Tuesday, August 28, 2007
But then the truth and the facts have never stopped the MSM from posting their version of stories. Or yet, make up stories out of nothing at all. Some might even think that they make up these stories to just make republicans look bad/evil/hateful/bigoted/etc.
See the Confederate Yankee on the latest posting from Washington Post.
Monday, August 27, 2007
AFP/YahooNews Caption: Tuesday August 14, 2007: An elderly Iraqi woman shows two bullets which she says hit her house following an early coalition forces raid in the predominantly Shiite Baghdad suburb of Sadr City. At least 175 people were slaughtered on Tuesday and more than 200 wounded when four suicide truck bombs targeted people from an ancient religious sect in northern Iraq, officials said.(AFP/Wissam al-Okaili)
Please check out this link for a great and impressive take on the recent AFPs recent proclamation that US Forces shot up an old lady's home in Iraq.
This guy puts the Agence France Press in its place and treats them like the idiot people they are. I mean, come on, even my neighbor's toddler can tell the difference between a bullet and an unspent cartridge.
Some reports even tout that these bullets are not even American military issued:
Saturday, August 25, 2007
A Mexican Senate committee passed a measure Wednesday urging President Felipe Calderon to send a diplomatic note to the United States protesting the deportation of an illegal migrant who took refuge in a Chicago church for a year.
She said she would help organize a rally in Tijuana that same day to demand Mexican authorities do more to protect migrants.
“For me it is very important that our government take a strong stand to defend all of us who decide to migrate to another country,” she said.
What Liberals HearNot much more I can say about that. Just too true!
Statement: “The Surge is bringing order to Iraq.”
They Hear: “With Troop Rise, Iraqi Detainees Soar in Number”
Statement: “We need to improve intelligence capabilities to meet the threat of terrorism.”
They Hear: “Our enemies in a time of war have a privacy right under the constitution.”
Statement: “The destruction of the World Trade Center was one of the greatest crimes in history.”
They Hear: “The health problems caused by cleaning up the destruction of the World Trade Center was one of the greatest crimes in history.”
Statement: “Several men of Middle Eastern appearance were seen acting suspiciously before and after boarding the flight.”
They Hear: Intolerance! Hatred! Homopho-oops! RAAAAAACISM!!!!
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Norway's Moose Population in Trouble for BelchingYEP. Now its the moose's fault for global warming. Years before, it was the lowly cow that was to blame for the vast amounts of methane, along with various other "greenhouse molecules", that was present in the atmosphere causing global warming.
The poor old Scandinavian moose is now being blamed for climate change, with researchers in Norway claiming that a grown moose can produce 2,100 kilos of methane a year -- equivalent to the CO2 output resulting from a 13,000 kilometer car journey.
Question. How can you equate a level of methane with a level of CO2? C02 is made up of carbon and oxygen. Methane is made up of hydrogen and oxygen molecules. They behave differently. They reside at different levels of the atmosphere.
Norwegian newspapers, citing research from Norway's technical university, said a motorist would have to drive 13,000 kilometers in a car to emit as much CO2 as a moose does in a year.So, therefore, if you want to take an extended vacation, for say 13,000 km, then go kill yourself a moose. Better yet, raise up a pack of them and save them for a rainy day. I heard moose makes great hamburgers.
Much like cows, bacteria in a moose's stomach create methane gas which is considered even more destructive to the environment than carbon gas. Cows pose the same problem.
So, you may ask does Norway plan to save our planet from these vial and deadly creatures? Oh, yes, you bet they do....
Norway has some 120,000 moose but an estimated 35,000 are expected to be killed in this year's moose hunting season, which starts on September 25, Norwegian newspaper VG reported.So, obviously it isn't that big of a problem then if they are going to maintain a population of 90,000 or so a year for hunting purposes. But, I thought global warming due to methane was the defining moment of today?
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Democrat Barack Obama said Saturday the country faces an "an urgent moral challenge" to reduce reliance on oil...While I commend Obama for bringing up the fact that we need to talk about our reliance on oil, I don't think it rises to the level of moral decisions like whether to steal or not, whether to cheat on your wife or not, or whether to murder or not.
And, what is wrong with relying on oil to fuel our nation and our nation's economy?? Oil is cheap. Oil is easy to get. Oil is easy to send through production to make thousands of other products that we rely on... like plastics, metal refining, tires, and all kinds of fuel for cars, planes and rockets. If you want to eliminate our reliance on oil, then how is our military going to defend us from attacks when our entire armed forces is driven on oil (and to some extent on nuclear)? Is Obama suggesting that we walk toward our enemies as our tanks and planes will no longer have fuel?
