The absurdity of Global Warming is rearing it's ugly head again.

World needs another Noah's Ark because of Global Warming?

Now, some dumbass in Greenpeace thinks they should rebuild Noah's Ark to make the point that if so called "Global Warming" continues, we'll all be flooded and need a boat to save humanity. Yeah, I saw that movie too, it was called Waterworld and it starred Kevin Costner and if you liked that movie, then maybe Global Warming is indeed your cup of tea. The irony here is that probably the majority of Global Warmists aren't Christian and so don't believe in the Noah's Ark story anyways.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, "If they can't predict the weather 10 days from now, what makes you think they can predict 10 years from now, let alone 100 years from now?!?" I can't wait for 5 years from now, when the Augie Auer prediction comes true and the planet starts cooling (just like in the 70s when there was all the Global Cooling fears, and 5 years later, the earth started warming).

Quick update on the Al Sharpton, he visited Utah and the LDS Church to try to ease over his recent controversial anti-Mormon comments, and to his credit, it was very low key. There were only a couple local news stories on the event, and he broadcasted his radio show from Salt Lake City (using Mormon facilities), and said something interesting:

"Whatever differences I have with their denomination or religion had nothing to do with my respect of their faith."

For a faith that is often the blunt end of a lack of respect, this is surprising.

If you haven't heard, there was a debate on Monday between Al Sharpton and Christopher Hitchens. In this debate, Al Sharpton made an interesting quote:

"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."

And of course there's an interesting double-standard being discussed around the nation as to why Al could make such a comment and receive a "pass" as it were, but he holds others to a higher standard, such as Don Imus. Mitt Romney, the person Al was inferring to, has responded to this on MSNBC:

Very interesting dialog. However, if you watched the whole debate, Christopher Hitchens was commenting that the LDS faith was "officially racists" until the 70s when they allowed blacks and other minorities to hold the priesthood, and he was wondering why no one in the media was asking Romney this. Probably because A) all Christian religions have been "racist" at one point in their history and B) it's not the Mormon faith that's running for president, it's Mitt Romney. I think he can separate the two...

What is with all this pussy-footing around? In case you haven't heard, last week Iran has kidnapped 15 UK soldiers that were doing routine checks for smugglers. They were in the murky waters between Iran and Iraq, that has been contested for centuries.

Yahoo News article on Iran hostages

Pictures and videos have been released all week, all propaganda ilk from Iran trying to make it seem like these soldiers are "guilty" of trespassing. There's a great video from ABC News that details the most recent video forced from Iran. Confessions like this rarely hold any milk (as many liberals are wont to point out from Gitmo confessions), the big different however is that A) we don't daily promote the obliteration of a sovereign nation and B) we don't daily break agreements about nuclear reactors.

My question though is where is Britain's Balls?!? Here they are talking and not doing anything about it. Bush at least has sent another aircraft carrier into the gulf, a clear signal that America is behind Britain if drastic measures need to be taken. And quite frankly, they should be taken. I'm the kind of person who advocates the use of violence only as a last resort, and quite frankly with these people, we're at our last resort. I can't believe how skillful these people are getting at manipulation. It's quite frankly appalling and they should be given a message to not f#@! with us anymore!

If it weren't for the bullet, you wouldn't fear the gun...

Read an interesting article about our Vice President and a very conservative college:

BYU invites Dick Cheney to speak at April Commencement.

Brigham Young University in Utah is arguably one of the most conservative colleges on the planet (I mean, no alchohol at a college?). But in addition to that, they have a long history of political neutrality. What's being invited here is not a "devicise political figure", but the holder of the honorable office of Vice President. I have to say I am so sick and tire of the disrespect I hear about in this nation for the offices of President and Vice President. Even when Clinton was President and many disagreed with him and felt he abused his power and responsability, you still respected him because he was President. Do we see that with Bush or Cheney?

It's an honor to have any Vice President come speak at a college, no matter where it sways politically (well, all right, I would maybe exempt Dan Quail).

In a recent speech from President Bush, among many other things Bush quotes an english speaking Iraq blog site called IraqTheModel.com. It's run by a pair of brothers in the heart of Bagdhad, the worst place the "civil war" is at (well, only place, but I digress).

