this matters. It's the self-loathing that really gets things done. What is your oppression footprint? Can I buy credits to offset the level of third world-labor that went into making my leather Mezlans? Seriously? What does Obama expect to happen? What do the people who listen to him expect to happen? Do they even understand what he's saying, or are they swept away by his radiant grin?

I'm sorry, but I just can't believe people buy into this crap. It's frightening.

The Left's Newest Boobs!

No, I'm not talking about the Pelosi twins. I'm talking about Rep. Jim "Moronic" Moran (D-VA) and Rep. Jim "McDorkus" McDermott (D-WA). And, if the United States loses in its next major war, I'm blaming these two idiots (and their ilk) for the loss.

In an effort to oppose everything related to our national defense, these two yokels on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee decided that they will vote against the recommended $88 million that it will cost to upgrade our B-2 bombers for 21st century warfare. Specifically, the upgrade would allow the B-2 to have increased payload capacity to accommodate a bomb that is in development called the MOP (Massive Ordinance Penetrator) - the soon-to-be largest non-nuclear bomb in the arsenal. So, naturally, in all their grandstanding glory, Moronic and McDorkus claim that this money is really Bush's way of funding his future war with Iran. Therefore, they must oppose it! Wow, what tremendous vision these men have... all 3 inches of it.

James P. Moran, D-Va., a senior member of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, said he did not believe the MOP could be used in Iraq or Afghanistan and cited Iran as the potential target for the bomb. He said he would oppose the funding.

“That’s a clear red flag,” Moran said.

Jim McDermott, D-Wash., an outspoken critic of Bush’s war policies, said the funding request was the latest of many signs that indicated Bush was contemplating an attack on Iran. McDermott said such a scenario was his “biggest fear between now and the election.”

“We are not authorizing Bush to use a 30,000-pound bunker buster,” he said. “They’ve been banging the drums the same way as they did in 2002 with Iraq.”

Do these idiots even know anything about the defense issue for which they write the checks? The MOP is currently under development. And as Spook86 points out:

Modifying B-2s to carry the MOP is hardly an indicator of a pending attack on Iran. As the CQ report notes, the weapon is still under development, and it's unclear when it might be ready for operational use. If the MOP follows a "typical" developmental cycle, then figure two or three years--at a minimum--for finalizing the design and testing prototypes. In other words, the massive ordnance penetrator won't be available until the next President is in the White House. So much for next year's "October surprise."

What kind of fools oppose a legitimate military upgrade that will help us counter threats against other states such as China and Syria - both of which have a penchant for hiding things deep underground? As if Iran is the only possible threat. But even if it was, this upgrade would still be a smart move for the military and any Commander in Chief.

So, we go without this upgrade, and thus, have limited capability to use non-nuclear devices in the theater of combat. The B-2 was designed to deliver a nuclear payload. I suppose this means we'll just have to stick to the policy of nuking our enemies due to a lack of other options - courtesy of two of the dumbest Members of Congress ever to grace the Capitol. Really, how shortsighted can you get?

New Fires Coming in from the Left

It's hard to evacuate from a firestorm when the source of the flames come from your elected officials. I know it's hard to imagine, but can you believe that politicians are actually trying to use one of the worst natural disasters in the nation's history to score points?? I know, I could hardly believe it either.

Leading the way is Barbara Boxer and the rest of the radical left. As if we weren't already hearing enough dubious connections between these fires and "cause-of-everything" global warming, we now get to hear Senator Boxer and her ilk tell us that Bush's 'War in Iraq' is the reason the fires were so bad. I guess since the fires didn't effect her home-utopia of San Francisco, the rest of the state's woes were fair game to score political points against President Bush. Does she really think this kind of thing resonates with people? Especially her own constituent victims? It doesn't. Maybe we should be used to this kind of despicable opportunism from the left. It does, after all, happen with increasing regularity.

