Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Media goes back to their favorite Republican McCain

It did not take long for the media to back track from its' love affair with Mike Huckabee. They are now telling all of the Republicans that Senator McCain is the man with momentum. That will last until Romney knocks him down in Michigan. Then they will be back on the Gov. Huckabee band wagon.
In case there are still some idiot Republicans out there who get all their information from the main street media, we should not forget the positions the media's favorite candidate has taken.

1). He was against the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and also 2003.

2). He came to the conclusion that after more than 200 years of Presidents' picking judges, that he would go along with the socialist party and create a group of 14 Senators who could keep nominees from receiving an up or down vote in the Senate.

3). He still believes in embryonic stem cell research. That creating life for the sole purpose of destroying it for some false hope of a cure to some disease is OK.

4). The McCain Fiengold bill limiting free speech and creating the likes of Moveon.org is considered by McCain as one of his achievements.

5). He thinks the death tax is a good thing. Politicians who believe that taxing money once is not enough make me sick.

6). He has stated his position to fix Social Security is to raise taxes.

7). He wants illegal immigrants to stay in the Country after paying a fine.

8). Rather than allowing experts to determine how best to interrogate detainees, he would rather the U.S. not water board because he thinks it makes the U.S. look bad. A few seconds of pouring water down someones nose, or the potential to save hundreds and perhaps thousands of lives? That is a tough one. Lets see, let me think a second, I think I need a life line before I pick!!!!

This guy would destroy our party. That is why the media loves him. Plain and Simple.

Wednesday, January 9, 2008

Global Warming? My A**!!!

I wish Al (I invented the Internet) Gore and his left wing, tree hugging environmentalist wacko buddies would come to my neck of the woods. Please bring an ice pick to help you get around. They would have you believe that "the global warming debate" is over. Not quite you liberal weenies.
First we find a flaw in the United Nations testing with respect to Urban areas. After getting smacked in the head with their flaw, they quickly come out and say all is fixed and no significant difference in temperatures was seen. I find it amazing that people still believe these pin-heads. Below is part of an article by the Heartland Institute.

What the pinheads say:

1. We have reliable temperature records showing how much the planet has warmed in the past century.
2. Computer projections of future climate, while not perfect, simulate the observed behavior of the past so well they are a reliable guide for the future.
Therefore, they say, we need to limit carbon dioxide emissions (i.e., energy use) right now, despite the expense and even though the cost will fall almost entirely on the United States, gravely harming the world's economic engine while exerting no detectable change on climate in the foreseeable future.
Urban Heat Islands Skew Data
The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) claims to have carefully corrected the temperature records for the well-known problem of local ("urban," as opposed to global) warming. But this has always troubled serious scientists, because the way the U.N. checks for artificial warming makes it virtually impossible to detect the urban "heat island" effect in recent decades--the same period over which our cities have undergone the greatest growth and sprawl.
The surface temperature record shows a warming rate of about 0.17º Celsius (0.31º Fahrenheit) per decade since 1979. However, there are two other records--one from satellites, the other from weather balloons--that tell a different story. Neither annual satellite nor balloon trends differ significantly from zero since the satellite record started in 1979. These records reflect temperatures in what is called the lower atmosphere, or roughly between 5,000 and 30,000 feet.
Four years ago, a distinguished panel of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences concluded there is a real disparity between the reported surface warming and the temperature trends measured in the atmosphere above. Since then, many investigators have tried to explain the cause of the disparity, while others have denied its existence.
Balloons Show Little Warming
So, which record is right: the U.N. surface record showing the larger warming, or the other two?
There's another record, from seven feet above the ground, derived from balloon data recently released by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
In two research papers in the July 9 issue of Geophysical Research Letters, two of the authors of this article (Douglass and Singer) compared the NOAA record for correspondence with the surface record and the lower atmosphere histories. The odd-record-out turns out to be the U.N.'s hot-surface history.
This is a double kill, both on the U.N.'s temperature records and on its vaunted climate models. That's because the models generally predict a warming rate that increases with height above the Earth's surface (outside of local polar regions). But neither the satellite nor the balloon records can find it. When this was noted in the first satellite paper published in 1990, some scientists objected that the record, which began in 1979, was too short. Now we have a quarter-century of concurrent balloon and satellite data, both screaming that the U.N.'s climate models have failed, as well as indicating its surface record is simply too hot.
If the U.N.'s models are wrong as one goes up in the atmosphere, then any correspondence between them and surface temperatures is either pretty lucky or the product of some unspecified "adjustment." Getting the vertical distribution of temperature wrong means everything dependent upon that--precipitation and cloudiness, as examples--must be wrong. Obviously, the amount of cloud in the air determines the day's high temperature as well as whether it rains.
As bad as things have gone for the IPCC and its ideologues, it gets worse--much, much worse.
Economic Assumptions
After four years (Not months but years people) of the most rigorous peer reviews ever, Canadian economist Ross McKitrick and another of the authors of this article (Michaels) published a paper searching for "economic" signals in the temperature record.
McKitrick was initially piqued by what several climatologists had noted as a curiosity in both the U.N. and satellite records: Statistically speaking, the greater a nation's gross domestic product, the more it warms. The research showed that somewhere around half of the warming in the U.N. surface record was explained by economic factors, which can include changes in land use, quality of instrumentation, and upkeep of records.
This worldwide study added fuel to a fire started a year earlier by the University of Maryland's Eugenia Kalnay, who had calculated a similar 50 percent bias due to economic factors in the U.S. records.
So, to all who worry about global warming, you may rest assured that the science is indeed settled. The "skeptics"--the strange name applied to those whose work shows the planet isn't coming to an end--have won.