A common sense approach would be to discuss whether we should be increasingly reliant on foreign sources of oil. When liberals, greenies, and socialists talk of reducing our reliance on oil they are only talking about stopping our ability to produce our own energy. They have no qualms with forcing our nation to purchase oil from countries that either are terroristic or support terrorism against us and our allies. Many of our top suppliers are very friendly towards our enemies. And one, Mexico, flaunts our national borders and threatens our national security every single day by shooting at our Border Guards.
...and needs a president willing to defy special interests in Washington that dictate energy policy.hmmm.... he wouldn't be speaking of defying those "special interests" that dictate no drilling, no mining, and no nuclear power would he?? Somehow, I think he is talking about those people who want to free us from foreign oil sources. I am glad he is here to protect us from them.
"We've got to have a president in the White House who sets bold targets and sets broad goals and isn't intimidated by the barriers and the roadblocks and isn't driven by those who already have an investment in the status quo - somebody who can overcome the lobby-driven, divisive politics that characterizes this issue," Obama told about 300 people at Waverly Light and Power, the city utility.WHAT??? I have no idea what he just said. How hard is it for people seeking national office to use proper english?? Who do you think he is talking about??
Words like "divisive" and "lobby-driven" are used by Obama supporters to describe Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York...OOOhhhhhh. So, Sen. Clinton is the driving force behind our energy policy? It is her fault that we are so heavily reliant on foreign oil and are in favor of status-quo?
As a point of fact, no one is in favor of status quo. Status quo leads to dry wells and no expansions in our drilling plans. Some people are in favor of cutting back our drilling plans while others are in favor of expansions.
"We've got an energy policy that doesn't just seem like it's written by industry lobbyists," he said. "It was written by energy lobbyists."
Vice President Dick Cheney led the administration's energy task force, which Obama said met once with environmentalists, once with renewable energy experts and 40 times with oil industry leaders.
And, what is wrong with that? If you put Al Gore in the president's office, those numbers would be reversed. But, what form of energy would environmentalists and renewable energy experts suggest we expand upon? Solar? Solar is not very efficient and very expensive for the normal person. Water? How many environmentalists want to demolish hydroelectric dams around the nation? Wind? How many environmentalists want us to now ban the use of wind power because they supposedly kill too many birds. So, what other forms of energy could these wackos suggest we develop to replace oil? Nuclear? Ha!! Not from these crowds.
Environmentalists have their own special interest groups and lobbyists, but Obama did not decry them. Obama, Clinton and fellow Democratic candidate John Edwards have been arguing over their ties to lobbyists and special interests.Hmmm.. no doubt.
In Waverly, Obama outlined his plans to require the use of more renewable energy, lower carbon in fuels and increase fuel efficiency of cars. Obama noted that his call to increase the number of miles an automobile can go on a gallon of gas upset politically important special interests in Detroit.Lower carbon fuels? So, he would demand higher production costs on the oil and gas we use. This would raise the costs at the pump. He would also require the increase in renewable energy. I wish he would state where he would build these plants. One large solar plant that is projected to be built in California has been beset by protests and lawsuits to stop its construction. Not by Big Oil but by environmentalists.
And the reason why Detroit is against the requirement that cars get higher gas mileage is because they, like most Americans, hate it when the government gets involved in their business. If people wanted higher mileage vehicles they would be swamping the automakers when they are produced. But, the high mileage vehicles are a very small percentage of the total sales of autos and trucks. Take a look at how many Hummers are out on the streets. How many Toyota Prius' do you see?
But he said smart energy policies are needed to reduce global warming, lower gas prices and make the country less reliant on foreign oil.
"It's an urgent moral challenge that demands attention now," he said. "We can free ourselves from the tyranny of oil."
How can increasing our reliance on foreign sources of oil reduce global warming? How can using more "renewable" energies reduce global warming? Please, tell me how using solar power will reduce the heat from the sun and limit space radiation? And, please, tell me how forcing all of these government regulations on us and reducing the supply of cheap petroleum is going to reduce gas prices? If you limit the supply of something while the demand keeps going up, the price of that product will continue to climb drastically. These people are idiots.
Oooooo. I love that statement. The "tyranny of oil". As if oil is the ruler over people with an iron fist, cruelly punishing people for their very existence, and taxing us into poverty. Lest we forget, many nations that the environmentalists are ok with us buying oil from are lead by vicious tyrants. Nations like Nigeria, Venezuela, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.
But yet, the environmentalists do not care where we get our oil from, only as long as it is not from within our borders. We need to increase our own production of oil, coal, gas and methane in order to be free from the whims of OPEC and our enemies. If Iran, Nigeria and Venezuela ever decide to stop shipping oil to us, prices for gas could top $10 a gallon due to our limited supply of oil currently.
If you have ever wanted to see again what our nation would look like without a car on any road, just let elect a Democrat.
An ad agency hired by the state of Virginia used people making a gesture with their hands that made a heart shape to denote their love for the state. As anyone knows, the heart is a symbol of caring, love, and devotion.