Read the brother's blog IraqTheModel.com

It's a pretty good read. They give some very insightful upfront reactions on how their new found freedom is affecting their lives and the lives of others around them. But back to the president.

If you read the article I linked at the top, all of this comes into question because A) there's some positive light thrown on the Iraq situation and B) it's not from Al-AP. Whenever you hear Dems quoting blogs, no one questions their sources. But nooo, we have to doubt anything that Bush says, especially if it's anything positive about Iraq. Nothing good could possibly come from there...

I know most of you conservatives have been very upset with how Republicans have been managing their money. I'm one of you, I hate the pork that's been thrown around like it's buffet time at IHOP, BUT, does it surprise anyone that the Republicans still showed more constraint than the dems?

Largest Tax Hike in History!

The Republican Caucus has a great report that shows the amount of taxes needed to increast to support their unbelievable spending. Even at their worst the Republicans were better than the Democrats.

"The Democrat budget reported Wednesday proposes the largest tax increase in U.S. history – $392.5 billion over 5 years – mainly to finance immense new spending through 2012."

*sigh*

And you wonder why conservatives are against cloning and stem cell research? Check out this report:

Scientist create a sheep that's 15% human!

Some of the organs inside the sheep are ready for human transplant! Critics feel scientists are playing God (oh my, intelligent design?). Will be very interesting to see where this goes...

Still thinking that the Justice Department fired those judges because of political reasonings? Check out this article:

Illegal immigrants allowed at least five strikes

In brief, judges along the US border with Mexico have done pretty much nothing until after the sixth arrest of illegals. This is one of the reasons the Justice Department is citing for firing these judges. 'Bout Friggin' Time! Oh my, don't do your job and you get fired? And these turkeys want special treatment? grrr...

As many have probably heard, the Senate has finally been able to have their Global Warming and Climate Change hearings (after two cancellations due to cold weather). And the star of the show is Al Gore.

Baby Gore needs special treatment

In a truly classic, liberal fashion, Gore asks for special treatment for his testimony on 2 accounts. 1) that he did not need to submit his testimony 24hrs in advance, and 2) that he receive an uprecedented 30 minutes to blather on about his hypocritical and hyperactive propaganda. Rules only apply to the rest of the world, not Al Gore. We can all reduce our carbon footprints, but he can have his huge mansions that produce more pollution than 50 average homes.

On a similar note, we get some very interesting news out of the Prague:

"Czech President Vaclav Klaus said on Wednesday that fighting global warming has turned into a 'religion' that replaced the ideology of communism and threatens to clip basic freedoms. "

The article is great and very practical. President Klaus has some great points about how Global Warming fanatics and Communism are similar under different guises. And that poor countries would be hurt the most if you followed Gore's mandates. I will close with this great quote:

"This ideology preaches earth and nature and under the slogans of their protection – similarly to the old Marxists – wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central, now global, planning of the whole world."

Two reports on "surveys" came out on Iraq, good new and bad news. Let's talk about the bad first:

Iraq Survey from USA Today: Hope Draining Away

"A survey sponsored jointly by USA TODAY, ABC News, the British Broadcasting Corp. and ARD, a German TV network find a nation that in large measure has fragmented into fear. Six in 10 Iraqis say their lives are going badly. Only one-third expect things to improve in the next year."

Or so the survey goes. It paints a lot of doom and gloom. Now let's look at the good news:

British Opinion Poll: Life is getting better!

On the very same day, another survey shows that Iraqi's feel life is getting better! Definately better than when Saddam was in control. Only 21% feel they're in a "civil war", and by a margin of 2 to 1 they feel the increase in soldiers is a good thing. This survey asked 5000 people, the other was only 2100 or so.

What does this prove? Surveys can say whatever you want them too! I *hate* surveys for this very reason, you can extrapolate any piece of information to prove any point you want to. On the exact same day, we have two survey saying just about the opposite thing! Surveys are just crap! Like how can you accurately tell how many citizens have been killed from a survey? Just plain stoopid.

