Global Warming theorists getting colder by the day

I take great pride in ridiculing the Global Warming theory early, often, and without a hint of apology.

I’ve viewed the theory as absurd since I passed earth science in high school, and (in a rare instance of supporting public ed) thank my teachers for educating me in the 70s. Apparently, the idiot indoctrination of the 80s, 90s, and 2000s has made our population too stupid to see politically motivated pseudo-science for the claptrap that it is.

I laud the “global warming” debate for illustration of the fundamental truth that – no matter how mistaken G W Bush might be on any given topic – he was never as stupid as the idiot/liar, Al Gore.


The Day The Earth Cooled

Speaking before Bill Clinton’s Global Initiative, junk science advocate Gore called on young people to take the law into their own hands because the climate, he claims, is a-changin’. He told the gathering in New York City that “the world has lost ground to the climate crisis” and the time for action is now.

“If you’re a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration,” Gore said to loud applause.

Does “civil disobedience” include snipping Al Gore’s vocal chords?

On the same day Gore spoke, scientists involved in NASA’s Ulysses project reported that the intensity of the sun’s solar wind was at its lowest point since the beginning of the space age — one more indication that the sun, the biggest source of energy affecting the Earth, is getting quiet.

The weaker solar wind appears to be due to changes in the sun’s magnetic field, but the cause is unknown. Sunspots, which normally fluctuate in 11-year cycles, are at a virtual standstill. In August, the sun created no visible spots. The last time that happened: June 1913.

The results of the Ulysses spacecraft’s mission, according to Jet Propulsion Laboratory project scientist Ed Smith, show that “we are in a period of minimal activity that has stretched on longer than anyone anticipated.”

Global Warming has always and only been a function of solar output. Any other factor is infinitesimal.

The four major agencies tracking Earth’s temperature, including NASA’s Goddard Institute, report that the Earth cooled 0.7 degree Celsius in 2007, the fastest decline in the age of instrumentation, putting us back to where the Earth was in 1930.

The climate is changing, but not in the direction Al Gore thinks. As the Earth demonstrably cools under a weakening sun, a 10-state coalition on Thursday held the nation’s first carbon allowance auction to deal with a warming trend that may have ended a decade ago.

So only 1.5 years after the sun’s output drops dramatically, the temperature follows? DRAMATICALLY? All while the run-up in temperatures followed one of the most active solar cycles on record???!!

Global Warming was always a crock. 99 out of 100 lemmings disagree. Are you a lemming?

The Meltdown mostly a Democrat phenomenon

But Bush certainly played his part.




If the Republican Party and McCain play their cards right, they can triangulate Bush and the Democrats into the same corner. If they are honest enough to throw a few of their own under the bus, all the better. It’s never been a better time for a competitive challenger to attack the awful Dennis Hastert.

Extreme Wisdom on “Beyond the Beltway”

Special thanks to Bruce Dumont for having me on as a guest on his nationally syndicated radio show, Beyond the Beltway.

There will be another conservative from Evanston’s vibrant Republican Club, Stephanie Hitt. Also appearing will be Eric Zorn, holding up the liberal end of the argument. I hope to have a few engagements with him on the school choice issue, along with critiquing last night’s substantive debate.

Q – If elected, what will Obama do to our schools?

A – Look to his close work with Ayers at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge

Nothing disgusts me more the than the ideological radical lefties who abuse the poor to promote their own vile ideas. In the story below, we again find Obama linked to the terrorist (self-admitted) Ayers. What were they doing? Replacing actual education with indoctrination, and using cash from rich, useful idiots like Annenberg to boot.

Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism On Schools

The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was created ostensibly to improve Chicago’s public schools. The funding came from a national education initiative by Ambassador Walter Annenberg. In early 1995, Mr. Obama was appointed the first chairman of the board, which handled fiscal matters. Mr. Ayers co-chaired the foundation’s other key body, the “Collaborative,” which shaped education policy.

