Friday, February 29, 2008
Friday, February 22, 2008
The Greenies would have us believe that countless white fuzzy polar bears are drowning in the melting soup that the Arctic oceans have dissolved into. But as usual, there's just a little problem with the science fact over the science fiction which is being promoted by Al Gore, Greenpeace and countless other members of the Church of Global Warming. Thanks to this study, being brought to light by OrangePunch, we now know that like swirly bulbs being environmentally sound and hybrid cars getting 50 mpg, this is just more anarchist malarky designed to stampede the unknowing into supporting causes that have NO MERIT.
From Mark Landsbaum
So, is global warming killing off polar bears? Don’t bet on it.
Despite the government poised to declare the polar bear the first species officially threatened by global warming, it turns out just the opposite is true.
U.S. polar bear populations aren’t declining. H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, says comprehensive research shows that since the 1970s, while much of the world was warming, the overall number of polar bears didn’t just increase, but increased dramatically.
Today there are about 25,000 of the furry white critters, more than any time in the 20th century.
Meanwhile, the World Wildlife Fund found that of the 20 polar bear populations worldwide, only two are decreasing. And guess what. Those are in areas where air temperatures have fallen, not risen.
So, we’re losing bears where it’s getting cooler. Hm. Not much to blame global warming for there.
There were two polar bear populations that have grown. But guess what. They live in areas were air temperatures have risen.
Hm. We’re getting more bears where it’s getting warmer.
In fact, evolutionary biologist and paleozoologist Susan Crockford, of Canada’s University of Victoria, says polar bears historically thrive when temperatures have been warmer than the temperatures we have today.
Yes, we know, it doesn’t fit the global warming story line. But that’s why we call it a “story line” and not a fact.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Face it evangelicals, you are doing the same thing that you did back when Perot was running. You are forcing a single issue platform that WILL NOT WIN. And you are, in addition, supporting a candidate whose views are not in line with most evangelical thinking. Do you really think it's okay to allow illegal immigrant in-state status for college tuition and scholarships? That is insulting to every single parent and student who works themselves to death to pay for a college education. And when these people are allowed that seemingly legal status, by their low income level, they will end up with scholarships. What about the rest of us who have paid into the government till for our whole lives? Your vote for this man was a slap in the face.
I am sorry, I simply cannot contain my frustration with the way this campaign has evolved. It seems like we were forced to accept a candidate not of our own choosing by forces that do not have our best interests at heart. I am beside myself. I don't know what I will do during the Texas primary on March 4th. The only good thing to come out of this mess is that now the Texas primary will garner us some political favors and I hope the state parties are smart enough to arm-twist a boat load of favored status programs in return for delivering the state's delegates. I may cross over to mess with the Democrats. I may vote for a Communist. I may pick Mickey Mouse, Mickey Rourke or Mickey the guy down the street. But I sure know that I won't be pulling the lever, marking the ballot or sending one red cent to the RNC if McCain-Huckabee is the ticket in November. And you can carve those words in stone.
PS. What really galls me is that for my two oldest kids, this is there first big election. I hate it that they are seeing the seamy underbelly of the system rather than the better lights. I can actually understand the support for Obama because although I don't like his political stands, I would much rather have him over for dinner than Hillary or McCain. What a stinking shame.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Saturday, February 02, 2008
Strange, you say? Not really. There's pretty clear evidence that the MainStreamMedia has gone out of its way to pump up the volume on the partisan rhetoric since 9/11. That has resulted in a variety of whispering campaigns that not only divide our nation into political regions, but that divides groups within these areas from each other. What used to be spicy, but liveable cocktail party banter has become a situation where you must tread on eggshell any place except home. And yet the vocal bullies on both sides try to sway and intimidate through a series of politically inspired antics that just leave a sour taste in my mouth. So the media has a great deal to answer for, including the unbelievable hype given to the early primaries. The anticipation of financial gain from such early voting led Florida and Michigan to move up their primaries, only to have their hands slapped by the DNC. So do you really think the DNC will deny entry and credentials of delegates from these two very important states? Or will Clinton's gamble to show up and "campaign" outside the realm of the acceptable primaries win her the nomination? And what of the Republicans. Several qualified candidates with measured and descriptive positions and platforms were ignored by a media that seems intent on choosing the nominee for the party by ignoring other contenders. And, not surprisingly, the Republican they support is the most liberal of the bunch. There's already talk of people simply staying home. And this could signal both a Democrat gain in the White House and a Democrat political bloodbath two years later in the midterms when "nice thoughts and pleasant behavior" doesn't produce magical changes in the way things are progressing domestically or internationally.
So, what to do?
Here's my plan. I do not trust Hillary Clinton. I think she's damaged goods with a mean streak that will lead to vindictive leadership in Congress. Punishing ones political opponents is not part of the job of President. I think John McCain is far more liberal and could probably run as a Democrat given his public stances on immigration and other topics. He's running on his legacy as a POW. And I admire his courage at that time BUT, that doesn't make him good for the position. In addition, he has a reputation for being very angry, very brusque and unwilling to admit his mistakes. If he was elected, he would enact most of the liberal agenda. But when that didn't work, the MSM and the pundits would still blame the Republicans-heck they will probably still blame President Bush-and nothing will change. The Congress would still be producing programs that we can't pay for and bills loaded with hidden earmarks that never make the light of day in discussion of their passage. The odd man out is Obama. Sure, he's liberal. But he is a former professor of constitutional law, which means he's studied the thing and knows the limits of power. He's not particularly tied to any one group of zealots such as Moveon.org or such. I am sure he would still push for a more liberal social agenda, but with a more measured eye towards the endgame. And if his agenda failed, the MSM could not blame Republicans and the midterms would give us an entire new Congress.
So it could be a rough couple of years boys and girls. Hold on to your hats, watch your backs and for God's sake, stop registering your guns, because that's the first thing they are going to pass.