Thursday, July 31, 2008
this is an interesting story from our own backyard here in north texas.. as i am one to believe the Bible as truth and not question God's design for this world, i don't go seeking to get involved in battles concerning creationism or evolution. i think that natural selection takes place to certain degrees as animals adapt to their surroundings. i do not think we are descendants of apes. i like to keep it that simple. i understand that an all powerful God can create the world and it's inhabitants how he so pleases and i'm just fine with it all.
this story, however, is very interesting.. simply because the implications are so significant if it is proven out. what you see above is a picture of a human footprint overstepped by a dinosaur footprint. thus far, the tests run on this fossil have shown it to be original and of the same material other fossils from the area have been made of. so....
take it for what it's worth -- take a read:
A technical writer for Texas Instruments in Dallas, Lines said he’s no expert on rocks, but he said he has no doubt the Delk rock is real and the prints are legitimate.
“I have really worked hard to figure out how it could be faked,” said Lines.
Lines said his photographs also show the rock contains a number of fossils commonly found in North Texas such as small seashells and shellfish, a fact he said lends credence to the stone’s authenticity.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
this guy says what i think.. it's a very rare occasion that i've disagreed with ambassador bolton. it would be sublime to think of him as a vp candidate for mccain, but that would never happen. i do hope he will find himself somewhere in mccain's administration if elected
One world? Obama's on a different planet
The senator's Berlin speech was radical and naive.
By John R. Bolton
SEN. BARACK OBAMA said in an interview the day after his Berlin speech that it "allowed me to send a message to the American people that the judgments I have made and the judgments I will make are ones that are going to result in them being safer."
If that is what the senator thought he was doing, he still has a lot to learn about both foreign policy and the views of the American people. Although well received in the Tiergarten, the Obama speech actually reveals an even more naive view of the world than we had previously been treated to in the United States. In addition, although most of the speech was substantively as content-free as his other campaign pronouncements, when substance did slip in, it was truly radical, from an American perspective.
These troubling comments were not widely reported in the generally adulatory media coverage given the speech, but they nonetheless deserve intense scrutiny. It remains to be seen whether these glimpses into Obama's thinking will have any impact on the presidential campaign, but clearly they were not casual remarks. This speech, intended to generate the enormous publicity it in fact received, reflects his campaign's carefully calibrated political thinking. Accordingly, there should be no evading the implications of his statements. Consider just the following two examples.
First, urging greater U.S.-European cooperation, Obama said, "The burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together." Having earlier proclaimed himself "a fellow citizen of the world" with his German hosts, Obama explained that the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Europe proved "that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one."
Perhaps Obama needs a remedial course in Cold War history, but the Berlin Wall most certainly did not come down because "the world stood as one." The wall fell because of a decades-long, existential struggle against one of the greatest totalitarian ideologies mankind has ever faced. It was a struggle in which strong and determined U.S. leadership was constantly questioned, both in Europe and by substantial segments of the senator's own Democratic Party. In Germany in the later years of the Cold War, Ostpolitik -- "eastern politics," a policy of rapprochement rather than resistance -- continuously risked a split in the Western alliance and might have allowed communism to survive. The U.S. president who made the final successful assault on communism, Ronald Reagan, was derided by many in Europe as not very bright, too unilateralist and too provocative.
But there are larger implications to Obama's rediscovery of the "one world" concept, first announced in the U.S. by Wendell Willkie, the failed Republican 1940 presidential nominee, and subsequently buried by the Cold War's realities.
The successes Obama refers to in his speech -- the defeat of Nazism, the Berlin airlift and the collapse of communism -- were all gained by strong alliances defeating determined opponents of freedom, not by "one-worldism." Although the senator was trying to distinguish himself from perceptions of Bush administration policy within the Atlantic Alliance, he was in fact sketching out a post-alliance policy, perhaps one that would unfold in global organizations such as the United Nations. This is far-reaching indeed.
Second, Obama used the Berlin Wall metaphor to describe his foreign policy priorities as president: "The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down."
This is a confused, nearly incoherent compilation, to say the least, amalgamating tensions in the Atlantic Alliance with ancient historical conflicts. One hopes even Obama, inexperienced as he is, doesn't see all these "walls" as essentially the same in size and scope. But beyond the incoherence, there is a deeper problem, namely that "walls" exist not simply because of a lack of understanding about who is on the other side but because there are true differences in values and interests that lead to human conflict. The Berlin Wall itself was not built because of a failure of communication but because of the implacable hostility of communism toward freedom. The wall was a reflection of that reality, not an unfortunate mistake.
Tearing down the Berlin Wall was possible because one side -- our side -- defeated the other. Differences in levels of economic development, or the treatment of racial, immigration or religious questions, are not susceptible to the same analysis or solution. Even more basically, challenges to our very civilization, as the Cold War surely was, are not overcome by naively "tearing down walls" with our adversaries.
Throughout the Berlin speech, there were numerous policy pronouncements, all of them hazy and nonspecific, none of them new or different than what Obama has already said during the long American campaign. But the Berlin framework in which he wrapped these ideas for the first time is truly radical for a prospective American president. That he picked a foreign audience is perhaps not surprising, because they could be expected to welcome a less-assertive American view of its role in the world, at least at first glance. Even anti-American Europeans, however, are likely to regret a United States that sees itself as just one more nation in a "united" world.
