Global Warming Is Officially Over, Suck It Greenies!

Like I've been saying for years now (along with several others), mankind did not cause global warming, and mankind has not curbed global warming either. If you listen to Al Gore and his ilk you know that, according to them, man has not done anything to improve the environment ... so don't let them try to take credit here.

No doubt there will be wide spread panic tomorrow in the greenie community to counter this evidence. Their tactic will likely include widespread suppression of the issue by ignoring it. One might think they would try to discredit this info, but they simply can't. The satellite data is nothing new at all, but the greenies ignored it several other times it was published. The greenies have also never responded to NASA's repeated attempts to explain that the sun is the cause of global warming not only here, but on virtually every other planet ... not humans. Why? The answer is simple ... they can't counter the argument, and if they ignore it the idiots out there will never know it even happened. They've also paid no attention to scientists telling everyone that the planet's temperature has fluctuated for the past 10,000 years naturally, and without our help. Hell, even the dinosaurs were the victims of global warming.

I've been celebrating all day now that I know that global warming is officially over.

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

I guess the founder of the Weather Channel was right about global warming being a crock eh? This does explain why scientist have been so baffled, and humbled, by the current weather patterns being so cold.

Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.

As it turns out, NASA was right after all. Gee, who'd have thunk it.

Rest assured my little greenie friends ... the article still spells out doom for our planet because apparently cold is worse than heat. Which means you still have a cause to fight for by simply reverting back to the 1970's mantra that the planet was headed for a deep freeze, and then when it begins to warm again you can restart the cause of global warming. So you see, there is plenty to keep you occupied with. Problem is if global warming is less of an issue than global cooling ... maybe global warming was never a really big deal to begin with.

The way I see it, we need to make some changes, and start recognizing some basic truths.

Even though the US is performing better than the Kyoto countries in reducing carbon emissions we have a golden opportunity to squash the competition by removing all of our climate change restrictions on private business. Furthermore, since we know that carbon credits are a huge scam, that is stealing millions of dollars from the world's populations, we should put an end to these illegal businesses. We should also make sure that Kyoto is properly investigated for causing economic hardships, and needlessly destroying the world's forests.

It is also time that we launch massive investigation into the scientific community to find out which scientist continued to lie and manipulate data about global warming in order to get funding. You should already know the huge amounts of money involved with supporting global warming arguments through funding (over $80 billion). While we are punishing those scientist who have lied about global warming in order to get money ... we should reward the majority of published scientist that were honest by saying man is not responsible, or that there was not enough evidence to say either way. Less than half of published scientist support man-made global warming, so the investigation should go fairly quick.

It's also time that we accept polar bears are not in danger, and in fact are increasing their populations. However, we must be concerned with sea otters. It's time to save the poor little sea otters!

We should also consider not blaming our innocent children for destroying the planet. They have enough on their plate, and they deserve to get a good night's sleep without having nightmares about dieing in the middle of the night because of global warming. At least 6th graders are smart enough to know that man isn't causing global warming. Can you say the same?

We can also buy ourselves some nice SUVs without feeling guilty, and we no longer have to worry about sports cars being outlawed. Why not start eating Ben & Jerry's ice cream again while driving your new SUV. Since we don't have to worry about global warming anymore ... ice cream is safe. Well, not entirely safe ... they still have hidden soy products to slowly kill children and men.

It's a good thing global warming ended when it did so we don't have to worry about mercury poisoning with the CFL bulbs that congress keeps trying to shove down our throat. Whew, that was a close call. Now we can hold off until the even more energy efficient, and perfectly safe, LED bulbs hit the market in mass.

There have been some serious budget issue with regards to global warming that we don't need to worry about anymore either. Those new emissions standards that may ruin America's auto industry won't be necessary any longer. The military and intelligence community can also continue to focus on defending the country and fighting the war on terror without worrying about conducting war games to test how global warming will affect national security.

John Travolta can also stick around on Earth to entertain us with his acting,which is quite good, rather than going to another planet.

One of the best parts of global warming ending is that the UN will finally address the real issues that are causing the genocide in Darfur. Rather than wasting their time trying to tie Darfur to nonsensical theories. The conflict in Darfur predates the United States, it was not caused by global warming.