Another example: George Carlin. According to this comedian-turned-moron, the people who lost everything deserved what they got for building homes in a fire-zone. Really, George? Where were you when the victims were poor and living in the worst flood-zone in the country? Was that their fault, too? Even when they re-elected the same criminally negligent mayor who led them to disaster in the fist place? Oh, right... in that case it was Bush's climate policies that caused the disaster, Katrina. Now, it's the affluent people of San Diego County who are to blame for this disaster. What impeccable logic.

I suppose, though, some people are just bitter no matter what happens. I work for an association that represents first responders, and we, upon hearing of the President's disaster declaration, immediately sent a letter to our members explaining how they can get in contact with the federal government to receive financial aid, resources and information. Pretty basic stuff. Only, I get a reply accusing me of "blatant pandering" in the face of this disaster. Sigh. Honestly. I don't know, maybe some people are just a-holes. So instead of trying to make sense of such lunacy, I'll just lump Boxer, Carlin and the rest of the lyin' left into that group until they can show me otherwise. I'll likely be waiting a long, long time.

The Goracle Has Performed a Miracle

He's almost a fully-fledged prophet, now! The ever-swelling braggart now has an Academy Award and a Nobel Peace Prize. A peace prize, you say? I know. I was confused, too. I thought maybe he had formally announced that he would be dropping the notion of man-induced global warming... that might bring some peace to his duplicitous soul. But nope, that wasn't it. He pulled off a miracle (of sorts)... the guy won a peace prize because of his work on climate change.

What?

Yeah, it confuses the heck out of everyone else, too. Can one come to the conclusion that this award is anything but politically motivated? As the UK Daily Telegraph spells out for those who still don't get it:

Climate change is a threat to the environment, not to "peace" and international order. The prize has gone to some sleazy recipients in the past, but at least you can make a case that their actions staved off bloodshed.

Wow. I think I might be qualified for this prize based on my work in finger painting. It's very good. It's so good, in fact, that I'm sure it could stop a war. Well, maybe a fist-fight between a couple of monkeys, at least.

"They prefer progress with messy compromise, over defeat with pristine principles"

Wow, what a grand slogan for the consummate pragmatist. In addressing what "the people" want from their politicians, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said, "They prefer progress with messy compromise, over defeat with pristine principles" in a broadcast to British Conservatives last week. According to Arnold, we are to abandon values, principles and ideals for the sake of "getting along." What a sad state of sociological affairs we find ourselves in.

Don't get me wrong here. I've been hitched for just over 2 years and I understand that compromise is a necessary part of a good marriage. But as a society, should we be taught to aim for the status quo and accept positions that may be wrong simply for the sake of avoiding an argument?

What if the Founding Fathers accepted a compromise? Surely, if we were to live in the same alternate universe that Schwarzenegger does, Patrick Henry's inspiring phrase "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" would have gone something like, "Liberty would be super, but I'll submit to the King if we could just end this whole 'revolutionary' war thing, now." And I suppose Arnold thinks that slavery might have been best ended through compromise, rather than war?

I understand Arnold's desire to see government move along at a faster pace. After all, fighting for a cause and sticking to ideology can drag a democratic system to a crawl. But where would be be as a nation - or indeed, as a species - if we had allowed those who would do us harm a seat at the bargaining table? Where would we be if we had taught George Washington to believe in compromise over principle? Winston Churchill? Ghandi? Ronald Reagan?

While I don't enjoy war or bloodshed, I understand that in the course of human events, sometimes there are ideals worth fighting for. If we teach our children that standing their ground when defending their beliefs is wrong, we will have finally put out the driving fire of human spirit that tyrants have sought to extinguish for millennia. It is the human desire to change ourselves in the face of all opposition that has brought out the best and worst of mankind. And while we may gain some short-term peace by practicing ritual compromise, we will have given up and lost far, far more.

