Sunday, September 30, 2007
The DREAM Act would give in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens, and it had no place in a Defense bill. Though Reid has pulled it out of the war spending bill, it’s not dead yet.
Majority Leader Sen. Reid (D-NV) has apparently decided that the DREAM Act will not be voted on as an amendment to the DoD bill. He hopes, however, to have this measure voted on by some time in November.
Rest assured, Reid will go to bat for all those “undocumented Americans” as soon as he can.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Sen Edwards answered a question about what he would do as president "to eliminate inner city kids' partaking in violence." Here is his brilliant, unbiased, unabashed, learned response:
"We cannot build enough prisons to solve this problem. And the idea that we're just gonna keep incarcerating and keep incarcerating — pretty soon we’re not going to have a young African-American male population in America. They’re all going to be in prison or dead. One of the two.”First off, the question did not ask about the fate of black males who commit crime. The question from a young black female high schooler was what he would do to help stop any kid from getting involved in violence. He turned the question into a problem of the judicial system just throwing blacks in to prison without any regard. First, our judicial system does not operate that way. For the vast majority of cases, our justice system is blind. For many of those cases that are not, our system is set up so that those who are aggrieved can get justice.
As for Edward's position that black males are just thrown in jail because they have no hope or opportunity is also flat wrong. But then, he was pandering to the ignorant young audience and specifically to that young black female. National Review Online's Campaign Spot had this to say regarding Edward's statistics:
Despite popular misperception and those who find it a convenient talking point to illustrate inescapable racism, there are more young African-American men in college than in prison. In 2005, according to the Census Bureau, there were 864,000 black men in college. According to Justice Department statistics, there were 802,000 in federal and state prisons and jails; between the ages of 18 and 24, however, black men in college outnumber those incarcerated by 4 to 1.But then again, Sen Edwards was not intent on answering the question. He was only interested in pandering and pushing a viewpoint that is not truly his (i.e., green living). If he was the least bit intellectual, he would have answered the question with statements to the effect that the problem with inner city violence is a matter of the lack of law enforcement, drugs, gangs, and illegal immigration. Those kids who want to succeed do. And then he could cite some numbers like the ones above. He could cite how he has worked long and hard to provide inner city kids with jobs on his ranch and cleaning his mansion. Or how he delivered prepackaged food to inner city kids who were living on the streets.
UPDATE: Some readers are finding the numbers above confusing. The first set of numbers (comparing 864,000 to 802,000) refers to all black men of all ages. The 4 to 1 ratio is among black men between the ages of 18 to 24. In other words, a large percentage of that 802,000 are black men above the age of 24.
Either way, to blame the judicial system for actually incarcerating criminals is bone-headed. He actually proposed that putting criminals in jail is not the right thing to do. He also announced that he was not in favor of building more jails so that these criminals could be released back onto those inner city streets. Which brings up another aspect of this video. The question was about inner city KIDS. He responded that the answer was not putting black males in jail. Seems to me the question dealt with how to reach kids before they become old enough to be thrown in jail.
Blogs are really hammering Sen Edwards over the statement about how blacks have only 2 options: 1) to be in jail or 2) to be dead. However, Sen Edwards actually gave a total of 3 options for black males: 1) jail, 2) death, 3) or live off the government handouts as they are not capable enough of lifting themselves out of the inner city. One of Edwards' suggestions about how to keep black males out of prison or the hands of the Angel of Death was to And yet, when you look at the numbers above, it would seem that those causing problems in our inner cities are there by choice living the life that they chose.
Sen Edwards also mentioned that those incarcerated for non-violent crimes for 6 months to 2 years will just go back to committing crimes when they get out. Thus, it is the fault of the judicial system that keeps the black man down. He advised the creation of a structure to change their lives around. Things that he suggested was drug councelling (amazing, someone should have thought of that. we could even do it in the jails too. oooo ), a new probation system where the prob officers actually pay attention to their charges (but wouldn't that mean then that they just got out of those jails he was against sending the black males to?), to give them more education and job training (didn't he just say that the inner city education system is a failure? and isn't there already a re-education system in our jails? also, how hard is it to cook fries and burgers or mop floors? ), and then give these guys jobs when employers refuse to hire ex-cons.
And once again, he spouted the same old rhetoric about how there are two systems. This time it was inner city schools vs rich suburban schools. Thus his implication is that schools built for whites are better than schools built for blacks. He also stated that those living in inner cities receive disproportionate punishments for their crimes. The implication there was that black people are punished harsher than white people.
And, what was with him standing on an image of the Japanese Battle Flag?!?!
Watch the whole video.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Read the whole thing at the link. It really shows that Pres Bush did not want war nor did he ignore the post-Saddam era. He wanted to give Saddam a way out but he also had a deadline for action. Pres Bush was tired of waiting on the politicians in the UN to finish wringing their hands. But even with that, in the end, he went back to the UN to get his SECOND recommendation that Saddam must comply or face consequences. This makes it perfectly clear Pres Bush did all he could to avert war..... and that the Arab nations along with many other nations also wanted to get rid of Saddam. This is by far NOT Pres Bush's war. This is Earth's war on terror, dictators and those seeking WMD to the detriment of their neighbors (hint Iran).
Juan Cole is calling for the impeachment of George Bush over the transcript of a private conversation the President had with former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Aznar in 2003. But startlingly enough, it could be the exoneration of Bush. PJM’s senior editor Jose Guardia translates the memo in its entirety from Spanish and comments.
Much is being made of the scoop by Madrid’s daily El País of the - until now top secret- transcript of a conversation between Bush and Spain’s former PM Jose Maria Aznar during their meeting in Crawford in March 2003 as the Iraq war was about to start. Editor & Publisher has a machine translation, which is quite atrocious. If you can read Spanish, the full text is here.
Several areas of interest emerge in this memo, but perhaps the most interesting is this part concerning negotiations being conducted with Saddam. Bush told Aznar:
“The Egyptians are talking with Saddam Hussein. It seems he has hinted he’d be willing to leave if he’s allowed to take 1 billion dollars and all the information on WMDs.”
All the information on WMDs? What would that imply to Bush and to Aznar? And this was coming from Egyptian Intelligence in direct communication with Saddam. Wouldn’t the normal person assume from that that Saddam had WMDs or at the very least was seriously engaged in creating them? Why would he wish to preserve this information if he didn’t have any forbidden weapons programs is something that war critics should reconcile. I guess all the people who are trumpeting this leak will now stop saying that Bush lied and mislead us on the WMD issue. Can’t have it both ways. But I won’t hold my breath.The part being ballyhooed by them is that Bush was planning to go into Iraq under any conditions.
But even that is wrong. What the transcript doesn’t say in accurate translation, no matter the headlines, is that Bush was going to invade even if Saddam complied. What it says is that the US would be in Iraq in mid-March whether there was a second UN resolution or not, one that Bush said he would try to get by all means, which is an entirely different matter. As everybody knows, there’s certainly a debate on whether the first resolution was enough or not - many reputable experts think it was, though there’s not unanimity on this, certainly. But the issue is different.