The best we can hope for is that Obama's rhetoric was simply that, pandering to the audience before him, as politicians so often do. We shall see if this rhetoric follows him back to America, either because he continues to use it or because Sen. John McCain asks voters if this is really what they want from their next president.John R. Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of "Surrender Is Not an Option."
Friday, July 25, 2008
When Obama found out he couldn’t use the visit as a photo op, he canceled:
One military official who was working on the Obama visit said because political candidates are prohibited from using military installations as campaign backdrops, Obama’s representatives were told, “he could only bring two or three of his Senate staff member, no campaign officials or workers.” In addition, “Obama could not bring any media. Only military photographers would be permitted to record Obama’s visit.”
The official said “We didn’t know why” the request to visit the wounded troops was withdrawn. “He (Obama) was more than welcome. We were all ready for him.”
From conservative punk:
CO2 Scrubbers and the Environmentalists Who Oppose Them
By RizzutoThu Jul 24, 2008 - A technological breakthrough might just allow CO2 to be "scrubbed" from the atmosphere. This from the Guardian:
It has long been the holy grail for those who believe that technology can save us from catastrophic climate change: a device that can "suck" carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air, reducing the warming effect of the billions of tonnes of greenhouse gas produced each year.
Now a group of US scientists say they have made a breakthrough towards creating such a machine. Led by Klaus Lackner, a physicist at Columbia University in New York, they plan to build and demonstrate a prototype within two years that could economically capture a tonne of CO2 a day from the air, about the same per passenger as a flight from London to New York.
The prototype so-called scrubber will be small enough to fit inside a shipping container. Lackner estimates it will initially cost around £100,000 to build, but the carbon cost of making each device would be "small potatoes" compared with the amount each would capture, he said.
You would think that this would be an environmentalists wet dream. The perfect solution to their problem! Turns out...not so much.
This from the National Center for Policy Analysis:
While some see the scrubber as an efficient and economical way to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide, many environmentalists oppose the technology because it allows people to use fossil fuels and emit carbon in the first place.
Doesn't that go to the heart of the agenda of the environmentalists? They're not really interested in solutions, just control. People shouldn't be able to emit carbon whether it has an effect on the environment or not.
The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.
When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?”
And suddenly, with the men appeared the archangel Gabriel and the whole host of the heavenly choir, ranks of cherubim and seraphim, all praising God and singing: “Yes, We Can.”
Thursday, July 24, 2008
“People of Berlin, people of the world, this is our moment. This is our time,” he declared, offering himself “not as a candidate for president, but as a citizen, a proud citizen of the United States and a fellow citizen of the world.”
“I know my country has not perfected itself.”
“But I also know how much I love America,” he said. “We are a people of improbable hope. With an eye towards the future, with resolve in our heart, let us remember this history, and answer our destiny, and remake the world once again.”
dear barry.. you're not running for world dictator - although that time may come. the majority of america understands the reasons why we declared independence from britain and european ideals as a whole. we are not made great by taking the ideals of the old world, but by embracing our own ethos and celebrating hard work and responsibility.. out of many, we are one. we don't care to be one with europe.
barry goes on and says it's time for everyone to get along.. dear barry - not everyone gets along. there will never be a day where everyone does, at least not on this earth. to get along would mean we would ultimately embrace the doctrine of the most violent group on earth.. it's the story of mankind - victory through strength.. not victory through rhetoric.
i think barack needs to go back and play with his lincoln logs some more.
spend some time at this link and look at what is done in the name of islam on a regular basis.
How could you be sure if your other statesmen, that you are going to be committed to the security and safety of Israel and you're not going to change it even when you're the President of the United States?
OBAMA: First of all, I didn't change my statement.
I continued to say that Jerusalem will be the capital of Israel. And I have said that before and I will say it again. And I also have said that it is important that we don't simply slice the city in half. But I've also said that that's a final status issue. That's an issue that has to be dealt with with the parties involved, the Palestinians and the Israelis. And it's not the job of the United States to dictate the form in which that will take, but rather to support the efforts that are being made right now to resolve these very difficult issues that have a long history.
you will be hard pressed to find this in the fawning american media - but obama was heckled at the wailing wall during his visit yesterday.. i've looked all over and found no sign of this in the mainly fail media in the us.
Orthodox men interrupted their morning prayers to catch a glimpse of the Illinois senator, reaching out to shake his hand as he passed them by. But not all were taken by the Democrat. One yelled out: “Obama, Jerusalem is not for sale!” before Mr Obama was whisked away to his waiting plane.
Orthodox men interrupted their morning prayers to catch a glimpse of the Illinois senator, reaching out to shake his hand as he passed them by. But not all were taken by the Democrat. One yelled out: “Obama, Jerusalem is not for sale!” before Mr Obama was whisked away to his waiting plane.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
"Let me be absolutely clear," Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, said today at a press conference in Amman, Jordan. "Israel is a strong friend of Israel's. It will be a strong friend of Israel's under a McCain...administration. It will be a strong friend of Israel's under an Obama administration. So that policy is not going to change."
seriously, if this guy was a republican, obama would have surpassed dan quayle in published and broadcast mockery. dear united states, this guy is a fraud. in this case, however, he says exactly what he means. obama is no friend of israel
"And it's important for me to have a relationship with them early, that I start listening to them now, getting a sense of what their interests and concerns are."