One unsettled question is how Mr. Obama, a former community organizer fresh out of law school, could vault to the top of a new foundation? In response to my questions, the Obama campaign issued a statement saying that Mr. Ayers had nothing to do with Obama’s “recruitment” to the board. The statement says Deborah Leff and Patricia Albjerg Graham (presidents of other foundations) recruited him. Yet the archives show that, along with Ms. Leff and Ms. Graham, Mr. Ayers was one of a working group of five who assembled the initial board in 1994. Mr. Ayers founded CAC and was its guiding spirit. No one would have been appointed the CAC chairman without his approval.

So the potential next President of the United States has been recruited to his first “executive” position by an avowed “communist” who won’t apologize for trying to kill people with bombs? Obama supporters display willful ignorance if this does not give them pause. At the end of the day, most of them should just admit that they agree with Ayers, and actively hate America.

The CAC’s agenda flowed from Mr. Ayers’s educational philosophy, which called for infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment, and which downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism. In the mid-1960s, Mr. Ayers taught at a radical alternative school, and served as a community organizer in Cleveland’s ghetto.

In works like “City Kids, City Teachers” and “Teaching the Personal and the Political,” Mr. Ayers wrote that teachers should be community organizers dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression. His preferred alternative? “I’m a radical, Leftist, small ‘c’ communist,” Mr. Ayers said in an interview in Ron Chepesiuk’s, “Sixties Radicals,” at about the same time Mr. Ayers was forming CAC.

Perhaps Frontline should do a show on “Community Organizing.” If you look at what the Alinsky-ites TRULY try to accomplish, it is to DISORGANIZE a community and bring in chaos. Rather than teach the poor the facts and skills they will need to succeed in our mostly decent society, they turn them into shock troops with no skills other than to agitate. Ayers is a vile man. I hope all of you have the “testicular virility” to realize it, and say it openly. He is a monster who actively destroys communities and hope for his own vile ends.

Mr. Obama once conducted “leadership training” seminars with Acorn, and Acorn members also served as volunteers in Mr. Obama’s early campaigns. External partners like the South Shore African Village Collaborative and the Dual Language Exchange focused more on political consciousness, Afrocentricity and bilingualism than traditional education. CAC’s in-house evaluators comprehensively studied the effects of its grants on the test scores of Chicago public-school students. They found no evidence of educational improvement.

How could they improve. They weren’t educated. They were indoctrinated. And now there is evidence showing that this was the goal! [Not that any critic of the corrupt public education monopoly needed any more evidence, all you have to do is look to find it.]

So when he isn’t promoting sex-ed for Kindergartners…

(quit your whining, Obamaweenies, he does, and it’s wrong!! It’s not AGE APPROPRIATE AT ALL AT THAT AGE!!!)

he’s advocating indoctrination (by Ayers-trained clones) over education.

He will make a truly awful president, if elected. Awful.

Placing Blame in the Financial Market Meltdown

Who is to blame for our financial conflagration?

Both parties, to be sure, but an honest observer CAN say that the Dems deserve more of the blame

MP3 File

Read the linked article, and tell me WHY this is all Bush’s fault?

How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis: Kevin Hassett

How Bush won Iraq – 2 important stories you should read.

Below are two pieces that you should read if you want to understand just how well things are going in Iraq. While one would hate to be proven wrong by a slide back into a violent abyss, the fact is that for the moment, one cannot deny that Iraq has a chance to succeed.

Back in Iraq, Jarred by the Calm

BAGHDAD — At first, I didn’t recognize the place.

On Karada Mariam, a street that runs over the Tigris River toward the Green Zone, the Serwan and the Zamboor, two kebab places blown up by suicide bombers in 2006, were crammed with customers. Farther up the street was Pizza Napoli, the Italian place shut down in 2006; it, too, was open for business. And I’d forgotten altogether about Abu Nashwan’s Wine Shop, boarded up when the black-suited militiamen of the Mahdi Army had threatened to kill its owners. There it was, flung open to the world.

Two years ago, when I last stayed in Baghdad, Karada Mariam was like the whole of the city: shuttered, shattered, broken and dead.

Abu Nawas Park — I didn’t recognize that, either. By the time I had left the country in August 2006, the two-mile stretch of riverside park was a grim, spooky, deserted place, a symbol for the dying city that Baghdad had become.