Here’s the relevant section (by Pres Bush):Saddam won’t change and will keep playing games. The moment of getting rid of him has arrived. That’s it. As for me, from now on I’ll try to use the softest rhetoric I can, while we look for the resolution to be approved. If some country vetoes [the resolution] we’ll go in. Saddam is not disarming. We must catch him right now. We have shown an incredible amount of patience until now. We have two weeks. In two weeks our military will be ready. I think we’ll achieve a second resolution. In the Security Council we have three African countries [Cameroon, Angola, Guinea], the Chileans, the Mexicans. I’ll talk with all of them, also with Putin, naturally. We’ll be in Baghdad at the end of March. There’s a 15% chance that by then Saddam is dead or has flown. But these possibilities won’t exist until we have shown our resolution. The Egyptians are talking with Saddam Hussein. It seems he has hinted he’d be willing to leave if he’s allowed to take 1 billion dollars and all the information on WMDs. Ghadaffi told Berlusconi that Saddam wants to leave. Mubarak tells us that in these circumstances there are big chances that he’ll get killed.
We would like to act with the mandate of the UN. If we act militarily, we’ll do with great precision and focalizing our targets to the biggest degree possible. We’ll decimate the loyal troops and the regular army will quickly know what it’s all about. … We are developing a very strong aid package. We can win without destruction. We are working already in the post-Saddam Iraq, and I think there’s a basis for a better future. Iraq has a good bureaucracy and a relatively strong civil society. It could be organized as a federation. Meanwhile we’re doing all we can to fulfill the political needs of our friends and allies.
If anything, the transcript proves precisely the opposing point that critics want to make. The conversation shows both Bush and Aznar trying to avoid war as much a possible; that they were concerned of its human toll and that they were quite confident that they would obtain a second resolution. It was the threat that they would act if there wasn’t a second resolution that made them quite confident that there would be one.
Which is more beautiful?
Alicia Silverstone produced an ad highlighting the virtues of vegetarianism by showing off her nude body (no, not nude but still fairly hot)
Meanwhile, Mary K Ham decided to fire back from the opposing view. Mary, as the majority of normal humans, is an omnivore. If you don't know what that is then you are not a human.
Please click on the link for her video reply to Alicia:
There is also another spoof ad up on YouTube that is hilarious:
Thursday, September 27, 2007
EAST AMWELL, New Jersey (Reuters) - Michael Strizki heats and cools his house year-round and runs a full range of appliances including such power-guzzlers as a hot tub and a wide-screen TV without paying a penny in utility bills.But, you say that those numbers don't make sense? That paying $4,000 per year in a system that eliminates your $1500 per year utilities payments. Yep, that sounds like a perfect deal to me. Why pay $1500 to your utilities when you can pay $4,000 to another "utility" company. But it is not about that you say? Well, you may be right along side this guy...
His conventional-looking family home in the pinewoods of western New Jersey is the first in the United States to show that a combination of solar and hydrogen power can generate all the electricity needed for a home.
Caminiti argues that the cost of the hydrogen/solar setup works out at about $4,000 a year when its $100,000 cost is spread over the anticipated 25-year lifespan of the equipment. That's still a lot higher than the $1,500 a year the average U.S. homeowner spends on energy, according to the federal government. Even if gasoline costs averaging about $1,000 per car annually are included in the energy mix, the renewables option is still more expensive than the grid/gasoline combination.
But for Strizki and his colleagues, the house is about a lot more than the bottom line. It's about energy security at a time when the federal government is seeking to reduce dependence on fossil fuels from the Middle East, and it's about sustaining a lifestyle without emitting greenhouse gases.Cause you know, everyone can afford to splash down $100,000 on alternative energy sources ... let alone $4,000 per year in payments.
Can you say, IDIOCY?!??!
Smile for one of the thousands of the 24/7 smart video analyzing cameras in Chicago. These types of cameras will recognize faces, monitor streets, corners, sidewalks and people walking everywhere they go.
Looks like it is time for someone to bring out their 50 calibers and take these things out.
BOULDER, Colo. — About 50 Boulder High School students walked out of class Thursday to protest the daily reading of the Pledge of Allegiance and recited their own version, omitting "one nation, under God."Hmmm... guess they still are not teaching logic and civics in public education. Anyone with half a brain knows that there is no such thing as "separation of church and state". And, if they don't like the fact that our nation honors "god" in our pledge to the country, then they can either just not say the words or leave the country. I hear Cuba, Venezuela or Iran is nice this time of the year.
The students say the phrase violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
They also say the daily reading of the pledge over the school public address system at the start of the second class takes away from education time and is ignored or mocked by some students.
hahahahaa.. saying of the pledge takes away from "education time". Yeah, as if these kids really care about the time spent getting an education. It is obvious that they are not even GETTING an education if they think our Constitution says there should be no mention of "god" of any form. Well, I am sure that some of their teachers are mocked, but does that give these crap-for-brains the right to walk out of their classes? I wonder how they would feel if they were forced to pray to the east 5 times a day and pledge their souls to Mohammed. Would the girls feel ok with having to wear a burqua and head covering as well as the huge one-piece over the body covering?
The protesting students, members of the Student Worker Club, want administrators to hold the pledge reading in the auditorium during each of the school's two lunch periods...Now it becomes clearer. These kids are communists. No wonder they are ok with giving a pledge in an auditorium as people stand up before eating their meals. Seig Hiel.
"Boulder High has a highly diverse population, not all of whom believe in God, or one God," said Emma Martens, a senior and president of the club, which has about a dozen members.Dozen members huh?? Come back to us when you have a few hundred. Then we will start to listen. And, if you believe in more than one god, then what is your problem believing that your god(s) had a hand in forming this nation? If not, then you are in the wrong nation. Leave this nation to the Judeo-Christian GOD who is GOD above all others. The one true GOD.
"We didn't think it was fair for the whole school to have to listen to it. It's almost religious oppression," she said.So, now it is a matter of being forced to listen? Forgive me, but wouldn't you also be forced to listen if the pledge was recited in the auditorium while you are eating lunch?? And please explain how this is "religious oppression"? Religious oppression would be if the school prevented the saying of the pledge due to its mention of god. Also, your little commy student group would not exist because you believe in god(s). You would be oppressed from expressing your religious beliefs - hmmm sounds an awful lot like what you are doing to the rest of the school's majority and their saying of the official pledge of allegiance for USA.
Get a life and more importantly.. get an education!!
Washington — The Senate will likely vote on a controversial measure this week that would give illegal immigrant students a path to citizenship if they go to college or serve in the military.First, let me say that I think the fact that they are ILLEGAL should be the primary focus of this bill, or any bill that deals with immigration reform. These people are here in this country illegally and in many cases are continually breaking the law by using illegal documents or living without proper documents like driver's licenses. I don't care what country they are from, if they are here illegally, then they need to go home.