So you see, there is some work to be done now that global warming is no more. The predators who have preyed upon gullible people need to be punished, and those who stuck up for us rewarded. Even if it's only a thank you, but some funding for their research would be nice. The American people stand to get a windfall in money that the government no longer needs for climate change programs. We can only wait to see how our government will spend that money, but rest assured we won't get it back. My only hope is that it goes for truly necessary programs like veterans assistance, or a super dooper death ray mounted in space to evaporate our enemies. At a bare minimum I hope the money we save, from these now unnecessary programs, will be enough to cover the massive costs of the social programs Hillary and Obama have proposed, because I fear one of them will be president and we don't have the money to cover those programs.

Cornell University Claims Whites Are Genetically Weaker Than Blacks

Since Blogger is sucking right now, and not allowing anyone to upload new layouts while simultaneously refusing to provide technical support on the matter, I haven't been blogging much the past couple of days.

I thoroughly expected the blogosphere to pick up on this story, but I guess they've been too focussed on Obama's fabrications, and Chelsea Clinton. Shockingly enough, the story isn't even a most read on Fox News' website. Why? I don't know, but I am remedying the situation now.

Cornell University has released a controversial study that will accomplish literally nothing more than sowing more discontent among the races, and serve as yet another recruiting tool for white supremacist groups. So let's all pat Cornell on the back, and bask in the racially charged anti-glory that is their latest contribution to useless science.

Fox News:

White Americans are both genetically weaker and less diverse than their black compatriots, a Cornell University-led study finds.

Analyzing the genetic makeup of 20 Americans of European ancestry and 15 African-Americans, researchers found that the former showed much less variation among 10,000 tested genes than did the latter, which was expected.

They also found that Europeans had many more possibly harmful mutations than did African, which was a surprise.

I know I'm supposed to conduct myself as an adult, but ... WTF!

This is the worst case study I've ever seen. First, the test group is only 35 people. Second, there is not an even number of subjects for each race. Essentially we've just learned that, at best, Cornell has no idea how to conduct an accurate, ethical study. All they've done is embarrassed themselves by releasing these results, and attaching their name to the findings. Which brings up the question: Why did they conduct such a study in the first place?

Apparently the goal of these ongoing studies is to find out where the ancestors of global populations came from, and when they migrated to that area. There have also been other larger studies involving other races. I am again left wondering why Cornell's latest endeavor has such a small sample group when the other studies involved hundreds of subjects.

I doubt Cornell's goal was to inflame anyone, but the content of the study is being used to claim racism. If you need proof ... do a search of this topic and read the comments on the few blogs and forums that have addressed it. Some of the findings are pretty inflammatory towards whites, and other findings are not anything new ... thereby rendering this study utterly useless. I'm pretty sure Nicholas Wade covered a lot of the migratory issues in his book "Before the Dawn".

Here's the part where the study outlines the genetic inferiority of European cultures (i.e. whites):

But the Cornell study, published in the journal Nature Thursday, indicates that Europeans went through a second "population bottleneck," probably about 30,000 years ago, when the ancestral population was again reduced to relatively few in number.

The doubly diluted genetic diversity has allowed "bad" mutations to build up in the European population, something that the more genetically varied African population has had more success in weeding out.

So what exactly are these "bad" mutations? What would be a genetic imperfection in a perfectly healthy person with no ailments? Also, how do we know what perfect genetics are in order to map imperfections? What if those imperfections are actually evolution? If man indeed migrated to Europe from Africa they would have had to mutate in order to adapt. In other words ... they evolved in order to better survive. Since when is evolving a genetic imperfection?

Cornell also neglected to take into account any interracial mating that may have happened in the history of the subject's genetic code. I would assume that if two different races mated 200 years ago, it would affect the current subject's genetic makeup. Perhaps in the form of one of these "imperfections."

With all the discrepancies aside ... we have a study by a university that is saying black people are genetically superior , and more diverse, than white people ... and it got published. That's where you are seeing a very logical complaint from white people about this study. Do you honestly think that this study would have seen the light of day if Cornell's findings showed that white people were genetically superior to blacks? Would Cornell have attached their name to the study if this were the case? It's highly doubtful, and most likely would have led to someone getting fired.

Perhaps you are thinking that I'm just race baiting here, but I have proof that any published study that shows whites are genetically superior to blacks is quickly criticized with charges of racism. Do you remember the story of James Watson, a Nobel Prize winning scientist for his part in the unravelling of DNA, and who once ran one of America's leading scientific research institutions, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. He was criticized roundly for saying that Africans were not as smart as westerners.

Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really". He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".

For those of you who remember the story you will recall the constant mini-quotes about what Dr. Watson said, and calls of racism he endured. Dr. Watson had several speaking engagements canceled, he was criticized by his own institutions, suspended from his job, and ultimately was forced to resign his post as a result of the media firestorm about his findings on genetic studies. Keep in mind that this guy is probably the world's foremost expert on DNA.