From the Washington Post
JERUSALEM -- A Palestinian rammed a construction truck into three cars and a bus near the Jerusalem hotel where Barack Obama is supposed to stay Tuesday, injuring four people before an Israeli civilian shot and killed the attacker, police and witnesses said
another contribution that the 'palestinians' have made to the world.. they have invented the suicide bomber and now the backhoe bandit, or whatever you want to call this. all in the name of the religion of peace, mind you.
i think it's tragic that they are so misunderstood.
the son's of ishmael continue their legacy.
By JEREMY OLSHAN
Elected officials and straphangers called on the MTA yesterday to pull the Islamic subway-ad campaign being promoted by a controversial Brooklyn imam whom federal officials have linked to acts of terrorism. The push to promote Islam on the rails this September, in a $48,000 ad campaign sponsored by the Islamic Circle of North America, was reported in The Post yesterday. "I strongly believe the MTA should pull the ads," said Rep. Peter King (R-LI), a ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee. "They are especially shameful because the ads will be running during the seventh anniversary of September 11, and because the subways are considered a primary target of terrorists." Although the group says the ads - which will coincide with the holy month of Ramadan - aim to educate non-Muslims and reach out to those interested in joining the faith, many are incensed that Imam Siraj Wahhaj was chosen as the pitchman in a YouTube video for "The Subway Project." In 1995, federal officials named Wahhaj an unindicted co-conspirator in a plot to blow up city landmarks, although he was never formally charged. A former member of the Nation of Islam, Wahhaj also served as a character witness in the trial of convicted terrorist Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, and has said that he hopes one day all Americans are "persuaded" to become Muslims. MTA officials said the ads are protected as free speech under the First Amendment. Mayor Bloomberg agreed. "If you were to advocate becoming a Muslim, I assume the First Amendment would protect you," he said. The content of the ads themselves is not offensive or suggestive of violence or terrorism, officials said. They merely refer those interested in learning more about Islam to call (877) WHY-ISLAM or visit whyislam.org. Azzem Khan, assistant secretary general of the Islamic Circle, defended Wahhaj. "Siraj Wahhaj is a fine American and is respected by Muslims and non-Muslims alike," he said.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Israel is quickly coming up on the point of no return for how to deal with iran's nuclear program. if you look at the current geo-political climate, you would infer that the world community has not the will to take this problem on - leaving it for Israel to deal with. this, of course, is easy for political leaders with no sense of right and wrong. let Israel act unilaterally, point the finger at them, blame them for the consequences.. all the while happy that iran doesn't have the bomb. this is a tried and true strategy for the power brokers in the world. (read: osirak)
if you examine the bush policy of late, it seems somewhat disjointed and inconsistent. we have recently seen the united states take north korea off the state sponsor of terror list and also directly engage the iranian's in nuclear discussions. these are significant departures from the prior course of action. the question begs, is this a change of direction for us diplomacy? is this a change of heart by george bush?
i think, what we are seeing is bush setting the stage for an attack on iran's nuclear facilities. i think much of what is taking place right now is posturing and 'required' due diligence to demonstrate that every possible step that was needed was taken prior to an attack.
the us has rewarded north korea for their nuclear 'compliance' and now that model is being shown to iran. iran continues to ignore it. israel continues to be asked to give and give and give and they do so with minimal complaint.
the us and Israel have linked air defense systems and Israel is looped in to the missile launch early warning systems from the us - something that has happened prior to desert storm and iraqi freedom.
the united states is sending many mixed messages related to readiness and prospects of a 3rd front in the war, and most of them are negative. the united states wants a diplomatic solution, the united states doesn't want to open another front, the united states is looking to the world community, etc.. yet, there are threads of insight.
admiral mullen has said that iran would not be allowed to close the straits of hormuz. all indications have been given that the united states would defend Israel at all costs.
the world watches on..
some of my thoughts on the situation are as follows -
Israel has warned many, many times that the world needs to act on this and not leave it to Israel. history tells us that once you get through the self hating jews, Israel means what it says. when it's existence is threatened, which it has been, a cornered animal is a dangerous animal.
this tells me there are a couple of things that could be at play. first, if Israel attempts a conventional attack on iranian nuclear facilities unilaterally, that will certainly elicit a response from iran. the united states is sworn to Israel's defense, so united states involvement would be justified at that point. further consider iran's desire to hit at united states facilities in the region, that would draw the usa in without need for world body deliberations or painful posturing in the congress. that would be the green light for a massive counter attack in response to iran's attack on Israel and united states facilities. this, in my mind, is the best approach. it prevents many of the geopolitical drama created by the iraq war and the response is fully justified and can be from all angles and overwhelming.