Fostering Anti-Americanism: The Continuing Chronicles of Columbia University

At first glance, I pretty much agreed with Peggy Noonan's comments in the WSJ regarding Iranian President Ahmadinejad's invitation to speak at Columbia University in New York. After all, she makes some really good points:

But this has been our history: to let all speak and to fear no one. That's a good history to continue. The Council on Foreign Relations was right to invite him to speak last year--that is the council's job, to hear, listen and parse--and Columbia University was well within its rights to let him speak this year. Though, in what is now apparently Columbia tradition, the stage was once again stormed, but this time verbally, and by a university president whose aggression seemed sharpened by fear.

There were two revealing moments in Ahmadinejad's appearance. The first is that in his litany of complaint against the United States he seemed not to remember the taking and abuse of American diplomatic hostages in 1979. An odd thing to forget since he is said to have been part of that operation. The second was the moment when he seemed to assert that his nation does not have homosexuals. This won derisive laughter, and might have been a learning moment for him; dictators don't face derisive from crowds back home.

And I have to admit, I really didn't care much about Ahmadinejad's visit until I read her article. I thought I agreed. But after reading her article, something started nagging at me. Then it hit me: Despite some of these points, I have a problem with Noonan's main argument: She compares Ahmadinejad's Columbia speech with Khrushchev's UN speech, without going into the reasons why Columbia wanted him to speak at their campus in the first place. Despite the fact these are two completely different venues, she's missing a crucial element behind Columbia's invitation - motive.

We know that Columbia has a political agenda that has opposed the leadership in our country since, oh, about the day The Goracle conceded the election. They have kicked military recruiters off the campus, and attempted to put the smack-down on the school's ROTC program as well. There is a huge anti-military presence there. So, in a sense, Columbia was continuing the problem Noonan points out with American political debates. By inviting Mr. Ahmadinejad, Columbia provided a safe audience (at least in terms of hostility towards American foreign policy). The laughs at the "we don't have any homos in our country" statement was inconsequential, and is actually what one would expect from a liberal school. It may have been a wake up call (of sorts) to the Iranian leader, but it was inconsequential as proof that Columbia had provided a true forum for debate.

Moreover, Noonan misses the point all together when it comes to the way universities have become a more focused tool aimed at subverting the nation's President and foreign political agenda. Can you imagine asking Khrushchev to come speak on the eve of the Cuban Missile Crisis to explain "his view"? Or what about inviting Ho Chi Minh to Georgetown while troops were dying in Vietnam? No way that would have flown. But now, we're expected to believe the argument that having this tyrant speak as we are considering sanctions (keeping in mind that we don't even engage in official diplomacy with Iran, whereas the Soviet Union had an embassy, ambassador and everything) is somehow the sign of a healthy democracy? I don't buy it.

The bottom line is that Columbia was not looking for honest intellectual dialogue. They only wanted to make President Bush look bad for pursuing sanctions (and possibly war) against Iran. It's safe ground for them - a win/win - many Americans are weary of war and they are capitalizing on that to make a point. Never mind that Iran is directly behind the murders of American troops in Iraq, and had publicly called for the destruction of Israel.

People like Ahmadinejad just don't deserve a forum in the US in a time of war.

Anderson Cooper is a Tool

Last night I watched CNN for the first time in years. Why would I turn to the dark side for my information after many years of happily watching FoxNews, you ask? High Definition, that's why. Yesterday, DirecTV rolled out its expanded HD channels, which happens to include CNN-HD. And I'll admit, CNN has never looked better. But quality news and a quality image don't seem to add up in the case of CNN-HD. The reason: Anderson Cooper.

I've never really had a reason to dislike Mr. Cooper - even despite my annoyance at parents who name their kids with a last name for a first name (so trendy), but I digress. Before I tuned in to CNN last night, he seemed like an OK guy, if not a little taken in by the Clooney school of political thought. But since I never watch CNN (due to the blatant, America-hating, liberal viewpoints espoused in every story broadcast on that channel), I hadn't formed much of an opinion on the guy. Well, that changed last night. Anderson Cooper is a pandering, sniveling opportunist who is clearly serving a political interest that is not neutral.