Unfortunately the MSM didn't publish Dr. Watson's other statements that are pretty pertinent to the issue. He was quoted as saying that he had "hope" that "everyone is equal." Watson also stated that "there are many people of color who are very talented", but that never made it onto the news. The most important statement that Dr. Watson made in his writings is integral to what we are talking about with Cornell University.

"There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."

In other words ... people who evolved in different geographical areas from one another did not evolve in an equal intellectual capacity.

Sound familiar?

Cornell University's study says the exact same thing as Dr. Watson's work suggested. There are only two differences between the two findings. One is that one of the studies illustrated the difference in physical genetics throughout man's evolution. While the other illustrates the intellectual evolution of man. The second difference is that the study showing blacks as superior has not been met with negative publicity in the mainstream. The one that showed whites as superior did.

Both studies outlined the theory that once man left Africa, and began its great migration to other parts of the world, humans became isolated from one another geographically. Thus, as a result of that isolation, humans evolved quite differently from one another ... both physically and mentally. Cornell gives the edge physically to blacks, but Dr. Watson gives the edge mentally to whites. Now that's fair and balanced scientific research. Why the same study with similar findings cost one man his job and reputation, but the other has been met with no negativity just illustrates what an ignorant, hypocritical, PC society we live in.

Conspiracy Alert: Wal-Mart Is Responsible For Bad Economy

We've all heard them before. It is the big bad corporations who really secretly control everything on Earth. They have uber super secret resources, and membership to micro-manage the entire planet. If the economy is good ... it's a conspiracy by the big corporations to rape you in order to make more profit. If the economy is bad ... it's a conspiracy by the big corporations to rape you in order to make a profit. Guess who the big bad evil corporation is this time around? Well, aren't they always the evil ones?

Yahoo:

Defying the gloom that many retailers are feeling, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. expects a more profitable year selling to penny-pinching shoppers after its renewed focus on low prices paid off over the holidays with a 4 percent rise in fourth-quarter profit.

The world's largest retailer, emerging from a yearlong turnaround effort after sales stumbles in 2005 and 2006, said Tuesday that aggressive holiday discounts and improvements in its more than 4,000 U.S. stores boosted sales despite consumer worries.

I wonder how many of Wal-Mart's detractors will acknowledge that Wal-Mart is making sure that people have solid paying jobs, and inexpensive goods to ease the burden of a slowing economy.

Remember The Cop Who Put The 14 Year Old Kid In A Headlock? Yeah, His Spotless Record Is Not So Spotless.

I've been watching a bunch of idiots defending this officer because the kid was "mouthing off."  No ... the kid was asking legitimate questions that officers should be required to answer, and in some states are required to do so.  In any case, it is unnacceptable for an officer to man handle anyone that way, especially a minor, unless they are a threat.  

One of the arguments used by the nitwits to defend officer Rivieri is that he has a spotless record. Well, someone else has come forward with a year old video of the officer in question pushing him around as well.  I encourage you to watch it here.

Apparently officer Rivieri has one hell of a temper, and likes picking on anyone who doesn't walk in a strait line while having eyes forward.  Does that sound like any other historical police forces to any of you?

CNN Producer Fired For Blogging

Here's the thing, you are not allowed to embarrass your employer with a personal blog.  I walk this fine line with my company every day my blog is public.  If you work for a news outlet that has to maintain the appearance of being unbiased ... you can't have a personal blog on the side telling the public that you hate people of a certain political affiliation as this guy has done. As a blogger he knows that other bloggers will expose him for who he is. Which would be extremely embarrassing to his employer, and damage their credibility as a news source.

He doesn't see it that way.

Chez Pazienza, a senior producer for CNN’s “American Morning,” says the network fired him on Tuesday on the grounds that he violated its standards for journalists through his blog, Deus Ex Malcontent.

Mr. Pazienza announced that he had been fired through — what else — a blog post on Wednesday. “What was the reason for my abrupt and untimely dismissal?” he wrote. “You’re reading it. More to come soon.”

It continues ...

A few months ago, Mr. Pazienza was invited to start blogging on The Huffington Post, the group blog founded by Arianna Huffington.

Mr. Pazienza said he has never identified himself in his writing as a CNN producer or as a representative of CNN and has never written about what goes on at work. “I will write about the media in general and, at times, the very sorry state of it, including the TV news media,” he said. “I think I have the right to.”