Israel is justified in attacking iran's nuclear sites due to the rhetoric from iran. there is no further justification needed to take action. the iranian counter attack would include attacks on Israel from every front - north, south, east and west. Israel must prepare for that eventuality and possibly even take action in conjunction with an operation in iran - in lebanon and gaza. iran's response would surely include attacks on united states interests, which would result in an overwhelming, well planned counter punch to finish the job Israel started.
this approach assumes coordination between Israel and the united states - which is not atypical.
if the united states abandons Israel and leaves her to go this alone, the global consequences would be dire.
the second conclusion i can arrive at is that Israel is backed in to a corner and is forced to deal with iran alone and a new president or a liberal us congress does not back Israel. this would result in a far more overwhelming act from Israel to make sure that they set back iran's program by more than a few years.
what i'm taking about is the use of Israeli tactical nuclear weapons to attack iran's nuclear sites in a coordinated attack which would leave much of iran in disarray and would send a shocking and sobering message through the region.
if you threaten the destruction of Israel, you will face the full brunt of Israel's array of weaponry.
this would certainly set back iran's nuclear program, it would also elicit an overwhelming response from the world community. i think that is why Israel continues to say that it would be far better for the world community to deal with this problem than the Jews. Israel doesn't have a history of beating around the bush when it comes to the well being of the nation.
i think this is a real possibility. it would certainly force the united nations to act and it would significantly change the paradigm in the region.
if it does happen, i'm certain there will be much hand wringing and finger pointing.. but Israel has been clear from the very beginning. the world community needs to act before Israel is forced to act. the world community won't like what it gets for inaction.
NYT REJECTS MCCAIN’S EDITORIAL; SHOULD ‘MIRROR’ OBAMA
Mon Jul 21 2008 12:00:25 ET
An editorial written by Republican presidential hopeful McCain has been rejected by the NEW YORK TIMES — less than a week after the paper published an essay written by Obama, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
The paper’s decision to refuse McCain’s direct rebuttal to Obama’s ‘My Plan for Iraq’ has ignited explosive charges of media bias in top Republican circles.
‘It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece,’ NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley explained in an email late Friday to McCain’s staff. ‘I’m not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.’
In McCain’s submission to the TIMES, he writes of Obama: ‘I am dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it... if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president.’
NYT’s Shipley advised McCain to try again: ‘I’d be pleased, though, to look at another draft.’
[Shipley served in the Clinton Administration from 1995 until 1997 as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Presidential Speechwriter.]
the full McCain piece:
In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.
Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse."
Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.
Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.
The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.
To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.
Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.
No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.
But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.
Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”
The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.
I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.
“Consumers are going from national brands to private labels and from more expensive produce, and that would include organics, to lower-priced produce,” he says.
first ice cream, now organics ??
hat tip michelle malkin
-- French-Colombian politician Ingrid Betancourt, just rescued from the FARC after six years in captivity
the article really takes to task democrats chris dodd and barney frank (gas). republican lawmakers haven't been a bright light on the topic, either. read the article:
The real priority ought to be protecting taxpayers in return for bailing out these vehicles of Capitol Hill privilege. Taxpayers have already coughed up once, in the form of Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's explicit pledge last week to save the companies and let them tap the Federal Reserve's discount window. Now taxpayers are being asked to pay again, via legislation allowing the government to increase its credit line to the companies and to inject capital if needed to save them from failure.
For all of that, taxpayers have so far received nothing -- no stock warrants, no discipline for the management or shareholders of Fan and Fred, no guarantee that the companies won't pocket this bailout and emerge even more powerful down the road. At least Bear Stearns went out of business when it had to be saved by Uncle Sam.
They made this mess by creating these beasts that combine private profit with public risk. And they made the mess worse by fighting, over many years and despite accounting fraud, any limits on the ability of the companies to grow with taxpayer subsidies. Mr. Dodd and Congress owe Americans an apology, not more ransom demands.
The rising cost of food means their money gets them about a third fewer bags of groceries — $100 used to buy about 12 bags of groceries, but now it's more like seven or eight. So they cut back on expensive items like meat, and they don't buy extras like ice cream anymore. Instead, they eat a lot of starches like potatoes and noodles.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Richard Danzig, who served as Navy Secretary under President Clinton and is tipped to become National Security Adviser in an Obama White House, told a major foreign policy conference in Washington that the future of US strategy in the war on terrorism should follow a lesson from the pages of Winnie the Pooh, which can be shortened to: if it is causing you too much pain, try something else.
Mr Danzig told the Centre for New American Security: “Winnie the Pooh seems to me to be a fundamental text on national security.” [read more]
and gas drilling beyond areas that have already been approved for energy
exploration, drawing a clear distinction from her counterparts in charge of the
“This call for drilling in areas that are protected is a hoax, it’s
an absolute hoax on the part of the Republicans and this administration” Pelosi
said at her weekly press conference. “It’s a decoy to punt your attention away
from the fact that their policies have produced $4-a-gallon
Pelosi’s stand may put her at odds with a growing number of
members of the Democratic Caucus who have been moving toward possible
compromises with Republicans on ways to expand domestic energy
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Wednesday told
reporters that expanded offshore drilling is not off the table, and that
Democrats will take a look at whether states should be able to choose to drill
off their coasts. “I’m not knee-jerk-opposed to anything,” Reid said.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
PRINCETON, NJ -- Congress' job approval rating has dropped five percentage points over the past month, from 19% in June to 14% in July, making the current reading the lowest congressional job approval rating in the 34-year Gallup Poll history of asking the question. The previous low was 18%, last reached in May.
failure. it's what democrats have for dinner.
Gov. Rod Blagojevich on Wednesday raised the possibility of bringing in
state troopers or even the Illinois National Guard to help Chicago combat a
recent increase in violent crime — an offer that Mayor Richard Daley didn’t know
Appearing at signing ceremony for a bill that toughens the
penalty for adults who provide guns to minors, Blagojevich said “violent crime
in the city of Chicago is out of control.”