All I know is that I am cold, and that the sole purpose of the Global Warming crowd is to destroy the US economy. Fortunately that will require more than the statement; "the Global Warming debate is over" as offered up by the liberals' favorite inventor of the Internet.!!!!!

Wednesday, December 5, 2007


It appears that Fred is not only talking about conservative principles he is now teaching them. As you know, Charlie Rose is a typical PBS liberal blowhard who thinks conservatism is something from outer space. Here is a part of the exchange (or should I say lesson) Fred Thompson gave to Rose as reported by various sources including the Rush Limbaugh show and also the National Review Online:

Rush Limbaugh was chuckling and enjoying the following exchange between Fred Thompson and Charlie Rose — an exchange that suggests that Rose is fuzzy on the difference between "principles" and "issues."
CHARLIE ROSE: You constantly say in this campaign that you are a conservative. What does that mean today? Is George Bush a conservative?
FRED THOMPSON: Well, let`s talk about me. (LAUGHTER) I thought we might get to that. I think that it means things that are consistent with God`s design for man. It`s consistent with human nature. It`s consistent with the lessons of history and the lessons of the ages. They found form in the Constitution, I think, and what our founding fathers believed. They understand that man can do great and wonderful things, but man is prone to error, and sometimes do terrible things. That too much power in too few hands is a dangerous thing, that power is a corrupting thing.
CHARLIE ROSE: In all of that, you did not mention abortion, gay rights — all things that have been part of recent presidential elections.
FRED THOMPSON: Those — well, you`re talking about different things there. Those are issues that are before us, which derive from principles. I don`t consider them to be...
CHARLIE ROSE: Principles.
FRED THOMPSON: ... the first principles. But the principles are what guides you in coming to positions with regard to the issues. You know, the Declaration of Independence said that our basic rights come from God and not from man. The founders talked about, you know, life and liberty and the importance of that. And everything is based on those basic principles. And I take those principles, and you know, for example, I come to a pro-life conclusion there. And when we had issues, you know, for eight years when I was in the United States Senate about whether or not the federal government should be funding, for example, abortion-related activities and things of that nature, you know, the application of those principles in that instance told me the answer was no, properly.

You have got to love Fred. The media hates him but don't count him out. A true conservative will find a way to rise to the top among this convoluted field of republican candidates.

Monday, December 3, 2007

It's not just the left who believes in Socialism!!!!