My first clue was when Mr. Cooper was talking about the strife in Burma. He used the word Burma several times, and then made a big point about how it was wrong to use that name, because "the native government and the United Nations recognize the name as Myanmar" or something like that. Then Cooper goes on to smugly talk about how evil and repressive the government of that nation is.

Well, Mr. Cooper, do you know that the same evil and repressive government that kills defensive monks and innocent civilians is the same government demanding the world call it Myanmar? Did you know that the freedom fighters in that country still call it Burma? Did you know that the US, UK and Australia still call the country Burma because we don't recognize the names of countries that are changed by oppressive military regimes? Apparently not, because you're a "trying-to-sound enlightened" tool talking out of two-sides of your mouth like the rest of the hypocrites on CNN.

But still, I thought, maybe Mr. Cooper isn't that bad. After all, he's just falling victim to the standard, blinded mindset that gives most liberals extreme tunnel-vision. Until, that is, I saw his interview with Bill Clinton.

From the start, it was obvious that Bill Clinton is Anderson Cooper's hero. During the interview. Mr. Two-Last-Names threw him softball questions, and goaded Clinton into coming unhinged while talking about republicans (Clinton lost his temper when referring to the GOP as "those people" before proceeding to attack the patriotism of the entire party). And instead of asking Clinton to clarify his remarks like most responsible journalists would do, Cooper just lapped it up. Then he continued to play Clinton's tirade in his promo clips all through the broadcast.

This experience has proven useful to me, in that it has helped me understand a few things. First, HD or no, CNN is still garbage. Second, Anderson Cooper is, indeed, a tool. And lastly, Bill O'Reilly really isn't kidding when he talks about how far CNN has fallen. I've seen it for myself (and now understand why Cooper's ratings are in the toilet). But if you don't believe me, see it for yourself. After all, I report, you decide.

What Is The Matter With People?

First it was this bozo who went out and purposely put himself into a position where he could look like some kind of retarded martyr. The effect? People crying that the police "went too far" and that tasers are akin to disembowelment and other torturous techniques employed in the dark ages. And now, you have another clueless moron showing up an an airport wearing a fake bomb strapped to her chest and then being upset when she learns that the Boston Airport Police don't have the same taste in "art" that she does.

But silliness aside, what is it about college kids these days that makes them think they are somehow exempt from the law? Perhaps the years of indoctrination telling us that we're allowed to do anything we want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else (rules of society be damned). Or is it something more problematic, such as a growing lack of respect for authorities (another attitude preached to us by those in hip hop, Hollywood and other institutions that worship self gratification)? Maybe it's somewhere in between those two things and the insatiable public desire to be given 15 minutes of fame, so that they can be the ones doing the preaching!?

It's amazing that the question of why the police tased that guy is even given broadcast time. The answer is really easy: Because when asked to sit down, he didn't sit down! When the police give you an order, it's not a suggestion. You do it! If you feel that you were unfairly singled out, then proclaim your innocence in a court of law. Seriously, what kind of idiot would get out of a car and physically resist a traffic officer writing him a ticket and not expect to spend the night in the slammer? Ridiculous.

I'm 33 years old, and already I'm starting to sound like my Grandparents. What is wrong with kids these days? And it's not going to get any better. In fact, with all of the bleeding hearts that cry and sob for these "innocent victims" or torture (by the way, cops are required to subject themselves to being tasered before they are issued a taser gun in most states), police will be even more reluctant to restrain out-of-control children in the future. Heaven forbid another VA Tech massacre should take place in 15 years! The cops of that time will probably be so afraid of being sued by then that no one will even have the courage to stand up to the kids who look innocent, but then turn out to have a secret agenda to kill 30 people. I mean, it would be a shame if someone had to suffer a little shock to prevent a possible mass casualty situation... Don't tase me, bro!

The Problem With Theories Based on Lies

Global warming. Give me a break. The number of hurricanes forecast for this season has just been reduced because of "cooler than usual ocean temperatures." Now, before the environmentalist lunatic fringe tries to tell you that ocean cooling is a sign of global warming, just remember their dire predictions during the active 2005 hurricane season, which was unusually warm. They told us of the coming ecological apocalypse - hurricanes so frequent that we would run out of letters of the alphabet to name them! Please.