“I’m offering resources of the
state to the city to work in a constructive way with Mayor Daley to do
everything we can possibly do to help … stop this violence,” said the
…The governor’s comments come at a time when violent crime has
spiked in Chicago. This spring, for example, nine people were killed in 36
shootings during a weekend and Chicago Public Schools officials say more than
two dozen students have been killed by gunfire since last September.
Wednesday, Superintendent Jody Weis was grilled by members of a city council
committee, who complained both about rising crime and statistics that suggested
to them that the police department wasn’t doing enough to stop it.
mind you, chicago has banned handguns for law abiding citizens.. if only they could get a handle on the criminals. this is just another example of what liberal, socialist policies result in. detroit, new orleans, chicago.. pillars that build this catherdral of excellence that will be obama-topia.
While speaking Sunday at the National Council of La Raza's
annual convention, Barack Obama said:
“The [immigration] system isn't working when 12 million people live in hiding,
and hundreds of thousands cross our borders illegally each year; when companies
hire undocumented immigrants instead of legal citizens to avoid paying overtime
or to avoid a union; when communities are terrorized by ICE immigration
raids; when nursing mothers are torn from their babies; when children
come home from school to find their parents missing; when people are detained
without access to legal counsel.”
this type of rhetoric makes me sick. i found a very good outline of who we may get as our next president here. it's a worthy read and gives insight in to this awaiting disaster.
“Global warming is real, is happening now and is the result of human activities. The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30 years. Glaciers are melting faster; the polar ice caps are shrinking; trees are blooming earlier; oceans are becoming more acidic, threatening marine life; people are dying in heat waves; species are migrating, and eventually many will become extinct. Scientists predict that absent major emission reductions, climate change will worsen famine and drought in some of the poorest places in the world and wreak havoc across the globe. In the U.S., sea-level rise threatens to cause massive economic and ecological damage to our populated coastal areas.”
“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK, that’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen.”
"I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems. I will institute an independent Defense Priorities Board to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary defense spending ... I will set a goal for a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal: I will not develop nuclear weapons."
On the Economy:
"His plan would boost the top marginal [tax] rate to well over 55 percent—before the inclusion of state and local taxes—resulting in many individuals seeing their marginal tax rate double…. Senator Obama would end the Bush tax cuts and allow the top two tax rates to return to 36 and 39.6 percent. He also would allow personal exemptions and deductions to be phased out for those with income over $250,000 … [and] would end the Social Security payroll tax cap for those over $250,000 in earnings. (The cap is currently set at $102,000.) These individuals will then face a tax rate of 15.65 percent from payroll taxes and the top income tax rate of 39.6 percent for a combined top rate of over 56 percent on each additional dollar earned.
"High-income individuals will be forced to pay even more if they live in cities or states with high taxes such as New York City, California, or Maryland. These unlucky people would pay over two-thirds of each new dollar in earnings to the federal government…. Senator Obama's new tax rate would give the United States one of the highest tax rates among developed countries. Currently only six of the top 30 industrial nations have a tax rate for all levels of government combined of over 55 percent. Under this tax plan, the United States would join this group and have a higher top rate than such high-tax nations as Sweden and Denmark. The top marginal rate would exceed 60 percent with the inclusion of state and local taxes, which means that only Hungary would exceed Senator Obama's new proposed top tax rate.
shameful and corrupt, olmert hands over convicted murderers for remains of soldiers. this is nothing but a play to the leftist knesset members who keep him in power. he has put himself and his personal ambition above the good of the country and should be ashamed. every time another accusation comes out against him, he makes another concession to appease the leftists that keep him in a job. his approval ratings are terrible and he has now told the mortal enemies of Israel that he will gladly exchange live prisoners for dead bodies. the precedent he has set is sickening and he will get his judgement for this disloyalty to the state.. i fear that Israel is close to being backed in to a corner on the iran situation and the only response they will have is a unilateral nuclear strike on iran's nuclear facilities. i feel this would be entirely justified as iran has threatened Israel's destruction. Israel has repeatedly warned the world that if it is left up to them to handle the threat, the world won't like it. I don't think they are kidding around.
hopefully olmert is long gone before that time.
BARACK OBAMA yesterday accused President Bush and Sen. John McCain of
rigidity on Iraq: “They said we couldn’t leave when violence was up, they say we
can’t leave when violence is down.” Mr. Obama then confirmed his own foolish
consistency. Early last year, when the war was at its peak, the Democratic
candidate proposed a timetable for withdrawing all U.S. combat forces in
slightly more than a year. Yesterday, with bloodshed at its lowest level since
the war began, Mr. Obama endorsed the same plan. After hinting earlier this
month that he might “refine” his Iraq strategy after visiting the country and
listening to commanders, Mr. Obama appears to have decided that sticking to his
arbitrary, 16-month timetable is more important than adjusting to the dramatic
changes in Iraq.