These days, the same park is filled with people: families with children, women in jeans, women walking alone. Even the nighttime, when Iraqis used to cower inside their homes, no longer scares them. I can hear their laughter wafting from the park. At sundown the other day, I had to weave my way through perhaps 2,000 people. It was an astonishing, beautiful scene — impossible, incomprehensible, only months ago.

When I left Baghdad two years ago, the nation’s social fabric seemed too shredded to ever come together again. The very worst had lost its power to shock. To return now is to be jarred in the oddest way possible: by the normal, by the pleasant, even by hope. The questions are jarring, too. Is it really different now? Is this something like peace or victory? And, if so, for whom: the Americans or the Iraqis?

This is good news people, and a far better outcome than we would have had we “pulled out” and left them the chaos of a civil war.

Al Qaeda’s Defeat in Iraq

Senator Barack Obama’s answer to Katie Couric’s question a few days ago about why he thinks there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil since September 11, 2001, was bizarre.

“Well,” he said, “I think that the initial invasion into Afghanistan disrupted al Qaeda. And that was the right thing to do. I mean, we had to knock out those safe havens. And that, I think, weakened them. We did some work in strengthening our homeland security apparatus here. Obviously, the average person knows that when they go to the airport, because they are goin’ through taking off their shoes … all that. The problem is when we got distracted by Iraq. We gave al Qaeda time to reconstitute itself.” [Emphasis added.]

Jennifer Rubin correctly noted that Couric asked Obama why the U.S. has not been attacked, but let’s leave that aside. The notion that “we gave Al Qaeda time to reconstitute itself” is breathtakingly ahistorical.

The Al Qaeda leadership emphatically has not agreed with Obama that Iraq is a distraction. It has been their main event for years.

“The most important and serious issue today for the whole world,” Osama bin Laden said on December 28, 2004, “is this Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation. It is raging in the land of the two rivers. The world’s millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate.”

It’s only natural that an Arab-led and a mostly Arab-staffed terrorist group like Al Qaeda would be more concerned with a strategically critical country in the heart of the Arab Middle East than with a primitive non-Arab backwater in Central Asia.

Bin Laden’s lieutenant Ayman al-Zawahiri explicitly spelled out Al Qaeda’s strategy in Iraq on July 9, 2005. “The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq,” he said. “The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or amirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate—over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq.”

The war against Saddam Hussein in Iraq can plausibly be described as a distraction from the war against Al Qaeda. But the war against Al Qaeda in Iraq cannot possibly be accurately described as a distraction from the war against Al Qaeda.

I’ve argued often on this blog (and on my radio show) that the Bush Administration intended to use Iraq not only as a showcase for a potential democracy, but (perhaps cynically) as flypaper. I challenge anyone to refute that point. As flypaper, it has been remarkably successful.

Even the basically reasonable argument by the left - that we are “creating” terrorists by remaining in Iraq - does not necessarily defeat the purpose of “flypaper.” At some point, we will leave, and the “creation” of terrorists ceases. In the interim, we killed 1000s of radicals by drawing them to a killing zone instead of chasing them around the globe using “policing” (as opposed to “fighting a war”) as the model.

“Bring em on!” indeed.

The first article points out that Iraq may just have a fighting chance at becoming a “democratic” nation. Even my liberal/anti-war friends agree that such a result is a dagger pointed at the heart of both Iran and Saudi Arabia (the true sources of terror in the world). Putting that dagger in place was likely Bush’s goal all along, and using Iraq as a way to mop up excess radical Islamists isn’t bad strategy, even if cynical and Machiavellian. It worked. Al Qaida is stuck in Waziristan awaiting death from above as their popularity in the Muslim world has plummeted.

Maybe in 10-20 years, Bush will get the credit he likely deserves. Today, we appear too deranged to do so. The unpopularity of the war, and the seeming unwillingness of Bush to reveal exactly what he was up to (with ‘Flypaper,” how could you?), may just get us a dangerously left American President (Obama). That may turn out not to have been worth it, especially if Obama does all he can to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory (and yes, I believe that is Obama’s goal).