Proponents say it could help replenish the armed forces, stretched thin by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The children affected, they say, were brought to the United States illegally as small children through no fault of their own and should be given a chance to stay.
Critics decry the measure as an amnesty for lawbreakers and a slap in the face to American families struggling to send their children to college.
Second, this bill was introduced as a means to give young students (under 18) who happen to be in college a means to get citizenship. It seems to have been changed now to just "students" attending college or the military. They should not even be in colleges if they are in this country illegally. They should not be in any school system in this country. Our hard won tax dollars should not be used to pay for their education. They should not be in college, they should be in jail or on their way back to their homeland.
Third, I like the idea of giving people who serve in the military a means for citizenship. I think this option should be open to any person in this world who wants to be an American. If you serve in our military and put your life on the line for this nation, then you should be awarded with citizenship. I am highly against our military using illegals without reward. Although, this measure should not be used as a means to fill our military ranks as most of these illegals are unable to speak english. It is not safe or feasible to place non-english speakers into our military's ranks and have our native citizen members unable to communicate with them.
Fourth, you bet it is a slap in the face to american families. Many american families are unable to afford sending their kids to college with many forced to pay non-resident tuition. But this bill will make it mandatory for all colleges to give illegals resident tuition despite not even being in the state legally. Meanwhile, the legal residents of the US are forced to pay through the nose. And with this move toward illegal preferential treatment, how many American students will not be accepted due to lack of space. And you know, that if more people are given free or reduced tuition, tuition will have to be increased on everyone else.
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), author of the measure, said that it would give the Pentagon a pool of ideal candidates for military service at a time when the government is struggling to find soldiers and offering up to $20,000 bonuses to enlist.Hmmm. I don't think I like the idea of giving these illegal citizens $20,000 to enlist. Seems to me the hope of gaining citizenship rights would be worth enough. That aspect alone is worth at least $20,000 over the course of this new citizen's rights. "Good moral character"??? They are illegal and have remained thus. That does not bode too well for their good moral character.
"All recruits would be well-qualified high school graduates with good moral character,'' Durbin said.
The legislation, known as the DREAM Act or "Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act" would allow illegal immigrant high school graduates to eventually attain permanent legal status if they complete two years of college or serve honorably in the military for at least two years.Umm, now .. NO... that is not going to happen. This person can be a 2 year dropout and still get their citizenship? And, military members are already eligible for college education in addition to the training they get while in service. Illegals must serve at least 4 years in the military in order to be eligible for citizenship. And, I still am uncomfortable giving an illegal who has been here for years a citizenship just because they went to college for 2 years.
"Conservative estimates indicate 1.3 million illegal aliens will be able to take advantage of this opportunity, and then, of course, bring their families into the U.S," he (Saxby Chamblis) said. "There are real and difficult consequences when people break the laws of the United States. Congress heard the American people loud and clear earlier this year on the issue of immigration reform, and the Senate worked its will on this issue already."I would have to disagree with that estimate. I have a feeling that it is going to be closer to 5-10 million as there are about 30 million illegals here in America. I am glad to hear that these two members are willing to stand up for the American people and our wishes. As Sen Chamblis said, the senate had a chance on this issue already and the American people overroad the massive attempts by the socialists to PUSH this illegal illegal immigration bill upon an ignorant populace. It was all about placating a potential voting block and supporting the somewhat secretive move toward a North American Union.
(Johnny) Isakson said the measure "would reward those who have obtained an education in a system in which they have not contributed."
And Sen Durbin knows that he faces alot of resistance to this re-push of his illegal bill, thus this...
In an effort to convince more senators to support the DREAM Act, Durbin narrowed the measure — adding an age limit of 30 for eligibility and dropping a mandate that the immigrants receive in-state tuition rates.Hmm, guess they are not targeting young kids anymore. If old people up to age 30 (with no age limit before?) can get citizenship, then this is even more an amnesty program. This is a huge boondogle. Let me ask you this. If these people are here illegal with no valid identification or documentation, then how are they going to prove that they are the age that they say they are (if you can translate their spanish). I am glad to see that the in-state tuition demand was dropped. That would have been an automatic lawsuit. As it is, I am awaiting several lawsuits against certain states for giving in-state tuition to illegals and not giving it to legal citizens.
U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), a vocal critic of illegal immigration who is running for president, sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), asking him to "put an end to efforts in the Senate ... that would reward illegal aliens with amnesty or allow them increased access to publicly funded benefits."I really hope that Rep Tancredo is not that naive. Either way, it is on record now. Too bad Rep Tancredo is not getting more media air time as he would make an incredible president.
At a news conference last week, several students who arrived illegally in the United States as children and have excelled in school said they were being denied access to their dreams of becoming physicians, lawyers and scientists because they can't qualify for financial help.I must say that I feel sorry for this kid. He seems to have potential. Instead of getting angry at the system designed to uphold laws and protect its citizens, he should be angry at his mother for keeping him apart from society, forcing him to live illegally. If he truly wants to help people, does it matter if they are Americans or people of his own nationality? Either way, this kid should have become legal along time ago. His mother, one, should have started the paperwork to get the kid legalized, and two, should have never entered our country illegally, and three, forced American taxpayers to foot the bill for his education for 12 years. And now they expect that the Americans reward that behavior with citizenship? I DON'T THINK SO. How about reward us with paying back all that money first!!
"I foresee myself as a doctor helping thousands of families, but without education, without being able to go to medical school, I can't. Therefore, my dreams will die," said Rodrigo, who said he crossed the border illegally with his mother when he was 6 years old and later graduated from a San Jose high school as class valedictorian with a 4.0 grade point average.
The students, who only gave their first names, were dressed as doctors and lawyers, representing what they hoped to become.Why? Why just give first names? What are they afraid of? They have been living here 12 years now and now they are afraid? If he wants citizenship, then he needs to be proud enough to give his last name. He gave his last name to the school system and the university he wants to attend.
Which brings up another thought. A person is unable to attend a university without a proper and valid social security number. How are these illegals attending school? How are they getting by without a SSN? Are these people breaking more laws by defrauding the federal government again?
The DREAM Act would apply to illegal immigrants who have lived in the United States for at least five years before the measure's enactment, have graduated from high school or obtained a GED, and have no criminal record.Wait. Now these eligible persons can now be anywhere from12 to 30 years of age? So, a teenager who is able to make a distinction between right and wrong, legal and illegal is allowed to seek citizenship despite breaking the laws for at least 5 years prior? And, I'm sorry.... "no criminal record"?!!?!? They have been breaking the law the whole time they have been residing within our borders illegally. They just have not been caught yet.
This whole thing is a huge farce and a giant jack-slap at the American Constitution.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Sunday, September 23, 2007
The Editorial Board of IBD has written up a nice article about the DREAM Act now being pushed by Senator Dick Durbin. The DREAM Act (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors) is... well.. let me paste what they have written:
"is actually a recurring nightmare, a bad idea..."