What we need are more cold hard facts, detailed both aspects of the war (failures and successes). You know how many soldiers have died in this war, when was the last time you heard how many terrorists or insurgents have died? Has anyone told you how many schools have been built? What about the percentage of people on power/water/etc? Let's see numbers before the war, and numbers now. You'd be surprised (I'm working on it, will be in my Answers section).

You'd think the Primaries were next week and not a good nine months away, with all the candidates already attacking each other. Today, we're going to look at a new internet-only ad from Barack Obama's camp:

Any of us who were around in the 80s remember this ad (though I don't recall the athlete wearing an iPod). Even though I differ greatly on a lot BO's opinions, this ad was rather clever. Nice job. Makes me wonder if Apple will have it taken down for copyright infringement...

Amazingly, the French supreme court has shot down gay marriage!

French High Court Rejects Gay Marriage

A gay couple got married near Bordeaux (pronounced "bore-doe" for those not familiar with the ways of the French) in 2004 and the French government immediately said it was illegal! Of course, lawsuits file, and now, 3 years later the highest court agreed with the government! Gay Marriage is not allowed in France! Of all places! And yet, we have our Massachusetts...

Hillary's at it again, claiming there's a vast, right-wing conspiracy and anything bad that happens to the Clintons is because of their efforts. Read the full report here. In brief, a couple Republicans were busted for jamming phones during an election. Wrong thing to do, you bet, but evidence of a vast right-wing conspiracy? Hardly. And hypocritical of Hillary to say, as though the Dems are never guilty of voter fraud? You be the judge:

• 2004 Wisconsin Democratic Votes from bad addresses
• 368 page report American Center for Voting Rights documenting 2004 Democratic Voting Fraud
• 2006 elections letting illegals vote for Dems from Mr. Clinton himself
• Many reports of Democratic Voter Fraud

But Hillary, I'm here to say that I'm a member of this vast, right-wing conspiracy, since I'm doing everything within my power to show the world that the Right is right on just about everything!

Here's a video of her claim, rather choppy but eh, it's Hillary.

I have a lot to say about Global Warming today, so let's dive right into it:

1. New Government Committee for Global Warming

AP Story on new Global Warming committee

This big ass post all started because of reading the recent news that the Dems in the House have decided to form a committee for the express purpose of Global Warming. The official name of the committee is "The Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming". What the f@#! does "energy independence" and "global warming" have to do with each other?!? As a matter of fact, with political correctness the way it is now-a-days, they are polar opposites. The more we put limitations on ourselves for so-called Global Warming, the more other nations without these limitations will produce cheaper oil and energy, and thus the more dependant we will become on these sources of energy. Dumbasses...

In addition to just being a stoopid, oxymoronic committee, it's pulling money away from the Ethics committee. I guess global warming is "the greatest challenge of our time", even though the Dems had promised to clean the "culture of corruption" in Washington. But you know, ethics just aren't that important.

But the worst is not only does it take money away from a smart committee (I can tell you enforcing ethics in Washington is no easy task) but this entire committee is a waste of tax payers money. Why? Because the Government has already spoken on Global Warming! Check out my old Feb 7th post about a press release I discovered from the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works. This spells out many issues on Global Warming and the committee does a good job on it. Why do we need even more people wasting time and money over this silly hype?!?

2. Censorship of Global Warming Debate

Want more proof that Global Warming is political and not scientific? Go no further than this article I found from the UK's Telegraph about leading science journals censoring the debate on Global Warming! Classic tactics on the left. Debate this, everything rhetoric they spew out is fact, and if you challenge you're either called names ("denier" anyone?) or censored. Read this excerpt:

"Dr Naomi Oreskes analysed almost 1,000 papers on the subject published since the early 1990s, and concluded that 75 per cent of them either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly dissented from it. [This] study is now routinely cited by those demanding action on climate change, including the Royal Society and Prof Sir David King, the Government's chief scientific adviser [and Al Gore]. However, her unequivocal conclusions immediately raised suspicions among other academics, who knew of many papers that dissented from the pro-global warming line.

They included Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, who decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents - and concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly." (emphasis added)

Remember, most pundits don't think it's real science if it hasn't been published in some kind of scientific journal. However, if these so-called scientific journals continue to reject legitimate papers questioning Global Warming, then they are eschewing the real research being done. That's one reason this is so frustrating. Those who have actually researched Global Warming know how much of this is bogus, but since little gets published, people don't take us seriously and call us "Deniers".