This highlights yet another example of how utterly ridiculous the arguments in favor of global warming have become. If you listened to their rhetoric, we would be led to believe that any variation from perfect is an argument for global warming. I've touched on this before. It's the perfect argument. If it's too hot - well obviously - it's global warming! If it's too cold - well, that's a sign of global warming, too! If you disagree with them, you're labeled some kind of capitalist polluter (or worse). Can you tell I'm frustrated by this lunacy?

Real climatologists (not the biologists interviewed in Gore's fictional horror movie) have been telling us that these kind of fluctuations have been going on for centuries. Besides, one erupting volcano puts more crap into the atmosphere than even the most energy-hungry country could ever dream possible.

So, before we start legislating away our freedoms based on faulty, knee-jerk science, let's at least have an open and honest debate! A debate where global warming skeptics will not be castigated and dismissed just because being "green" is currently en vogue.

Is That a Carbon Footprint Underneath Your Scurvy-laden Legs?

Bet you didn't know that carbon footprint of yours would end up making you walk like a pirate, did ya? Well, maybe I'm exaggerating a little, but isn't that what Elizabeth Edwards is doing by trying to prove you can save the environment by screwing the tangerine producers? Heavens! Those greedy SOBs are killing the world just to bring you some vitamin C... they must be stopped!

This is the kind of mass hysteria that will end up screwing not just the tangerine producers, but anyone who leaves a "carbon footprint" of any kind (i.e. YOU). It absolutely cannot be dealt with on a rational level. Well, unless you're The Goracle. If you're him, all you need to do is buy some carbon credits, and you can pollute the world as much as you want. But as for the rest of us, we need to do what he says. After all, he made a movie about global warming, so it must be true!

Every Nut Seems to Be Demanding Fascism... But, Who Plans on Delivering?

You know, I grew up watching the sci-fi movies that showed a future world where everyone lived in a semi-fascist state. I used to always wonder, "how did the subject civilization get to this point?" as the movies always took place after such a system had been established for a long time.

The obvious reasons for such a state of affairs would likely be based on the conclusions one might draw now from the increased attention on security. "How can you let Bush ruin our freedom?" they say. And yes, the police that would be required to maintain security might seem like a scary prospect, but it's the least likely to actually lead to a fascist superstate.

Everyone seems to be asking for some kind of fascism these days. The environmentalists want you to give up all of your technology and conveniences so that we can live in harmony with nature and stop the spread of evil global warming (they really mean capitalism). How do they propose to do this? By using legislation to limit what you do and how you do it. It would force an absolute lifestyle change, and those in power promoting it would be able to stay in power indefinitely based on the never-ending nature of the so-called threat (the very thing with which they use to persecute Bush regarding the War).

But even with their proclivity for a Stalinist "green" state, the environmentalists have nothing on Islamic fundamentalism when it comes to fascism. As was said in a comment to a previous post, the stated goal of Islam is world domination (I'm simplifying the language here, but ask any Muslim if Allah will tolerate a world with many faiths). The Islamo-fascists want to forcefully impose their will on you. The penalty for non-compliance is death. That's as close to good 'ole fashioned fascism as you can get.

Yet the people who whine about things like profiling act as if it is the end of the world. "Do you want Big Brother" watching over your shoulder?" they say. Well, given our choices, I'd say that being secure is a little more palatable. The fact that the only point of reference those opposed to increased security have is a work of fiction shows how little they actually know about the issue.

There are limits, of course. And luckily, no one at the Department of Homeland Security is advocating that you give up any of your personal freedoms to the degree in which Islamo-fascists and Environmental Fundamentalists demand. Yet, because of the political correctness that has been forced down our throats for generations, we are afraid to stand up against those who would do us harm because we are afraid of offending them! (if only they had such self-control...)