“What’s missing in our debate,” Mr. Obama said
yesterday, “is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq.” Indeed: The
message that the Democrat sends is that he is ultimately indifferent to the
war’s outcome — that Iraq “distracts us from every threat we face” and thus must
be speedily evacuated regardless of the consequences. That’s an irrational and
ahistorical way to view a country at the strategic center of the Middle East,
with some of the world’s largest oil reserves. Whether or not the war was a
mistake, Iraq’s future is a vital U.S. security interest. If he is elected
president, Mr. Obama sooner or later will have to tailor his Iraq strategy to
Friday, July 11, 2008
the video: http://www.myfoxdfw.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=6953163&version=8&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1 - click on the related items in the side bar (the original feed was taken down)
here is the article:
A special meeting about Dallas County traffic tickets turned tense and bizarre
County commissioners were discussing problems with the
central collections office that is used to process traffic ticket payments and
handle other paperwork normally done by the JP Courts.
Mayfield, who is white, said it seemed that central collections "has become a
black hole" because paperwork reportedly has become lost in the office.
Commissioner John Wiley Price, who is black, interrupted him with a loud
"Excuse me!" He then corrected his colleague, saying the office has become a
That prompted Judge Thomas Jones, who is black, to demand an
apology from Mayfield for his racially insensitive analogy.
back that it was a figure of speech and a science term. A black hole, according
to Webster's, is perhaps "the invisible remains of a collapsed star, with an
intense gravitational field from which neither light nor matter can escape."
Other county officials quickly interceded to break it up and get the meeting
back on track. TV news cameras were rolling, after all.
this does a disservice to the black community and it demonstrates the ignorance of these elected officials.. not to mention, it makes those who put them in office look foolish.
now price is saying that the scientists who coined the term black hole are white and racist.
fools, everywhere.. and they're in charge. shameful. if they couldn't trade in race, they would just be another incompetent worker somewhere.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
BERLIN (AFP) - German Chancellor Angela Merkel has slammed a request by Barack Obama to give a speech this month before the Brandenburg Gate as inappropriate, her deputy spokesman said Wednesday.
The conservative leader said that while she would be pleased to meet the US Democratic presidential hopeful, it would be wrong for him to hold a “campaign rally” at the historic symbol of German unity.
“It is unusual to do electioneering abroad,” spokesman Thomas Steg told reporters.
“It is unusual to hold election rallies abroad. No German candidate for high office would even think of using the National Mall (in Washington) or Red Square in Moscow for a rally because it would not be seen as appropriate.”
Authorities in the capital have confirmed that Obama plans to visit Berlin on July 24 and is interested in speaking at the foot of the Brandenburg Gate.
The left-leaning government of the city-state, which has the sole right to approve such a request, has not yet made a formal decision but Mayor Klaus Wowereit gave his backing Tuesday.
Steg said Merkel had “limited understanding” for such a request and found the Obama team’s initiative “a bit odd”.
maybe that is the 'hope' he speaks of -- i hope your kids can speak spanish! maybe that is the 'change' he speaks of -- the language of this country should be spanish!
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
"[W]e are going to grow our foreign service, open consulates that have been
shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our
diplomacy," said Obama. "We cannot to continue to rely only on our military in
order to achieve the national security objectives that we have set. We have got
to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as
strong, just as well funded." (link)
a full serving of hope and change for the upcoming abomination.. we spend half a trillion on the military today, i wonder where obama plans on getting that to fund this new force.. it kinda sounds like a 'special police force' along the lines of some of your most favorite fascist regimes of all time. it just gets better and better from ol barak.
i wonder what happens when the funding battle comes down to which 'military' will be funded.. will the army fight the obama corps ??
at some point the public will realize who obama really is.
hat tip to exurbanleague
Monday, July 7, 2008
yes, the religion of peace claims another daughter.. this one due to divorce. daddy didn't like the idea of his darling daughter getting a divorce, so he decided to strangle her. makes perfect sense to you, no ?
just look at those eyes, they are the loving eyes of a father.. no, they are the eyes of a man who's soul has been stolen by his belief system rooted in death.
the story: http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/clayton/stories/2008/07/06/claymurder_0707_web1.html
“Iran is very secretive,” said Manji, who has been exporting monkeys for 22 years. “They said it [the monkeys] was for ‘our country’, for vaccine. [They said] ‘We don’t buy vaccine from anywhere; we prepare our own vaccine’.
“But I think they use it for something else. You know why? Because they don’t go on kilos. Iran wants [monkeys weighing] 1.5kg to 2.5kg, [but] 1.5kg for vaccine is not possible.”
Rubibira indicated that finding out what the Iranians wanted the monkeys for would be difficult. “They cannot say, you know. They are secretive. They wouldn’t tell the truth.”
The revelation will fuel speculation that the monkeys may be used for research involving biological weapons. Primates are typically used by scientists wishing to test both the effectiveness of germ warfare agents and defences against them.
"As the imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."
Iran has resumed work on making advanced equipment that nuclear experts say
is principally used for developing atomic weapons, the The Telegraph reported
Monday, citing intelligence reports received by Western diplomats.
The British newspaper said that the goal of the work was to develop the
blueprint provided by Pakistani scientist Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the so-called
father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb, who sold Iran information on building atom
bombs in the early 1990s.
The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has established several
civilian companies to work on the program, continued the Telegraph , adding that
the companies' operations were being intentionally hidden from UN nuclear
The paper went on to say that the companies, based outside Teheran,
were working on constructing components for the advanced P2 gas centrifuge,
which can enrich uranium to weapons grade two to three times faster than
conventional P1 centrifuges.