I'll stop here to address his statements that he thinks he has a right to talk about the media in general. This may be true depending on his conduct policy given to him by CNN, but the moment you begin to show bias that may undermine your employer's credibility, you're in trouble. Writing for the Huffington Post does just that. If conservative bloggers chose to make a big deal of CNN having a producer of one of their programs writing for the Huffington Post ... CNN's reputation would be severely damaged. Given that CNN already has a bad reputation, and has been scrambling to repair it for several months now doesn't help this guys case.

It's not just his affiliation with the Huffington Post that was the problem. It was his venemous writings on his site that sealed his fate.

Deus Ex Malcontent makes no effort to hide its author’s strong views. “I wake up every morning baffled as to why America hasn’t thrown George Bush and Dick Cheney in prison.

He also criticized some other famous people such as Oprah. While I applaud his attacks on Oprah, there could issues with advertising by going after some of the people he wrote about. Nonetheless, CNN can't have one of their producers running around talking about imprisoning people without them knowing about it. Especially since they are in full fledged damage control mode over at CNN.

Mr. Pazienza acknowledges that he did not ask permission from CNN to blog, either on his own Web site or on The Huffington Post. He contends that the policy had not been made clear to employees and was overly vague. “It’s purposely set up so they can be subjective,” he said. “Does that mean I can’t post on a MySpace blog that my friends read? Does that mean I can’t post something online to my wife?” He added that he believed he had been dismissed because of his views.

Here is where he completely missed the point, or didn't read his employee handbook. It doesn't matter if he thinks it was not made clear to him. As someone who works for one of the big media corporations I knew I had to ask permission to have a blog. At the time it was a Myspace page like this guy is talking about. When you work for these companies they make sure you understand what you need permission for. My boss told me what I can and can not write about. If I violate that ... I get fired.

He tries to take it too far by talking about personal posts to his wife and friends. That will not get him fired because it is personal, and won't embarrass CNN. His calling for Bush and Cheney to be imprisoned will draw negative attention to CNN, and that can't stand. He's right that he was dismissed because of his views, but it had nothing to do with how he believes. It's because he put them in aggressive writings that could harm CNN, and he should have known better.

FEMA Will "Relocate" Katrina Victims Instead Of Kicking Them Out On The Street Like They Deserve

I'm getting sick and tired of coddling these "victims." Katrina was a tragedy, and no one is denying that. However, it was a tragedy that happened in August of 2005 ... two and a half years ago! Not only should every one of these people be back in the work force, and at a bare minimum renting apartments of their own, but there is countless cases of fraud being committed by these "victims." It is not them but us, the taxpayer, who are the real victims here.

The reason there is formaldehyde in these trailers is because they are not meant to be lived in for extended periods of time. Everyone involved knows this and has chosen to ignore it in an effort to sacrifice themselves, and their children's health so they don't have to work. Then they can sue the government for more money. This is a classic case of sacrificing longevity for wealth and comfort.

FEMA is not off the hook here either. They are so worried about the public's negative perception of them that they are refusing to do what is right. Which would be to revoke all benefits Katrina victims are currently receiving, and forcing them to return to society by kicking them out of the trailers. This is a two-fold benefit. Not only will they be forced to become productive members of society again, but their health will improve because they are out of those temporary stay trailers. I've written about the trailer issue before.

Here's the latest assault on your emotions by the MSM.

Authorities say they will step up efforts to move hurricane victims out of more than 35,000 trailers now that tests indicate possibly high levels of formaldehyde contamination.

Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator David Paulison made the announcement Thursday.

The Centers for Disease Control has said fumes from 519 tested trailer and mobile homes in Louisiana and Mississippi were on average about five times what people are exposed to in most modern homes.

In some trailers, the levels were more than 50 times the customary exposure levels, raising fears that residents could contract respiratory problems.

FEMA -- which supplied the trailers -- should move people out quickly, with priority given to families with children, elderly people or anyone with asthma or other chronic conditions, said Mike McGeehin, director of a CDC division that focuses on environmental hazards.

"We do not want people exposed to this for very much longer," McGeehin said.

I agree that they should be moved. I just think they should be moved out onto the street. Two and a half years is more than enough time to pull your life together, and the proof is in the majority who actually have. The few that remain behind are nothing but leeches upon society who think they deserve welfare for the rest of their lives because Katrina got their feet wet. Perhaps the toxins in the trailers were sent by mother nature to make sure the weak are weeded out.

NAACP Says Republicans Hate Black People

This story brings up the same warm and fuzzy feelings I got when Kanye West famously spewed butt vomit from his mouth about Katrina.