That said, we’ve rarely seen a President risk so much political capital to pursue an unpopular policy in a representative republic. People always say they want leadership, but when some one actually leads, they despise them for it. This is not to forgive Bush his failures on the economy, spending, and his crony driven administration. The fact is he lead, and the world (and Iraq) is better off for it.

McCain’s ad could be better, but it gets the message across


Obama's Empty Rhetoric

McCain starting to get it right on the Wall Street/Main Street divide

I’ve started to tell my radio audience that the best way for McCain to handle the financial meltdown is to tout “Main Street” over Wall Street.

It’s a good thing he listens to my show.

The only thing I would change about this ad would be to verbally call the “Main street V. Wall Street” divide into consciousness by using those words in the ads and on the campaign trail.

Here are some sound bites perfect for the campaign trail…

“If Main Street America is healthy, then Wall Street will do just fine, but if we only focus on the finance industry and the complicated instruments that they play around with, you eventually end up with these financial bubbles and miss-allocation of assets.”

“It’s Wall Street’s job to finance Main Street, for that is where the real American Dream occurs.”

Of course, it helps to have policies in place that actually comport to such rhetoric. Listening to the hyper-libertarians about deregulating everything is just as bad a policy as regulating everything to death. At the end of the day, 100% transparency, combined with reasonable oversight of leverage and reserve requirements should be all that is necessary to right this ship.

Editing the Charlie Gibson Intereview

Many years ago (in the mid 1960s) my dad, a civil engineer in the manufactured housing industry (he designed mobile home parks), watched a 60 minutes episode that covered the mobile home industry. Even though only 6 or 7 years old, I can still remember images of how angry he was at the segment. He went into a rant over how much they cut from the interviews, and how it completely slanted the story.

So at age 6, I got my first taste of media bias. And though he passed away a few years ago, my dad always had more credibility than the idiot media. Now we see just how little things have changed. Read the link to “Little Green Footballs” below.

ABC News Hid Important Parts of Palin Interview

ABC’s Gibson grilled Palin hard, but it may backfire

Charles Gibson of ABC News was out for blood and inherently applied a double-standard compared with the kid gloves George Stephanopoulos used on Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois on Sunday night.

Gibson was out to embarrass Palin and expose her presumed ignorance from the word go. By contrast, when Obama referred to his “Muslim faith” on Sunday and did not correct himself, Stephanopoulos rushed in at once to help him and emphasize that the senator had really meant to say his Christian faith.

By contrast, Gibson tried to embarrass Palin by referring to her Christian faith in asking people to pray for U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Palin countered by pointing out she was following the precedent set by Abraham Lincoln.

Palin also expressed her support for Georgia and Ukraine joining the U.S.-led NATO alliance. That statement was predictable and consistent with the current policy of the Bush administration. The policy has dangerously raised tensions with Russia, but Palin is hardly alone in the conservative/Republican consensus in expressing her support for it.

Palin’s assessment of foreign policy was competent and not embarrassing. Although she initially exhibited ignorance of the Bush Doctrine on pre-emptive strikes that has been a central pillar of U.S. foreign policy after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, she recovered quickly and then made the case clearly. Tactically, she made the mistake of trying to be friendly and informal with Gibson, who assumed a superior, professorial and critical stance toward her. She would have been far better going on the attack to rattle him.

That last part is 100% accurate. Fortunately, the intellect and strategy behind McCain’s campaign probably has a few wonderful surprises in store not only for the now hapless and flailing Obama, but for his sycophants in the drooling “mainstream media”.

The Hilton ad alone exposed these numb-skulls for what they are, and there is sure to be more to come, as they go down with their chosen candidate.

That said, I learned early (and I have to admit to having to learn it yet again in this convention campaign) that you NEVER do a video or radio interview with out a promise upfront to the raw audio or video of the event. You’ll never get the media to give you editorial control over the interview (why should they), but if you are in a campaign, you should ALWAYS get an agreement to the full transcript at the very least, and the raw footage.

Never give the addled and in-bred elites in the media control over your message. Any mistakes you make, that’s on you.

Reviewing old campaign commercials

When you see stuff like the commercial below, you start to realize just how out of touch the left really is with America.