3. Sports Illustrated Endorses Global Warming

Sports Illustrated Global Warming article

The latest issue of Sports Illustrated has decided to stop worry about sports and start worrying about political garbage. Global Warming has nothing to do with how any particular team is performing, and yet a lengthy article is devoted to it, spreading the lies that this is "fact" instead of "theories" (shaky, unfounded theories at best).

I think it's highly ironic that the sport they try to highlight being affected by Global Warming is quickly becoming the least cared about sport in America...

4. February's Average Temperature = LOW!

NOAA's February 2007 Report

Looking at hard facts in the face of Global Warming is always fun. The National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration's February 2007 report shows that it was 1.8 F cool than the 20th Century! Where's Global Warming now, be-yotch!

5. The Misunderstood Universe, kick-ass Global Warming site

http://www.misunderstooduniverse.com/index.htm

In my recent perusal of the web finding information on Global Warming, I stumbled across this little nugget. It contains quite a bit of detail about Global Warming and the crap that it is. My favorite tidbit though has got to be it's article "Global Warming Benefits - You may well like it!" It details how civilization has always progressed faster when the climate was warmer. Winters are safer, agriculture thrives, and that allows for smarter brains.

6. Canadians given the Final Word on Global Warming

On that note, I'd like to give the final word on Global Warming to our friends the Canadians. Well, a picture more than a word:

Brad Templeton, a Chairmen of the Board of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (which I tend to agree with more often than not, though is wrong sometimes), was having fun with photoshop, and this picture really made me laugh. You can see Brad's website at http://www.templetons.com/brad/.

P.S. I have to apologize to all you ultra-conservatives out there for my "liberal" use of language in this post. Global Warming really makes me angry, and sometimes I just lose control and the expletives fly. I shall be more restrained in the future.

I saw this on MoveOn.org a little while ago, one of their latest hairball schemes is the claim that Fox News is somehow not a ligitimate news organization. "The Democratic Party of Nevada just announced plans to team up with Fox News for a presidential primary debate. But Fox isn't a legitimate news channel. It's a right-wing mouthpiece like Rush Limbaugh and the Drudge Report—repeating false Republican talking points to smear Democrats." So they are campaigning to have the Democratic Party of Nevada to drop Fox from the debate.

Classic. A news organization that isn't a left-wing mouthpiece like DailyKos and Micheal Moore can't be legitimate.

When I first read MoveOn.org's pathetic (and typical) attempt at censoring anyone who doesn't agree with them, I just blew it off as usual left-wing shrillness and didn't think twice about it. That was until I stumbled across this report:

CBS report about John Edwards boycotting the debate!

The First Woman President John Edwards has decided to side with MoveOn.org and boycott the debate. "Edwards' campaign said the involvement of Fox News, which is often accused by liberals of having a conservative bias, was part of the decision to pass on the Aug. 14 debate in Reno. "

Anyone still wondering how far out on the fringes Mrs. Edwards is?

Saw this article over the weekend. Claude Allegre, a French global warmist, has decided that maybe he was wrong. "Dr. Allegre now sees global warming as over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank," the article from Canada's National Post reads.

For those who read my blog regularly, this is not news. I reported on this back in early February of a little known Press Release from the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works which was reported back in October of 2006! In this press release, Dr. Allegre was mentioned about not supported the current consensus (as opposed to science) on Global Warming. For more details, read my Feb 7th post on this issue.

To explain a little more in detail, Dr. Allegre produced an article titled "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" and discussed in great length his current skeptisism of Global Warming.

Dr. Claude Allegre's "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" (english version)

Allegre wrote that the "cause of climate change remains unknown" and pointed out that Kilimanjaro is not losing snow due to global warming, but to local land use and precipitation changes (more specifically the deforestation of the foothills of the mountain, which causes more warm air to rise up the mountain, melting more of the ice). Allegre also pointed out that studies show that Antarctic snowfall rate has been stable over the past 30 years and the continent is actually gaining ice.