Iran's nuclear enrichment program at Natanz runs on P1 centrifuges, but
Iranian nuclear scientists recently conducted successful tests on a prototype P2
centrifuge at the site. The IRGC has now set up a network of companies to build
components for the advanced centrifuges, raising Western concerns that Iran is
continuing work on its nuclear weapons program, continued the Telegraph.
"If Iran's nuclear intentions were peaceful, there would be no need for
it to undertake this work in secret," the newspaper quoted an official familiar
with the intelligence reports as saying.
A previous secret attempt by Iran to develop P2 centrifuges was halted
in 2004 after a civilian company set up by the IRGC was exposed. UN nuclear
inspectors found traces of weapons-grade uranium at the company when they
inspected the site.
According to recent intelligence reports, said the Telegraph , Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad personally ordered the IRGC to set up companies
for the clandestine construction of components for P2 centrifuges this year.
The paper claimed that one of the companies was located in a
residential building in Amir Abad, western Teheran, where its work is unlikely
to be detected by UN inspectors, adding that another of the facilities was
reportedly run by a company owned by the IRGC.
The Telegraph reported that the operation was a direct copy of the
IRGC's previous attempt to develop P2 centrifuges, when research work was
undertaken by the Kalaye Electric Company, which claimed it was manufacturing
When its actual operations were revealed to UN inspectors in 2004, they
found the company had managed to build the centrifuges and enrich small
quantities of uranium to weapons grade.
Senior officials from Iran's Atomic
Energy Agency are supervising the current clandestine program, based on the
atomic weapons blueprint sold to Iran by Khan in 1994, reported the Telegraph .
neville, where are you?
On the gossip front, the novel doesn't disappoint. From discovering that her grandmother is a lesbian, killing her high school crush with her car at age 16 (this incident at least is based in fact—Laura Bush was involved in a fatal car accident at that age), having sex with his brother, getting an abortion, and descriptions of sex with the president, Alice's antics are sure to have tongues chattering from coast to coast. While we want to stress that American Wife is primarily a work of fiction, we know that there are those of you who can't wait until the book's September release to read a description of the George W. Bush character's penis.
the depravity of the anti-bush crowd has reached an all time low and they keep digging. the fact that anyone would buy a book like this demonstrates that we have created a part of society full of weak willed, small minded people who need to get a job. wasting even a moment reading this type of trash will further rot the minds of the people it is meant to entice. and those people already have a buffet of options for that.
i wanted to point it out for what it is attempting to do to the wife of a sitting president and an honorable wife and mother.
i dare say that there will not be a single cry from the feminist crowd for unfair portrayal of a great mom and wife simply because being a great mom and wife are contrary to feminist ideals. they are too absorbed chasing legitimacy in order to try to justify themselves and the self absorbed worldview they have wed. a small existence indeed.
The National Children's Bureau, which receives £12 million a
year, mainly from Government funded organisations, has issued guidance to play
leaders and nursery teachers advising them to be alert for racist incidents
among youngsters in their care.
This could include a child of as young as
three who says "yuk" in response to being served unfamiliar foreign food.
The guidance by the NCB is designed to draw attention to potentially-racist
attitudes in youngsters from a young age.
It alerts playgroup leaders that even babies can not be ignored in the drive to root out prejudice as they can "recognise different people in their lives".
The 366-page guide for staff in charge of pre-school children, called Young Children and Racial Justice, warns: "Racist incidents among children in early years settings tend to be around name-calling, casual thoughtless comments and peer group relationships."
It advises nursery teachers to be on the alert for childish abuse such as: "blackie", "Pakis", "those people" or "they smell".
The guide goes on to warn that children might also "react negatively to a culinary tradition other than their own by saying 'yuk'".
Staff are told: "No racist incident should be ignored. When there is a clear racist incident, it is necessary to be specific in condemning the action."
Warning that failing to pick children up on their racist attitudes could instil prejudice, the NCB adds that if children "reveal negative attitudes, the lack of censure may indicate to the child that there is nothing unacceptable about such attitudes".
Nurseries are encouraged to report as many incidents as possible to their local council. The guide added: "Some people think that if a large number of racist incidents are reported, this will reflect badly on the institution. In fact, the opposite is the case."
Friday, July 4, 2008
Thursday, July 3, 2008
i found this piece appropriate especially in regard to the obama stance that there is more than one path to God. this is a reminder that if there were many roads to salvation, Christ wouldn't have had to die on the cross.
Some Obama quotes regarding his Christian beliefs:
“I’m rooted in the Christian tradition,” said Obama, who has declared himself a Christian. But then he adds something that most Christians will see as universalism: “I believe there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.”
Here’s Obama telling Falsani, “The difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity, is that at some level there is a call to evangelize and proselytize. There’s the belief, certainly in some quarters, that if people haven’t embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior, they’re going to hell.” Falsani adds, “Obama doesn’t believe he, or anyone else, will go to hell. But he’s not sure he’ll be going to heaven, either.”
Here’s Obama again: “I don’t presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. When I tuck in my daughters at night and I feel like I’ve been a good father to them, and I see that I am transferring values that I got from my mother and that they’re kind people and that they’re honest people, and they’re curious people, that’s a little piece of heaven.”it's crystal clear obama is no Christian.. so lets not beat around the bush. Christians cannot embrace abortion on demand nor same sex marriage and a Christian knows there is one path to salvation - Jesus Christ.