If we are to face down the real threat posed by Islamo-Fascism, it's time we elect leaders who take it seriously. Instead of accusing the President of being the enemy, these people ought to open their eyes and turn their attention to the actual enemies who want to kill us and remove the word "freedom" from our vocabularies - permanently.

The Coming Islamic Showdown With the West

As we sit here in America with our heads in the sand, the situation in the Middle East continues to deteriorate. It's no secret that I think the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq should be stepped-up, and that our current leadership is letting the whole thing fall apart. But the reasoning behind my opinion has never been so succinctly articulated as was done in this compelling piece from today's OpinionJournal.

Here's an excerpt:

A large portion of modern wars erupted because aggressive tyrannies believed that their democratic opponents were soft and weak. Often democracies have fed such beliefs by their own flaccid behavior. Hitler's contempt for America, stoked by the policy of appeasement, is a familiar story. But there are many others. North Korea invaded South Korea after Secretary of State Dean Acheson declared that Korea lay beyond our "defense perimeter." Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait after our ambassador assured him that America does not intervene in quarrels among Arabs. Imperial Germany launched World War I, encouraged by Great Britain's open reluctance to get involved. Nasser brought on the 1967 Six Day War, thinking that he could extort some concessions from Israel by rattling his sword.

I would encourage you to read the entire article. We're sending messages of surrender to our enemies. It's no surprise they feel emboldened when they don't face consequences for their actions.

Global Warming? A Matter of Fact Manipulation

Apart from the latest clamor about the Earth headed for catastrophic global cooling, the arguments supporting global warming have been pretty straight forward: If it's 1 degree hotter in Dallas than last year, it's global warming. If one iceberg melts north of Greenland, it's global warming. If a big hurricane strikes land, it's global warming. You get the picture.

So you can imagine my surprise when I came across this article on CNN. I could tell the authors and scientists quoted in the discovery were desperate to find some way, any way to pin what happened on global warming, but the facts just couldn't be manipulated that way. It's laughable. Does anyone doubt that if this story were a matter of the lake rising, that it wouldn't have been used by a propaganda tool of the leftist, global warming psychopaths that treat every glitch in nature as a reason for you and I to give up living as individuals? Of course it would.

Oh, the irony that this lake just disappeared... How do you explain that? Oh yeah, it's global SHAKING!

The Road to Hell is Always Paved With Good Intentions...

So let me get this straight... We have absolutely no definitive proof that humans are causing, or can even reduce global warming (in fact, there is mounting evidence that global warming is natural and good for the planet), and yet we want to set a precedent for penalizing human behavior based on theoretical science?

Denver is trying to do something noble. That is, to clean up the environment. Now, I have no problem with that (who would?) so long as it doesn't hurt individual liberty. However, the rationale being used in Denver to regulate human behavior is dead wrong.

So what, any unproven idea can be used as justification for new taxes and regulations, now? And don't tell me it's better to err on the side of caution, because in science there is no such thing. It's either true or false. We don't know on which side caution lies until we start to prove facts. For now, all we should be doing is asking people to change - not compelling it through force.

I suppose the moral of this story is that it's OK for the government to go into your wallet, house, yard, and even threaten your very freedom (see what happens if you refuse to follow these government mandates) as long as they stay out of your womb. Gotta love them lefty double standards...

The Culture of Hypocrisy... and Corruption.

According to Drudge:

Sources tell CBS NEWS that Democratic Congressman William Jefferson (D-LA) will be indicted this afternoon on more than a dozen counts involving public corruption. Jefferson has been the subject of an ongoing probe in which FBI agents allegedly found more than 90-thousand dollars in cash in his freezer. The Justice Department is expected to unveil the charges later today... Developing...

Oh, the irony!

Directly from the Mouth of the Enemy

Despite what Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha would have you think, pulling out of Iraq will not make us safer. It will not end the violence being waged against Americans. But don't take my word for it. The enemy just stated it for the record himself:

Directly from the mouth of the enemy (at time index 6:45):

"Let us be clear - a pullout from Iraq alone in the absence of compliance with the remainder of our legitimate demands will get you nowhere, and will not save you from our strikes. So stop wasting your time and trying to save face with the futile, farcical maneuvers on Capitol Hill, and start making some serious moves."