Reading the story in the National Post, you find that it is actually part 13 of an extended series detailing the "Deniers", as Lawrence Solomon calls them. But make no mistake, he is using the term tounge-in-cheek because of how the drive-by media calls anyone who dares question Global Warming. The series is very enlightning. Here are direct links to each article:

• Statistics needed -- The Deniers Part I
• Warming is real -- and has benefits -- The Deniers Part II
• The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science -- The Deniers Part III
• Polar scientists on thin ice -- The Deniers Part IV
• The original denier: into the cold -- The Deniers Part V
• The sun moves climate change -- The Deniers Part VI
• Will the sun cool us? -- The Deniers Part VII
• The limits of predictability -- The Deniers Part VIII
• Look to Mars for the truth on global warming -- The Deniers Part IX
• Limited role for C02 -- the Deniers Part X
• End the chill -- The Deniers Part XI
• Clouded research -- The Deniers Part XII
• Allegre's second thoughts -- The Deniers XIII

Some very interesting readings. Once again, the Canadians have out done themselves!

This is classic, people trying to inject their own interpretations of a piece of fiction that the creators never intended.

There's a new movie coming out called "300". In case you haven't seen any of the commercials, it's about the Spartan army of only 300 men that held off the massive army of many 10s of thousands of Persians. They were able to do this buy forcing the attacking army into a chokehold location where the numbers were meaningless. It's actually an impressive historical story.

IMDB entry for "300".

Frank Miller, a comic book author and artist (his most well known piece is The Dark Knight, a future vision of Batman, but he is also known for a stint with Daredevil and Electra), as well as a script writer (wrote a couple of the RoboCops as well as others) recently wrote and drew a comic called "300" which was a very stylized and well written piece. I particularly liked them, especially his use of dark space and color (red is splashed from time to time in a very dramatic effect).

A movie has been made to be released this Friday following the same dramatic flavor. Somewhat similar to his movie Sin City, which was also "stylized" like the comic books, 300 looks to be not only sort of accurate as to it's historical content, but very faithful to the comic that it is portraying. Looks to be a good film that I'll go see (and probably blog about afterward).

However, in this day an age, everyone has to try to inject something anti-Bush about the film. Read this NY Times article where a reporter after a screening has to ask the director which bad guy is Bush. Quote:

"“Is George Bush Leonidas or Xerxes?” one of [the reporters] asked. The questioner (reporter), by Mr. Snyder’s recollection, insisted that Mr. Bush was Xerxes, the Persian emperor who led his force against Greek’s city states in 480 B.C., unleashing an army on a small country guarded by fanatical guerilla fighters so he could finish a job his father had left undone. Mr. Snyder said he intended [no] analogy when he set out to adapt the graphic novel created by Frank Miller with Lynn Varley in 1998." (emphasis added)

Classic to try to inject some lame interpretation on a piece of fiction rather than just watching the movie and enjoying it for what it is, an awesome struggle of 300 men against unbeatable odds.

As most of you have probably heard or seen, Ann Coutler made a joke about not being able to use the word "faggot" at John Edwards expense. The exact comment is as follows:

"Oh and I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic Presidential Candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab to use the word 'faggot'..."

I was trying to figure out the pretext of this comment, since a lot of the audience seems to know that this was an inside joke of some sort. I was finally able to dig this up:

Coulter: You use the word 'faggot' and you're going into rehab?

Basically, about a month ago, someone used the word 'faggot' to describe a homosexual, and then went into rehab, as though that was a good way to apologize. So, I guess she was implying with her comments that A) what transpired a month ago was rediculas and B) that Edwards has at best metrosexual tendancies. Don't believe me? Check this out:

Now of course Howard Dean is screaming that this is bigotry and unfair and just not kosher (can he use a jewish term?) and demands an apology (not recognizing the real joke here) and that Repulican candidates should publicly distance themselves from Ann (as though they completely agree with the gay agenda). Fox News has a short report on it.

What blows my mind here is HOW MANY TIMES has a DNC candidate or friend said something outrageous about the Republics in general, or typically about Bush? The list is countless, but I'll try point out a few:

• Whoopie Goldberg's joke
• MoveOn.org's Bush compared to Hitler
• Hillary Clinton saying current administration is a plantation

Where's the apologies from these people, eh Howard?