Well, the DREAM Act is not necessarily being pushed at this time. That Act was killed last year when the American people put up such a fuss against the President and Congress that they had to kill it. What is up on the table now is a bill by Dick Durbin:
It gives aliens who entered this country before the age of 16, and who have successfully evaded the law for five years, conditional green-card status that can later be converted to a regular green card. Then it can be used to seek green cards for the parents who brought their child here illegally.This is wholly unconstitutional, unfair, unjust, unAmerican, and illegal. To give a class of people who are not citizens of the state a different fee structure - to the point of not being charged - for the same services given to citizens is "revolt"ingly wrong.
That this amounts to back-door amnesty is borne out by the legislation's lack of an upper age limit for an illegal alien to apply. Any alien of any age can simply queue up at the nearest Customs and Immigration office and declare that he or she was here illegally before reaching 16. No documentation or proof is required.
It also allows illegal aliens to receive in-state tuition rates at public universities, discriminating against legal foreign students and children of U.S. citizens from other states.
Why should we give kids who were brought here illegally free education and a free and easy one-step path to citizenship? Just because they are kids? NO!! We need to send them back to their countries and have them work for their citizenship like ALL the other legalized citizens have done.
More from IBD:
When she supported similar legislation as part of the failed comprehensive immigration reform package, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said: "Our country does not benefit by depriving young people of an education." Does that include the children of U.S. citizens?
True, children of illegal aliens didn't get a vote when their parents chose to enter the U.S. illegally. But our country does not benefit when its laws are ignored or its citizens are denied the same benefits available to those who have sneaked past the Border Patrol.
Durbin's legislation repeals a 1996 law that bars any state from offering in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens who have gotten by a Border Patrol agent unless the children of that agent are also offered the same opportunity. After all, should illegal aliens in a state get preference over, say, the children of 9/11 victims?
Title 8, Chapter 14, Sec. 1623 clearly states that "an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a state . . . for any post-secondary education benefit unless a citizen or national is eligible for such a benefit." Durbin's legislation speaks only of benefiting "alien minors."As a citizen who was born in Oklahoma, past resident, and now once again a resident of Oklahoma, I must say that my university is operating against the law. When I moved back to Oklahoma to attend my university, I was labeled as an non-resident and charged a non-resident tuition. After 2 years, I am still being charged non-resident tuition rates. Wouldn't it be logical, that if these states followed the law, that they would not even have a non-resident tuition rate on their books? As who could they charge? If they offered in-state tuition to illegal non-citizens, then they should not be legally charging non-resident citizen rates to US citizens. You follow me?
Ten states (California, Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Utah, Texas and Washington) have their own versions of DREAM. The financial benefits of these programs to illegal aliens are as great as the penalty imposed on U.S. citizens.
IBD sums up this article really nicely.
As Kris Kobach, visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation, points out, a student from Missouri attending the University of Kansas with not so much as a parking ticket is charged three times the tuition as an illegal alien whose very presence is a violation of federal criminal law. Durbin wants to extend this justice nationwide.
Break this nation's laws, don't get caught, and U.S. taxpayers struggling to send their own kids to college, many taking out loans, will subsidize your kid's education as he takes up the spot that might have gone to the child of a veteran from, say, Operation Iraqi Freedom, who can't afford it because he or she was born in, say, Illinois.
Americans are beginning to wonder what benefits accrue to being a U.S. citizen when illegal aliens and their offspring are treated better than law-abiding citizens. So are we.
I don't really have much to say, except I post this as a reminder...
When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men and Women were created equal, that they are naturally endowed with certain unalienable rights, rights which have been deliberately and repeatedly ignored, eroded, even destroyed. To re-secure these rights that our forefathers toiled so hard to create and support, we again state that governments are created for the people and solely by the consent of the people so governed. Whenever, such as now, a form of government has become destructive to these ends, it is OUR RIGHT as citizens, to alter and/or abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on the original ideals and ideas from whence this country was first imagined, then created through sweat, education, imagination, experience, tears, and toil. Likewise, it becomes our duty as citizens to strive to improve upon that foundation, eradicating the biases based on differences of sex, culture, religion, skin color, nationality, and other individual and groups traits that make individuals who and what they are.
As we all know these days, American's tax dollars are being used to pay for all sorts of things and given to people who are not even citizens of this country. Some states give non-citizens welfare benefits. Some have passed laws preventing welfare benefits from being given to illegals. Some states have passed laws that give an equivalent in-state tuition to illegals attending that state's universities. California is seeking to give illegals free college tuition. And the Senate is trying to give illegals who are attending college an automatic citizenship.
It now seems that American's tax dollars are also paying to educate Mexican kids in our public school even though those kids still live in Mexico. No, these are not the classic illegals in the sense that they have illegally crossed our border to reside and attend our schools. These kids are from families that still live in Mexico. They are sent across the border to take classes in our public schools.
At the beginning of September, Channel 5 News revealed a shocking story in Roma, Texas. As their cameras chronicled, each morning dozens of Mexican kids are crossing the border from Mexico into the Texas border town of Roma to attend an American school, free of charge. You read that correctly. American tax money is funding the education of kids who actually live IN Mexico and who are illegally crossing the border every single day to attend U.S. schools. I have waited a suitable period of time to bring this story up, hoping that the national news sources will pick up on this absurd violation of our National sovereignty and misuse of our tax money... yet not a peep has been heard to my knowledge.
It is estimated that $4 million has been spent on Mexican kids just in Roma, Texas, alone. And no one really even knows how much has been thrown down the rat hole in other Texas border towns, not to mentions similar towns in other border states.
News Channel 5 reported on the 6th of September that these Mexican kids are getting a free education from US taxpayers because the county schools do not have very stringent residency requirements.
Even more ridiculously, school administrators report that they aren't even allowed to ask if a student is a U.S. citizen before admitting them to class.
An estimated 650 kids from Mexico are going to public school in Roma. They come to America for a better education. The annual cost of an education is nearly $7,000 a student, which works out to $4,500,000 spent on Mexican students of your tax dollars spent. That's in Roma alone.
The truth is, no one knows the actual money being spent, because no one is actually keeping track. The reason? Parents only have to prove U.S. residency once. After that, the student is set until they graduate.
Proving residency is as simple as providing a Roma address.
Here is the reason why this travesty of the constitution is allowed...
Administrators say American students don't "do without" because of students from Mexico. They tell us the district gets state and federal funding for every student, even those from across the border.
YEP!!! Money. It is all about the money. I bet you that if it were not for the illegals, those school would have to close due to low attendance by citizens. Now that it does not seem to matter what country these kids come from, they can get all kinds of money to come in to their coffers.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
A renewable energy source designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is contributing more to global warming than fossil fuels, a study suggests. Measurements of emissions from the burning of biofuels derived from rapeseed and maize have been found to produce more greenhouse gas emissions than they save.
Corn-derived renewable energy sources create more greenhouse gases than fossil fuels, according to a study from an international team of scientists reported in the London Times. Research findings published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics calculate that corn and rapeseed biodiesels produce up to 70 percent and 50 percent more greenhouse gases respectively than fossil fuels.