I just can't get the results of that recent Pew Poll on Religious Attitudes in America out of my head. It so troubled me that I kept going back to it, thinking that somewhere I must have misread something.
But no, there it is, big as life. The question was formed as an agree/disagree statement.
When asked, "Do you agree that many religions can lead to eternal life?" fully 83% of mainstream churches, (including both mainstream Protestant and Catholic) indicated that they agreed with the statement.
What does that really mean? These are, ostensibly, Christian churches. That is to say, churches founded on the teaching of Jesus Christ and the writers of the New Testament.
We often speak of 'milk' issues and 'meat' issues in our briefings and discussion forums. The 'meat' issues are the 'deeper' things of Scripture; like Bible prophecy, Dispensationalism, eternal security and so on.
But one cannot grasp the 'meat' issues until one first has a handle on the 'milk' issues. The most important of these is salvation.
If one is not saved, according to the Scripture, there is no possible way one can grasp the deeper doctrinal issues.
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1st Corinthians 1:18, 2:14)
The milk doctrine of salvation is summed up in a single verse of Scripture delivered by Jesus Christ Himself:
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me." (John 14:6)
Does this mean that Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to salvation? Let me put it another way: does this leave room for another path to salvation?
Not according to the Apostle Peter: "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other Name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)
If Jesus Christ is NOT the only way to heaven, then, by definition, Christianity cannot lead to heaven at all.
The essence of Bible Christianity is this: "You can't do it, so Jesus did." Whether or not one is saved depends on whether or not one agrees with that statement.
"For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law." (Romans 2:12)
This is the condition of every human being -- either they are under the Law of Moses or they are not; spiritually, all humanity is either Jew or Gentile.
But the Bible also speaks of a third creation of God -- a 'new creature' in Christ.
"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." (2nd Corinthians 5:17)
It teaches that those sinners who recognize their hopeless state under the Law can be justified through faith that, "God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)
What does 'believing in Him' mean? Does it mean believing that there was once a Jewish carpenter named Jesus who was a wise man and a good teacher who was put to death by the Romans?
In a word, no. Not even close.
It means understanding that God loved me so much He stepped out of eternity and into space and time in the Person of Jesus Christ, to live the life expected of me.
And, having lived the life God expects of me, He suffered the penalty that I so richly deserved -- on my behalf.
It is that understanding that breaks down the barrier between me and God. Without that understanding, the death and resurrection of Jesus is irrelevant to my own condition. If my condition is not hopeless apart from Christ, then it isn't hopeless at all.
And if Christianity is not the only way to heaven, then, again by definition, there must be several 'heavens'. No man has ever seen heaven. So how do we know that it exists?
Because it says so in the Bible. That's where we learned of it. If the Bible is accurate about the existence of heaven, then it is equally accurate about its entrance requirements.
According to the Pew poll results, 83% of mainline Christian churches do not meet the minimum requirements necessary for admission.
"I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of My mouth. " (Revelation 3:16)
While the response to the first question stunned me, the response to the question: "There is more than one true way to interpret the teachings of my religion" absolutely floored me.
In the first place, the premise of the question itself assumes that there can be more than one 'truth.'
This is illogical to the point of delusional. There can be many variations of truth, in the sense that there are many variations of 'red' -- but only one of them is pure 'red' -- the rest contain shades of red.
There is only one 'truth'. Everything else is different. And things that are different are not the same. For example, the Bible is the Word of God, and therefore, infallible "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." (2nd Timothy 3:16)
Today's column contains the Word of God -- but it is NOT infallible on any of those issues. And if this column were to conflict with the Word of God -- (ie; by denying Jesus is the only way to heaven) it would NOT be an alternate 'truth' even though it contains the word of God.
This may be a good place to restate the bedrock truths upon which the Omega Letter is founded.
First, we believe that salvation comes by grace through faith in the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ as FULL propitiation (payment) for our sins.
"And He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our's only, but also for the sins of the whole world." (1st John 2:2)
There is NO alternative religion that can lead to eternal life apart from Christ. If there is, then Christ is dead in vain.
"I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." (Galatians 2:21)
We believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, inerrant in its original languages, and preserved by God through the ages. It contains the full and complete record of God's interaction with man.
We reject any suggestion that there can be more than one 'truth' on the basis of ordinary logic and the dictionary's definition of the word, 'truth.'
We believe that salvation is eternal, and that, while man has free will to accept or reject the offer of salvation procured for him by Jesus, God in His foreknowledge is already aware of the choice each of us will make.
This in no way eliminates free will from the equation. When my kids were little, I often knew what choices they would make before they did.
The fact that I knew what their choices would be had no effect on the choices that they made at the time that they made them.
"For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren." (Romans 8:29)
This is by no means a complete statement of faith -- but it is the bedrock upon which Biblical Christianity rests. It is the 'milk' of the Scriptures. Without an understanding of the Cross and the role it plays in one's salvation, one can never grasp the meaning of the word 'truth.'
"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." (1st Corinthians 1:18)
Pew's poll results DO serve as a wake-up call to us all, however. Don't assume that just because somebody goes to church on Sunday that they have already 'finished their milk' -- so to speak.
Odds are 83% in favor of the assumption they haven't even picked up the glass.