...Virginia Tourism Corp. officials said Friday. The gesture shows thumbs and index fingers formed into a heart.But as the ad agency is all-knowing and full of research people....
"Our intent was to show people using their hands to make a heart to signify 'Virginia is for Lovers,' " the state's longtime tourism slogan, the agency's president Alisa Bailey said in a statement. "For the majority of people, the heart sign is a symbol of love -- and the campaign's images intended to convey a love of travel and a love of Virginia."
At first, tourism officials thought the gang was a small group in South Carolina and continued with the ads.So, something told them that a gang was using the peaceful loving heart symbol as a symbol of hate, terror and dominance over people and property, but decided to continue on with the ad despite this. If the gang was larger would they have changed the ad?? Since the gang has people, should the ad company not use people in their ads? Oh wait, the girl in the photo on Fox News is wearing RED. The color red is used by a major gang in this country. Shouldn't they have made her change her clothes??
Virginia is still for lovers, but the state's tourism agency will eliminate images of people making heart symbols with their hands in its upcoming advertising campaign because the gesture is also used by a violent street gang.Anyone hear of them???? How much you wanna bet that no one outside of the Carolina's have heard about this gang? But, how many people know what the symbol of the heart means?
The Virginia is for Lovers "Live Passionately" campaign will remove images of models making the hand gesture, one of several signs associated with the Gangster Disciples,...
Then the agency received e-mails this week pointing out that the gesture is flashed by members of Gangster Disciples, also known as Black Gangster Disciples. The Chicago-based group is known for its large-scale crack-cocaine operations,...Wait, I thought they were small gang based in South Carolina?? So, an ad from an ad agency based in Virginia got scared of a correlation between their ad and a group in South Carolina. And then they only pulled the ad when they learned that the gang was actually in Chicago, Illinois.
"Out of respect to those who have concerns about the use of this symbol, we will adjust the creative images in our ad campaign to eliminate any further misinterpretation of the heart/hand symbol," Bailey's statement said. "We regret if anyone interpreted the symbol as anything other than a symbol of love as was intended."Who in this world would confuse the use of the heart symbol with gang activity and then think to themselves that the state of Virginia LOVES gangs and supports that particular gang?!?!? Again, are they going to adjust the ad by removing the colors of blue and red? Those are gang symbols these days? How about removing any hand gestures whatsoever? All gangs use hand gesturing to denote their gang affiliation or that they are worthy of being in a gang.
To succumb to and change an innocent ad based on the hijacking of a symbol by a gang is pure unadulterated cowardice. How else can you explain it? Should we stop using the symbol of the eagle as our national emblem because the Nazi party used it? Or because the Romans used it? Should we stop giving roses to loved ones because satanists use roses in their ceremonies?
Should our police and military stop using guns and ammo because gangs use them too? Should we stop defending christianity because Muslims hate us? Should we just say, "Sorry, we will leave now and not say anything."
Bailey has said that about $400,000 was spent on developing the campaign, excluding the purchase of ad time on broadcast outlets.Talk about throwing money down the drain. Are they going to stop showing people fishing because fish are most likely killed when caught?
Thursday, August 16, 2007
You know what Michael Chertoff, I don't really give a crap about your opinion of the economy. You were hired because of your supposed skill at security and management of organizing protecting the United States citizens. Why don't you focus on your damn job and stop being concerned with other departments like agriculture and the economy?
If we thought you were a good economist and agriculture head we would have made you the agriculture secretary.Now shut the hell up and do your job!
There is no reason why the Homeland Security Chief should be lecturing this country about the need to allow illegals into this country for economic reasons. Just do your job, do it like the laws tell you to and this country will grow economically.
Think about it. If one third of all prisoners are illegal, if many jobs are taken by illegals, then think of the money saved if they were not in prison and of all the jobs available to people looking for work.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
The House Dems have just passed a bill that will do nothing but raise the cost of energy for consumers. How else can you say it? They refused to allow the increase in domestic oil, gas and coal production. They refused to make construction of refineries and nuclear power plants affordable (and possible).
How can anyone in this world believe that MAKING energy companies spend billions on unproven "alternative" energy sources will save consumer's money?
Declaring a new direction in energy policy, the U.S. House of Representatives approved $16 billion in taxes on oil companies, while providing billions of dollars in tax breaks and incentives for renewable energy and conservation efforts.Here's the thing. Requiring biofuels and alternative sources of energy is fine for energy companies that are located in areas that can produce these alternates, but for other companies, they will have to BUY these alternative energies. This of course, raises rates on consumers. As it is, even with subsidies, the cost to consumers for alternative energies is more expensive than so-called traditional sources. Many companies give consumers the choice of energy sources. But they also highlight the fact that they consumers will pay a premium for "saving the earth".