The study focused on nitrous oxide, which is 296 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Scientists found that the use of biofuels released twice as much as nitrous oxide as previously realised. The research was performed by scientists from the U.S. Britain, and Germany and it included Professor Paul Crutzen, a Nobel Prize-winning ozone scholar.
The research team found that 3 to 5 per cent of the nitrogen in fertiliser was converted and emitted. In contrast, the figure used by the International Panel on Climate Change, which assesses the extent and impact of man-made global warming, was 2 per cent.
“One wants rational decisions rather than simply jumping on the bandwagon because superficially something appears to reduce emissions,” said Keith Smith, a professor at the University of Edinburgh and one of the researchers.
Professor Smith told Chemistry World: “The significance of it is that the supposed benefits of biofuels are even more disputable than had been thought hitherto.”
It was accepted by the scientists that other factors, such as the use of fossil fuels to produce fertiliser, have yet to be fully analysed for their impact on overall figures. But they concluded that the biofuels “can contribute as much or more to global warming by N2O emissions than cooling by fossil-fuel savings”.
Dr Dave Reay, of the University of Edinburgh, used the findings to calculate that with the US Senate aiming to increase maize ethanol production sevenfold by 2022, greenhouse gas emissions from transport will rise by 6 per cent.
And, it turns out that Iran's Am was invited to speak at Columbia University. And guess what. This isn't amazing. This isn't even incredulous. Why you may ask? Because they have a habit of accepting and inviting barbaric dictators with wide open welcoming arms.
A lot of people are saying that Columbia University’s invitation to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is as outrageous as inviting Adolf Hitler.Is it time to refuse entry into our country those barbaric people who wish to see us dead?!?
But 70 years ago, that’s almost exactly what Columbia University did: Columbia “Invites Hitler to Campus” —As it Did in 1933.Seventy years before this week’s invitation to Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Columbia rolled out the red carpet for a senior official of Adolf Hitler’s regime. The invitation to Iran’s leader may seem less surprising, but no less disturbing, when one recalls that in 1933, Columbia president Nicholas Murray Butler invited Nazi Germany’s ambassador to the United States, Hans Luther, to speak on campus, and also hosted a reception for him. Luther represented “the government of a friendly people,” Butler insisted.
He was “entitled to be received ... with the greatest courtesy and respect.” Ambassador Luther’s speech focused on what he characterized as Hitler’s peaceful intentions. Students who criticized the Luther invitation were derided as “ill-mannered children” by the director of Columbia’s Institute of Arts and Sciences.
In 1936, the Columbia administration announced it would send a delegate to Nazi Germany to take part in the 550th anniversary celebration of the University of Heidelberg. This, despite the fact that Heidelberg already had been purged of Jewish faculty members, instituted a Nazi curriculum, and hosted a burning of books by Jewish authors. Prof. Arthur Remy, who served as Columbia’s delegate to the Heidelberg event, later remarked that the reception at which chief book-burner Josef Goebbels presided was “very enjoyable.”
No? They don't wish to see us dead you say? It is us that is pushing their buttons? Then check this out, again from LGF....
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, 3rd left, and other dignitaries watch as military jeeps of the Iran Revolutionary Guards carry anti U.S. and anti Israel slogans during large-scale military parades ... on Saturday Sept. 22, 2007.
UPDATE at 9/22/07 12:13:28 pm: Several Arabic-speaking readers have emailed to let me know that the slogan in Arabic above “Down with USA/Esrail” actually says “DEATH to USA/Israel.”
Please note a few things in this photo.
1) The lady being searched is more than likely a nun. She is white. She is old.
2) The lady doing the searching of the nun is a muslim woman wearing a burqua.
3) The nun was probably wheeled to this location via the wheelchair.
4) They forced this female nun who has had to ride in a wheelchair to get around the airport to stand up in a public area for a pat-down search.
Is it really appropriate for a woman to be patting down a female nun's personal areas in public?
What is the point of doing a pat-down search of a white female nun?? Have we had reports and incidents in the past of white female nuns attacking people in public areas? When was the last time a nun of any race attacking and/or blowing up innocent people in public places? Who are committing the majority of the terrorist attacks in this world these days? No one should be able to consider a nun capable of committing a terrorist act let alone being full of hate and anger.
This has got to stop. The placating of muslims in fear of their retribution for pointing out that their religion is responsible for terror and death in this world right now is fueled by cowardice. And our government should not be afraid of a group of people when it comes to PROTECTING our nation and culture.
That airport should apologize... where ever it is.
Please see this video as Pres. Bush also puts a very succinct definition of why we are fighting this war on terrorists:
Friday, September 21, 2007
From the Washington Times:
NASA scientist James E. Hansen, who has publicly criticized the Bush administration for dragging its feet on climate change and labeled skeptics of man-made global warming as distracting "court jesters," appears in a 1971 Washington Post article that warns of an impending ice age within 50 years.This is the very same program they are using now to prove that our world will turn into Venus if we don't stop global warming. They cite that since Venus is driven by the same chemical structure that our environment is but only in greater amounts, then if our amounts increased then we too would turn into something similar to what exists on Venus.
U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming," blares the headline of the July 9, 1971, article, which cautions readers that the world "could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts."
The scientist was S.I. Rasool, a colleague of Mr. Hansen's at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The article goes on to say that Mr. Rasool came to his chilling conclusions by resorting in part to a new computer program developed by Mr. Hansen that studied clouds above Venus.
And to bring it on home....
The 1971 article, discovered this week by Washington resident John Lockwood while he was conducting related research at the Library of Congress, says that "in the next 50 years" — or by 2021 — fossil-fuel dust injected by man into the atmosphere "could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees," resulting in a buildup of "new glaciers that could eventually cover huge areas."
If sustained over "several years, five to 10," or so Mr. Rasool estimated, "such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age."
Again, these same people were crying with massive alarm about the oncoming Global Ice Age. With the exact same inferior model, they are now crying about massive Global Warming. Stupid sheeple just follow in lock step because it fits their need to blame the government and America for all of the Earth's changes and fluctuations.I just find it amazing that even though a small minority of people are crying and whaling about Climate Change, there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that any change in weather is globally man-made.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
He says, that he can take a walk anywhere and find some form of trash laying in some place. He even mentioned that some of that trash is made of paper. This progressive nature-loving man says that by banning the production of paper, specifically paper bags, the amount of trash found in his neighborhood, specifically his cul-de-sac, would be greatly reduced.
This man of conscience says that he regrets ever using paper now that he knows from extensive study and research in his living room that paper products are some of the most mass produced products in America. He even read a report that mass produced items are not as healthy for you than home-grown products. With that knowledge, this father of 3 goldfish, sought to get his problem fixed. He devised this plan to utilize plastic bags more as they are easily shredded, wadded up and thrown away. And, plastic bags have the added benefit of not leading to deforestation. This legislator of 6 months mentioned that he knew from his elementary school teacher some years ago that cutting trees down causes bad things. He wasn't quite sure what those bad things were but he recalled that he felt sad when he heard about how the trees were cut down and shredded to make paper bags for rich capitalistic consumers.