It appears now that Republicans are getting in on the socialism craze. You have thousands of people who can't qualify for certain traditional mortgages and, for various reasons, were smart enough not to fall for the variable teaser rate mortgages. Well, those people are the dumb ones now. It looks like Paulson and the President will bail these variable rate buyers out. Go figure!!! I guess they are using the same logic with the mortgage problem that they are using with illegal immigration.
Lets compare the 2 arguments made by the Federal government. They say; "we can't allow these risky, unqualified buyers to default on their loans".
What do they say about the illegal immigrants in this country? "We can't just send them back to Mexico now that they are already here".
How pathetic is that??????

Below is a portion of the article as reported by the AP writer Martin Crutsinger.
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said Monday he is confident there will soon be an agreement to help thousands of homeowners avoid mortgage defaults by temporarily freezing their interest rates.

Paulson told a national housing conference that this effort involved a "pragmatic response"
(They mean SOCIALIST approach)
to current realities as the economy goes through the worst housing slump in more than two decades. The number of homeowners struggling to meet higher payments because their initial introductory rates are resetting is currently soaring.
Paulson and other top Treasury officials have been holding talks with major players in the mortgage industry over the past several weeks to hammer out an agreement that would freeze the lower introductory rates to keep them from resetting to higher levels for a period of years.
An estimated 2 million sub prime mortgages, loans offered to borrowers with spotty credit histories, are scheduled to reset to much higher levels by the end of 2008. Those resets will push the payment on a typical mortgage up by $350 per month, taking it from $1,200 currently to $1,550.
Paulson said he believed the disagreements can be resolved without delay. Some expect the administration to unveil the completed deal later this week, but Paulson was not as specific in his remarks, saying only, "I am confident they will finalize these standards soon."
Paulson said he believed the mortgage industry would move to implement the new program quickly and would also adopt benchmarks to measure progress going forward.
The new program is being aimed at homeowners who have steady incomes and relatively clean repayment histories who could afford the lower introductory mortgage rates but cannot afford the higher adjusted rate.
(Hey MORONS, they all fit in that category. That's how they got into the home to begin with).
The rate freeze is part of a three-pronged program the administration is pushing that also includes stepping up efforts to contact at-risk homeowners and encouraging creation of new programs that would embrace more affordable loans to homeowners who would like to refinance to mortgages with lower payments.
He also called on Congress to pass a number of pending bills that would address the housing crisis in such ways as expanding the availability of Federal Housing Administration insured loans and boosting government oversight of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
(As soon as the govt begins to control what Freddie Mac and others do, they will never let go. They will go from oversight to complete control).
The administration has come under criticism from Democrats who have complained that the proposals put forward so far have been too modest in light of the crisis facing the housing industry and the threat that the housing slump could trigger a full-blown recession. (The Republicans should ALWAYS be happy when they come under criticism from the Dem's)

That is as close as I come to cussing.

Thursday, November 29, 2007

The Religion of peace? Ya Right!

I am getting sick and tired of hearing from politicians, pundits, and the media how Islam is a religion of peace. That is a bunch of garbage. Here we have the latest episode in this trilogy as reported by the Associated Press.

A Sudanese court convicted a British teacher Thursday of insulting Islam for letting her students name a teddy bear Muhammad and sentenced her to 15 days in prison. avoiding a heavier punishment of 40 lashes. The teacher wept in court, insisting she never meant to offend.

The defense said the case was sparked by a school secretary with a grudge. But it escalated as Muslim clerics sought to drum up public outrage against what it called a Western plot to insult Islam's Prophet Muhammad and demanding Gibbons (the teacher) be punished.

So how did this incredible attack on this so called "religion of peace" get started?

It began with a classroom project on animals in September at the private school, which has 750 students from elementary to the high school level.
The teacher had one of her 7-year-old students bring in a teddy bear, then asked the class to name it and they chose the name Muhammad.
Each student then took the teddy bear home to write a diary entry about it, and the entries were compiled into a book with the bear's picture on the cover, titled "My Name is Muhammad".
But an office assistant at the school, Sara Khawad, complained to the Ministry of Education that Gibbons had insulted the prophet. Khawad testified at Thursday's trial, chief defense lawyer Kamal Djizouri said.