The House passed the tax provisions by a vote of 221-189 Saturday. Earlier it had approved, 241-172, a companion energy package aimed at boosting energy efficiency and expanding use of biofuels, wind power and other renewable energy sources.
On one of the most contentious and heavily lobbied issues, the House voted to require investor-owned electric utilities nationwide to generate at least 15 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources such as wind or biofuels.Repeat after me. THERE IS NO MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING!!!! Good Gawd!!
The utilities and business interests had argued aggressively against the federal renewables mandate, saying it would raise electricity prices in regions of the country that do not have abundant wind energy. But environmentalists said the requirement will spur investments in renewable fuels and help address global warming as utilities use less coal.
Ok, do you want to see how screwed up these people are?? Read on...
"This will save consumers money," said Democratic congressman Tom Udall, the provision's co-sponsor, maintaining utilities will have to use less high-priced natural gas.Yep, you read that right. This bill will save you money by forcing these companies to buy LESS natural gas to power their natural gas fired electric plants. This bozo says that natural gas is high priced. It is the cheapest thing around right now. And, the reason these companies are using natural gas is because they were forced to move away from coal years ago by the eco-nuts who are now forcing them to move away from this clean energy.
Are they really expecting us to believe that creating energy through ethanol, wind, and solar is less costly than natural gas??? These people are idiots. At least they can count on an illiterate and ignorant society.
1) Forcing conversions to a more delicate and expensive energy producing scheme does not save consumers money.
2) Forcing companies to purchase this more expansive alternate energy will not save consumers money.
3) Insisting that companies force their consumers to buy alternate energy sources will not save consumers money.
4) Using ethanol and biomass fuels (what is that anyway???) will actually increase the use of petroleum products, increase the use of non-preferred lands for corn production, increase fertilizer usage, and mandate the expensive conversion of traditional storage and transport facilities to handle ethanol.
The bill also calls for more stringent energy efficiency standards for appliances and lighting and incentives for building more energy-efficient "green" buildings. It would authorize special bonds for cities and counties to reduce energy demand.What an idiot. They remove the tax breaks from oil and energy companies and give them to people to build green buildings and use alternative energy sources. What does that really mean? It means, it is not economically feasible to switch to "green" energies and to build "green" buildings. It costs more to do these things and people don't really want these products since they do cost more. So, the government of socialists are going to FORCE you to go "green" because these socialists know what is best for you.
Pelosi, a Democrat, said it was essential to commit to renewable energy while reducing reliance on fossil fuels. Doing so, she said, will help address global warming and make the country more energy-independent. "It's about our children, about our future, the world in which they live," Pelosi said.
And, how do you commit to renewable while also reducing reliance on fossil fuels? For one, there are more and more cars on the road each and every month. Two, there are more and more houses being constructed each month. There are more and more energy using products than ever before each and every month. This will only increase the need for quick and efficient energy sources.
Solar is still very inefficient. Ethanol is highly inefficient when compared to oil and coal. We have hydroelectric power, but now the Nazis are forcing their closures due to the harm to fish and the natural environment in the way it looks. Besides, using hydroelectric is not cheaper than traditional means for some reason. The power is free and the dams have long been paid for, but yet, their rates are still very high. And now that the federal government and eco-Nazis are forcing dams to reduce their operations when fish are migrating, the costs will only increase.
And how in the world does this make the country energy independent when there is no actual decrease in the need for foreign energy supplies? This bill does absolutely nothing to increase domestic fuel supplies.
Republican opponents said the legislation ignored the need to produce more domestic oil, natural gas and coal. One Republican lawmaker bemoaned "the pure venom ... against the oil and gas industry."
Republicans said the House bill did nothing to increase domestic oil and natural gas production or take further advantage of coal, the country's most abundant domestic energy resource.
"There's a war going on against energy from fossil fuels," said Republican Ralph Hall, who is from the oil-rich state of Texas. "I can't understand the pure venom felt against the oil and gas industry." Rep. Joe Barton, another Texas Republican, said the bill was "a political exercise" to promote "pet projects, ... pet ideas."
The bill would repeal for oil companies a tax break given in 2004 to help domestic manufacturers compete against foreign companies, and another tax break pertaining to income from foreign oil production. The House-passed bill also includes an array of loan guarantees, federal grants and tax breaks for alternative energy programs. They include building biomass factories, research into making ethanol from wood chips and prairie grasses and producing better batteries for hybrid gas-electric automobiles.Research??? What research?!?? Why should the federal government be involved in paying for research into areas that it demands and forces private companies to go into?? If the energy is economically feasible and in the best interest of the company, then the company itself will seek out funding sources for alternative energies. The greatest advancements in America's history have been at the hands of private invention and not federally mandated boondoggles.