With this new bill, this Oklahoma trend-setter will push to have all paper bags removed from all landfills. He says that paper products make up the majority of all trash in or landfills. If that paper were removed and burned, then we would have much more landfill space. He also mentioned in passing that another reason he wants to ban the papery products is because of the slimy mess they can make on rainy nights.
He then related a story to this intrepid reporter about how one morning he left his house to head off to work to do his elected duty when he stepped on some paper that was egregiously left on his sidewalk by some local hoodlum the night before it rained. He said it felt like he was stepping on a squish frog. And that too made him feel sad. After putting his weight on the foot that had unexpectedly stepped on the wet paper, he then tried to take his next step. As fate would have it, he was not carrying his traditional morning cup of coffee. Therefore he was able to use that free hand to brace himself against the side of his mildly adorned house when his foot slid out from under him. As the grateful survivor of this horrendous event explained it, the wet paper that was left by a wanton criminal had soaked up so much water throughout the night's rain that it had become slimy and slippery. When he went to take his step, his hard-soled dress shoe slid out from under him causing him to lose his balance.
This grateful survivor says that since he was able to brace himself against the side of his meager 5,000 sqft home and not slip and fall, he saved himself the pain and embarrassment of getting his knees and hands wet when he fell to the ground in distress.
Now that more people are using the plastic bags that are created in an unique paper-free process, you should be seeing fewer and fewer trees destroyed along with less landfilling paper along side your sidewalks in the morning. But with this new bill, this honorable and meager man hopes to eliminate paper all together.
(yeah, this was a sarcastic reply to the plastic bag ban)
It seems that Philadelphia is trying to join the KOOKS on the left coast in trying to ban plastic bags:
(CBS 3) PHILADELPHIA A Philadelphia Councilman is planning on introducing a bill that would restrict the use of plastic shopping bags. “Every single day when I go home, I find three bags or more on my sidewalk or stuck in the little bushes outside my house,” said City Councilman Frank DiCicco.WOW. What can I say. Dude, how about picking up the bags and throwing them away? Or, you can practice what you preach and consider yourself blessed that you are now 3-4 bags richer. You can wash out those bags and take them to your grocery store and reuse them again. I think we need that kind of law. Mandatory plastic bag reuse. If you don't pick up a bag off the ground when you come up upon it, then you will be fined for failure to recycle.
DiCicco wants to ban the petroleum based bags used by large supermarkets and drug and convenience stores. San Francisco has already passed a similar law banning the use of plastic bags, which inspired the idea.
Businesses would be forced to offer recyclable paper, compostable plastic or reusable bags. “When this stuff gets into our sewer system, it eventually winds up in our rivres and ultimately ends up in our oceans and streams,” said DiCicco.
Actually, I think I recall a story similar to this recently. Let me see if I can find it.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Here is the report:
Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., is asking the U.S. Office of Detention and Removal Operations to explain why it's OK for jailers to use Tasers to control inmates who are U.S. citizens but not those who are in the country illegally.
Yesterday, the lawmaker – and GOP candidate for president – sent a letter to DRO Director John Torres expressing concerns over new regulations imposed on local jails that contract with his agency to detain illegal aliens prior to their trials and deportations. The new regulations ban contracting with local jails that fail to ban use of Tasers on illegals or supply them with a "pad," rather than a "bed."
He also stated:
Summit County Sheriff John Minor won't be affected by the new DRO policy. He holds illegals charged with crimes in his jail while they await trial and turns them over to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement when the county is ready to release them, but he won't take federal money.
Minor told the Frisco, Colo., Summit Daily a contract with ICE would net the county about $162,000 a year based on a charge-back of $45 per day per inmate, but he won't let Washington bureaucrats tell him how to do his job.
"I figure if it's good enough for an American citizen to get Tased, it's good enough for an illegal alien to get Tased if they get out of line," Minor said.
And I like his comment here. I wish more law enforcement personnel would say the same thing:
"If we were an ICE contract facility, they would require me to tell my deputies they can't have Tasers," he said. "My response is, 'Have a nice day, just don't have it here.'"And, this seems to have been going on for a while:
Previous DRO regulations have banned contracts with facilities that use dogs to control rioting inmates, Christensen said. Complying with all the rules would require segregation of suspected illegal aliens – an accommodation that makes federal money not worth the trouble for most sheriffs.
"These jails are not torture chambers. They protect the civil rights of people. It's hypocrisy to have them dictated (to) from Washington. They won't do it,"
And Tancredo summed it up real nicely...
Tancredo also questioned Torres on DRO's policy on lower-cost "tent cities" for detaining illegals.
"Is there anything in the DRO Detention Standards that would prohibit this approach? Are there any statutory barriers?" he asked.
"I hope that the DRO will reconsider forcing unworkable mandates on the law enforcement people who are trying to detain illegal aliens. Law enforcement needs more tools, not more restrictions, in the fight against illegal immigration," said Tancredo.
According to World Net Daily:
President Bush's comprehensive immigration reform, defeated in June, will make a second appearance this week when the Senate takes up various pro-amnesty amendments submitted to the Department of Defense funding bill, H.R. 1585, which is scheduled for debate.
While not "comprehensive" reform, the latest initiative attempts to pass key provisions of the earlier immigration measure piece by piece by attaching amendments to unrelated bills, a process critics characterize as "stealth."
Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin, D-Ill., has re-introduced another version of his "Dream Act," this time as an amendment (SA 2237) to the DOD funding bill.
The Dream Act would grant citizenship status to certain illegal aliens under 16 years of age who are pursuing college degrees and would allow them to receive in-state college tuition rates on an equal basis with U.S. citizens.
According to Numbers USA, the Dream Act amendment allows an illegal alien to remain in the U.S. on a track headed for citizenship, provided: 1. the illegal alien can demonstrate continuous presence in the U.S. for five years and was not yet 16 years old upon initial entry; 2. the illegal alien is of "good moral character" and is not inadmissible on criminal grounds or because the illegal alien is a national security risk; an 3. the illegal alien has been admitted to an institution of higher education, has attained a high school diploma, or has obtained a GED in the U.S.
According to Numbers USA, the Dream Act amendment allows an illegal alien to remain in the U.S. on a track headed for citizenship, provided:
1. the illegal alien can demonstrate continuous presence in the U.S. for five years and was not yet 16 years old upon initial entry;
2. the illegal alien is of "good moral character" and is not inadmissible on criminal grounds or because the illegal alien is a national security risk; an
3. the illegal alien has been admitted to an institution of higher education, has attained a high school diploma, or has obtained a GED in the U.S.