They now have had to close the school because of all these hard line, false Profit following idiots who were wanting a much harsher sentence. The sentence they wanted; 40 lashes, 6 months in jail and a fine.

All for naming a teddy bear Muhammad.

And the hits just keep on coming!!!!

I pretty much give up. Every day it is becoming clearer and clearer of the main street media bias to the American people. Although still fervently denied by the liberal media, polls show that the public now accepts the bias as SOP. You would think that they would now at least attempt to hide this bias, but they don't.
Go to the CNN Republican YouTube debate last night and you see it front and center. Out of 1000's (according to CNN) video questions submitted, CNN manages to find liberals either working directly for Democrats, or backing them in the next election, as the video questions to be used during the debate.

1. The abortion questioner is an Edwards supporter.
2. The Log Cabin Republican questioner backs Obama.
3. The lead paint on toys from China questioner is a Union activist actively backing Edwards.

These morons at CNN are now defending their choices. Although they agree that one questioner turns out to be a looney liberal backer, they say his question is still relevant. These debates are for the primary voters and not for the general public. Once a nominee has been chosen from each party, then let the games begin. Untill that time comes we as republicans, independants and conservatives want questions that are relevant to us.
Questions on gays in the military, lead paint on toys and whether or not to criminalise abortion is not on the top of our list. It goes back to one of the main differences between liberals and normal people: To a liberal, it is ALWAYS about emotion.

Another side bar to the debate is this sudden love affair the media has toward Mike Huckabee. This man has not seen a tax increase he hasn't liked, or an illegal immigrant he wanted to send back to Mexico. Yes he is a Christian, other than that ??????????????????

What stood out to me was that the only 3 candidates who are conservative today, yesterday and hopefully tomorrow are former Senator Fred Thompson, Representative Tom Tancredo and Representative Duncan Hunter!!!!!PERIOD!!!!

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

More bad news for Liberals

You have got to love the media. After 10,000 negative reports about the war in Iraq, along with about 10 good reports, the public is starting to figure out just how well it is going over there. The following report is from the associated press (an organization that hates all things Republican and conservative) describing the most recent poll by the pew research center. http://people-press.org/

It still shows that the looney left in this country are holding out hope that the President somehow loose this war, but facts are starting to outweigh the rhetoric of the left.

The public increasingly believes the U.S. is making military progress in Iraq but still wants President Bush to remove American troops from the country as quickly as possible, a poll showed Tuesday.
People are evenly split over how well the military effort in Iraq is going, with 48 percent saying it is going well and the same number saying it isn't, according to a survey by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center. In February, shortly after Bush announced he would send additional troops to the country, only 30 percent said things were going well.
Stark partisan divisions remain (DO YOU THINK?), though even growing numbers of Democrats cite gains. While 16 percent of Democrats said in February that things were going well, that figure has grown to 33 percent — less than half the 74 percent of Republicans who felt that way.
Overall, 43 percent said the U.S. is making gains against the insurgents, up 13 percentage points from February. The percentage of people seeing progress reducing civilian casualties has more than doubled to 43 percent, while the number seeing results in preventing civil war is 32 percent, almost double the February level.
There have been smaller increases in the number of people citing progress in preventing terrorist bases, rebuilding Iraqi public works and establishing democracy.
Even so, 54 percent say they favor bringing the troops home as soon as possible, virtually the same number as in February.
The public remains split over whether the U.S. will succeed or fail in Iraq, just as in February. A small majority feels the U.S. is losing ground in getting Iraqi leaders to work together.
The poll involved telephone interviews with 1,399 adults from Nov. 20-26. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Looking at the poll tells me a little more than the AP mentions, like the true number who realize the successes occurring in Iraq. I know too many liberals who hate our president so much that while responding to these phone polls, they will lie just to effect the numbers. That tells me that even the looney left realize that if they continue to ignore facts it will come back to haunt them in the next election. They are afraid that we will see them as they really are; Part of the Anti-American, blame America first crowd!!!!!!!!