So there you have it. The democrats would have you believe that pulling out of Iraq will make America safer. As the enemy himself states, that is a lie. They will attack us no matter what.

The Rule of Law is Dead...

...or at least it will be if the Democratic Senate (with help from quasi-Republicans like John McCain) gets its way. The highly touted bill aimed at stopping illegal immigration only rewards illegal immigrants. "Congrats! You've made it to America without regard for the legal procedure that millions have had to endure before you! As a prize, we're giving YOU citizenship! That's right... free US citizenship with a bonus right to vote! That is, since you'll most likely be voting for democrats..."

Here is a list of ten of the "worst provisions" of the Immigration Bill, as reported by The Heritage Foundation. I couldn't agree more.

1. A Massive Amnesty
2. The permanent "Temporary" Visa
3. Hobbled Background Checks
4. Amnesty for "Absconders"
5. Reverse Justice
6. Enforce Amnesty, Now Laws
7. Amnesty for Gang Members
8. Tuition Subsidies for Illegal Aliens
9. Taxpayer-funded Lawyers for Illegal Aliens
10. Amnesty Before Enforcement Triggers

To read about each of these, click HERE.

Sharpton a Victim of His Own Leftist Groupthink? Not a Chance.

Why does the mainstream media let Al Sharpton get away with saying anything he wants, when others who exercise their free speech are lampooned by the media until they are either brought down or made to believe in the "groupthink" that liberals espouse? I smell hypocrisy. Again.

According to Al Sharpton, who recently was at the forefront of those demanding Imus be fired over making insensitive remarks on the radio, has now made insensitive remarks himself about one of America's largest religions, essentially saying Mormons don't believe in God. Since what he is saying is preposterous, I'm not going to waste time defending my faith. Those with half a brain will understand that Mormons, as Christians, certainly believe in God.

AP Reports:

BOSTON (AP) - The Rev. Al Sharpton, who recently urged that radio host Don Imus be fired for making a racially insensitive remark, said in a debate that "those of us who believe in God" will defeat Republican Mitt Romney for the White House. But Sharpton denied he was questioning the Mormon's own belief in God.

Rather, the New York Democrat said he was contrasting himself with Christopher Hitchens, the atheist author he was debating at the time.

"As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don't worry about that; that's a temporary situation," Sharpton said Monday during a debate with Hitchens at the New York Public Library's Beaux-Arts headquarters.

Galactic Warming

Global warming has been taking place on Mars at the same rate it has been taking place on Earth since the 1970's. I wonder if the Martians are only using one square of toilet paper, too? I mean hey, Galactic Warming affects everyone - Earthlings and Martials alike! Think Galactic, Act Solar Systemly!

The Sunday Times reports:

CLIMATE CHANGE HITS MARS

Mars is being hit by rapid climate change and it is happening so fast that the red planet could lose its southern ice cap, writes Jonathan Leake.

Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.

Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena.

The mechanism at work on Mars appears, however, to be different from that on Earth. One of the researchers, Lori Fenton, believes variations in radiation and temperature across the surface of the Red Planet are generating strong winds.

In a paper published in the journal Nature, she suggests that such winds can stir up giant dust storms, trapping heat and raising the planet’s temperature.

Fenton’s team unearthed heat maps of the Martian surface from Nasa’s Viking mission in the 1970s and compared them with maps gathered more than two decades later by Mars Global Surveyor. They found there had been widespread changes, with some areas becoming darker.

When a surface darkens it absorbs more heat, eventually radiating that heat back to warm the thin Martian atmosphere: lighter surfaces have the opposite effect. The temperature differences between the two are thought to be stirring up more winds, and dust, creating a cycle that is warming the planet.

In their zeal to have you change the way you live your life, the "green" advocates put it at risk by ignoring other strong evidence that suggests our current approach to dealing with global warming may be dead wrong (and will limit your freedom in the process).