I wont even debate at this time the habit of attaching stealth amendments and pork projects to totally unrelated bills. Instead, lets focus on the defeat of the initial Immigration Reform Act pushed heavily by the Rhino President Bush and the rest of the Democrat Party. It was pushed. It was defeated because when people found out what the Congress was up to, they hooted and hollered at Congress. They clogged the phone lines and fax lines with messages to stop this idiocy. It was a betrayal to our country, to our country's sovereignty, to the laws of our nation, to the hard working real citizens of this nation and those naturalized citizens who had to work long and hard in order to attain their citizenship.Now, it turns out that they want to attach an amendment to the Defense bill to give kids who are 16 or under and who are attending college (what illegal is attending college at the age of 16 and under?!?!!?) automatic citizenship. Most states already give these illegal college-goers from another country in-state tuition that is supposed to be reserved for citizen-residents of the state the university operates in. This already is a travesty of all that is good and right. Why should I, being a non-resident of the state, though being a citizen of the US have to pay higher tuition rates than a person who entered the country illegally and is not even a resident of the state???
Illegals broke the heart of the laws by entering out country illegally and most have refused to become American by blending into our culture. They want to maintain their own culture, push their culture upon native-born Americans, take benefits from our social system including health care, food stamps and even college tuition reductions. And some states have tried pushing to give these illegals FREE college tuition. WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?!?!!?
Now, members of Schmooze-gress are promising FREE AND EASY citizenship to illegals who happen to be taking classes at a university. If this passes then what else will be passed. Since the kids have a citizenship awarded, then their family also must become citizens. And, it would not be right to give citizenship to those family members just because they are here in the US already, we must also give the rest of the family members citizenship no matter where they are.
And, news online about how Texas, and I am sure in many other states, the local cities are helping to pay for and organize celebrations of Mexico's Independence from Spain. This again highlights the fact that these people have not assimilated into our society and our culture. I got no problem with conducting a remembrance of that event similar to the way some in our nation celebrate St. Patrick's Day. But, to whole-heartedly accept this event as on par with and equal to our own nations Independence Day is beyond acceptability.
Our nation is the only one that allows celebrations of another country's events. You dont see Mexico or Spain celebrating USA Independence. How about the UK?
This coddling of other races while giving short shift and the shaft to American citizens will only lead to the destruction of the uniqueness of America.
But then, that is what the North American Union will do anyway. They are already printing up Driver's Licenses with the official insignia. And, thanks to Pres Bush, the illegals favorite elected official anywere, mexican trucks are already rolling across our border unchecked and unsafe.
Say good night America. I think I found a new tag line.
In addition to the following news posted below, let me clarify something a source told me: that Youssef Megahed and Ahmed Mohamed were probably not planning to commit acts of terror within the United States, but that they actively helping promote violent jihad outside the US--specifically in Iraq.
Specifically that they were trying to come up with easy ways for would-be jihadis around the world to make bombs. In other words, they were experimenting.
When federal agents searched the men's car, a Toyota Camry registered to Megahed's brother, Yahia Megahed, they found the stuffed pipes wrapped in plastic bags in the trunk alongside a 5-gallon container of gasoline.
Agents also found a box of bullets underneath the front passenger seat, where Megahed sat. On a laptop hastily unplugged, agents discovered sites that concerned them, including searches of Qassam rockets, weapons developed by the Palestinian militant group Hamas, often made with steel pipe, liquid sugar and potassium nitrate....Remember the initial reports coming from CAIR and these boy's fathers. "These are nice boys. They have never been in any trouble. They are just nice college kids going on a road trip. Sure, they were going to play with some experimental fireworks, but there was nothing at all illegal or sinister about any of this." paraphrased to the best of my ability
In July, Mohamed posted a video on YouTube that explained how to transform a toy remote controlled car into a detonator, Hoffer said. The 12-minute video is narrated by a man speaking Arabic with an Egyptian accent. It shows no face, only hands.
"Mohamed admitted he made and uploaded it," Hoffer said. The narrator also mentions a previous example that used a remote controlled toy boat. Federal agents searched the New Tampa home of Megahed's family and found a remote controlled toy boat, Hoffer said.
Stare and observe this picture for more than a fleeting second. Notice all the details within it.
The old man and his war tattoos in complete thankfulness. The young marine with a missing hand on one arm and missing fingers on the other, along with an injured eye. Two generations embracing each other in thankfulness. I was saddened. I was heartened. I was proud to have glimpsed them. These are the embodiment of my heroes.
The text below the photo reads, "Pearl Harbor survivor Houston James of Dallas embraced Marine Staff Sgt. Mark Graunke Jr. during a Veterans Day commemoration in Dallas yesterday. Graunke lost a hand, a leg and an eye when he defused a bomb in Iraq last year. This week's images of U.S. troops in combat in Fallujah deepened the day's significance for many who attended tributes held in San Diego and across the Nation. Associated Press"
Monday, September 3, 2007
I found this while perusing LGF today. I was utterly flabbergasted that a mainstream newspaper, the Tampa Tribune, would put up this shill piece in defense of two people charged with terrorism against the USA. This is not your community rag hyping itself up to a local clientel. This is no different than bemoaning the fate of a homicide bombers family for their loss. This story is no different.
Please check with LGF for the full story...
MONCKS CORNER, S.C. - In a jail chapel, with two renderings of the Last Supper overhead, the family of a 21-year-old University of South Florida student gathered around him Saturday. His father did most of the talking, as they delivered the bad news. The accusations that he and a fellow student had a pipe bomb in the trunk of their Toyota Camry as they drove near a Naval weapons station had turned into a federal indictment. Their hopes that state charges, filed by South Carolina authorities, would be dropped after a hearing this month were dashed. Instead, the two now face the likelihood they’ll be held in federal custody without bail, their attorneys said.
Adding to their anxiety was a quote in the Charleston newspaper Saturday from the local sheriff, predicting Megahed and fellow student Ahmed Mohamed soon will be moved from this jail in Berkeley County to the brig on the nearby Naval complex. The Megaheds know the brig is used to hold prisoners the president has deemed “enemy combatants.”
Worse for Megahed’s father, Samir, was the moment he was leaving and saw Mohamed talking to his own attorney. Mohamed, teary, had also just heard about the indictment.
He hugged and kissed Samir and asked him to deliver a message to his own father in Egypt: “Tell my father I am not going to meet him in this life again.”
Mohamed, 24, fears he will be imprisoned longer than his father will be alive, Samir said.
Samir stood with hands clasped, tears in his eyes, on Saturday as he related the story outside the Berkeley County Detention Center. His wife and three other children stood next to him, as they ducked out of a steady, gray rain and relived the miserable afternoon.
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Elder has a unique way if identifying the problems with the psyche of the Muslims and Palestinian Arabs. In this post, he really points to the cause of Muslim violence:
In the past month alone, I can count at least five "insults to Islam" that made the news:
- A quite unfunny Opus cartoon was pulled from some American newspapers because it had the potential of being an "insult to Islam."
- A Malay man made a YouTube video which, among other things, said that a Muslim call to prayer near his house at 5 AM was singing out of tune and sounded like a rooster. This elicited protests.
- Soccer balls decorated with flags of many nations were distributed to Afghans, and many Muslims were insulted because the Saudi flag depicted on the ball includes Allah's name.
- A Swedish cartoon depicting Mohammed with a dog's body was strongly protested by Muslims worldwide as a huge insult to Islam.
- A female Bangladeshi author was assaulted by Muslims for her writings, after a fatwa was issued for her death, and even the Muslims who were against her being threatened felt that she should be deported for her blasphemous works.
Some of these incidents are no doubt real insults to Islam, just as there are daily insults to Judaism and Christianity and other religions, not to mention other groups of people.And, he breaks it down succinctly thusly: (you like that?)
One difference is in the reaction to these insults. A violent reaction to an insult is a sign of mental instability, and a mass violent reaction is evidence of a pervasive mental health crisis within that group.
To give a simple example: One of the favorite targets of Islam-bashers is Mohammed's relationship with his child bride, Aisha. ... But those Muslims who, deep down, think it is a little bit sketchy for their prophet to be marrying a child are more likely to turn the insult around into a violent reaction.
The other difference between the Muslim reaction to insults and those of most others is hypersensitivity. Muslims have created an atmosphere where they are insulted at even the slightest provocation,...
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Washington DC – An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analysis, and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of castastrophic man-made global warming “bites the dust” and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be “falling apart.” The latest study to cast doubt on climate fears finds that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would not have the previously predicted dire impacts on global temperatures. This new study is not unique, as a host of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast a chill on global warming fears.
“Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust,” declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing the new study which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Another scientist said the peer-reviewed study overturned “in one fell swoop” the climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore.
“Previously, I have indicated that the widely accepted values for temperature increase associated with a doubling of CO2 were far too high i.e. 2 – 4.5 Kelvin. This new peer-reviewed paper claims a value of 1.1 +/- 0.5 K increase for a doubling of CO2,” he added.
“Recall that most of the 1.1 degree - about 0.7 degrees - has already occurred since the beginning of the industrial era. This fact itself is an indication that the climate sensitivity is unlikely to be much greater than 1 Celsius degree: the effect of most of the doubling has already been made and it led to 0.7 K of warming,”And, what does all this mean?!?!!?
“By the end of the (CO2) doubling i.e. 560 ppm (parts per million) expected slightly before (the year) 2100 -- assuming a business-as-usual continued growth of CO2 that has been linear for some time -- Schwartz and others would expect 0.4 C of extra warming only - a typical fluctuation that occurs within four months and certainly nothing that the politicians should pay attention to,” Motl explained.
“As far as I can say, all the people who end up with 2 or even 3 Celsius degrees for the climate sensitivity are just playing the children's game to scare each other, as [MIT climate scientist] Richard Lindzen says, by making artificial biased assumptions about positive feedbacks. There is no reasonable, balanced, and self-consistent work that would lead to such a relatively high sensitivity,” Motl concluded.
And, now, the kicker. Wait for it......
But, will all this new scientific discovery and news make the eco-idiots change their tunes and put a stop to all this hatred toward man and how we live????
Recent scientific studies may make 2007 go down in history as the "tipping point" of man-made global warming fears. A progression of peer-reviewed studies have been published which serve to debunk the United Nations, former Vice President Al Gore, and the media engineered “consensus” on climate change.
Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works (LINK), noted in a June 18, 2007 essay that global warming has stopped.“The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2. In August 2007, the UK Met Office was finally forced to concede the obvious: global warming has stopped.
The UK Met Office acknowledged the flat lining of global temperatures, but in an apparent attempt to keep stoking man-made climate alarm, the Met Office is now promoting more unproven dire computer model projections of the future. They now claim climate computer models predict “global warming will begin in earnest in 2009” because greenhouse emissions will then overtake natural climate variability.Guess NOT.
I love his comments so much that I just have to post it here. Read the whole thing at the link.
Some curious researcher with a lot of time on his hands set out to explore the “broad consensus” regarding Glowball Wormening and started going through all research papers written on the subject over the last four years.
His conclusions? If the Mindless Muttonheads of the Church of Gore™ wish to continue using that talking point, they’ll have to re-define “broad consensus” regarding the “catastrophic consequences” of mankind’s continued living in the industrial age as opposed to the Paleolithic period to mean “7% of scientists.”
Poor Gorebots. First they lose their hockey stick, then they lose their “upcoming catastrophic hurricane seasons” two years in a row and now their “broad consensus” is gone as well.
The original document can be found here.
An interesting paragraph from the document that is being pushed around by Sen Inhofe (my guy)...
Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.
It seems that the AFL-CIO is more supportive of illegal workers than for its own rank and file workforce. They have sued the federal government to stop it from sending out "no-match" warning letters to employers when their workers' social security numbers do not match the employee's names and other information supplied by the employee. This is the typical signal that the worker is an illegal using a false SSN.
Thus, the unions have sued in order to:
- To defraud the government,
- To keep illegals employed instead of citizens seeking employment,
- Tell its workforce that they do not measure up to illegal workers,
- Allow illegals to freely utilize fraudulent documents to attain higher paying jobs in unions,
- Try and assure the continued presence of unions by ensuring a dumb and illiterate workforce,
- Ensure that firms that hire unions are screwed once again into paying higher than normal wages,
- Keep firms paying higher than normal wages to illegal workers,
- Maintain a baseline inflation rate due to forcing firms to charge more for their goods due to the higher than normal wages they are forced to pay the unions.
The AFL-CIO lawsuit, filed this week, claims that new Department of Homeland Security rules outlined in accompanying letters threaten to violate workers' rights and unfairly burden employers.
Ruling on a lawsuit by the nation's largest federation of labor unions against the U.S. government, U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney granted a temporary restraining order prohibiting the so-called "no-match" letters from going out as planned starting Tuesday.
Chesney said the court needs "breathing room" before making any decision on the legality of new penalties aimed at cracking down on the hiring of illegal immigrants.New penalties? While these letters have been going out for several decades, employers keen on hiring illegals and under pressure from unions, it seems, have ignored these letters because they carried no weight. There was no punishment for failing to respond. The only punishment was if you were caught by ICE officials. And even then the fines were minimal.
The Social Security Administration has sent out "no-match" letters for more than two decades warning employers of discrepancies in the information the government has on their workers. Employers often brushed aside the letters, and the small fines that sometimes were incurred, as a cost of doing business.Once again, this 9th Circuit Court of Clowns is using their bench as a means to influence and make law. This law was passed several years ago and is now being upheld by the Social Security Administration. Now that there is teeth in these letters, the unions are whining.
But this year, those letters will be accompanied by notices from the Department of Homeland Security outlining strict new requirements for employers to resolve those discrepancies within 90 days or face fines or criminal prosecution, if they're deemed to have knowingly hired illegal immigrants.
Personally, I hope the unions fade away. Their usefulness went away long ago. But then, I never saw the reasoning of a group of thugs forcing a company to pay its workers what it doesn't want or what it could even pay. Notice the auto and airline industries right now straining under the weight of an overtaxed salary and retirement programs.