Here in Vegas we have a free "paper" called the CityLife. It's a typical free city paper ... full of liberals who don't think things through all the time, and advertisements for illegal sexual activity that the police never follow up on. I would like to point out that they have defended me in the past ... so they aren't all bad.

In their current addition there is a story titled "Why are you such a hater? NAACP ranks Nevada lawmakers' voting records. Guess who fails to make the grade?" The article deals with Republican lawmakers in Nevada, and how the NAACP rates their voting records. From the title you can easily see how this is going to play out.

This is how the article starts off:

REPUBLICANS USED TO like black people.

Emphasis NOT MINE.

It then goes on to lie about President Bush, and compare current Republicans with the Jim Crow Democrats. It's a very fun read if you like uneducated race baiting.

I decided that since the CityLife was quoting the NAACP's report, I should probably take a look at it myself. Even though I already knew what it said ... call it white man's intuition. You can find the report here.

It uses a standard grading system employed by most of our schools ... A-F. In the interest of time I will only address the Senate in this post. If you want to do further research on the members of congress you can start here.

Once I opened my list of members in the 110th Senate I began the slightly tedious task of seeing who failed according to the NAACP, and what their party affiliation was. To my utter lack of surprise the NAACP rated all but one Democrat (Johnson) with a passing grade, and all but two Republicans (Snowe, Specter) with failing grades. It should be noted that Snowe and Specter are what you would call faux Republicans. In other words they are mistakes that don't stand up for Republican issues. I would also like to point out the Senator Byrd was given a B by the NAACP, and he is a former klansman who still uses racial epithets.

Given that virtually all Democrats received passing grades, and virtually all Republicans received failing grades ... we must deduce that the NAACP is saying that virtually all Democrats like black people, and virtually all Republicans hate black people. It was also astounding how there were virtually no C average grades.

The NAACP's love 'em or hate 'em report falls well short of reason, and truthfulness. this is also a clear example of intentionally creating a biased "report" in order to fuel racism and hate. The issues the NAACP says they graded the politicians on were nearly all monetary in nature ... not racial. Some have said the hate crimes legislation is racial, but that is only partly true. Quite frankly, if you support hate crimes legislation you are more apt to be racist than those who oppose it. Why are the lives of certain races more valuable than the lives of others? If fact, the hate crimes legislation is in direct conflict with the principals the NAACP was founded upon. It only serves to divide the races ... not bring them together on a level playing field. On top of that, why would you want a third party deciding what is, and is not, a hate crime. Aren't all violent crimes hate crimes?

The truly sad part of the NAACP's arguments is that they seem to say that black people can't succeed without government help. Hardly empowering, or a vote of confidence on behalf of the black community in the United States. Just take a few minutes to read their report on the issues they wanted all members of congress to support, and then research those issues via a third party website like Gov Track or Vote Smart so you don't get biased interpretation of the legislation.

You'll notice that the legislation the NAACP supports suggests that you black folks out there can't succeed unless the government has some special program the help you out. In other words the NAACP thinks you are not self-sufficient, educated, or hard working. They don't seem the think you can't be successful unless you play sports. Republican lawmakers and myself give you far more credit. We also understand that the average black person doesn't walk around believing that all Republicans hate them, and all Democrats love them. Since we understand that, and you understand that ... maybe it's time to make the NAACP understand the same truth.

U.S. & Iranian Navy Clash - Update: Video Added

This is still developing so we may get new information as time goes on.

Five Iranian boats threatened US warships, and said they were going to blow our ships up. The US Navy had just received the order to fire when the Iranians broke off their "attack."

Fox:

Five Iranian Revolutionary Guard speedboats took threatening actions toward three U.S. Navy ships sailing in the Strait of Hormuz on Sunday, FOX News has confirmed.

The U.S. ships — a cruiser, a frigate and a destroyer — were passing through the strait en route to the Persian Gulf when they took defensive action to avoid striking the close by Iranian ships and armed their weapons, but neither side fired any shots.

The small Iranian boats reportedly came within 200 yards of the U.S. ships, and also threw boxes into the water ahead of the U.S. boats before speeding off. It could not immediately be determined what was in the boxes.

The Associated Press, citing an anonymous Pentagon official, said the incident occurred at about 5 a.m. local time Sunday.

"Five small boats were acting in a very aggressive way, charging the ships, dropping boxes in the water in front of the ships and causing our ships to take evasive maneuvers," the Pentagon official said.

"There were no injuries but there very well could have been," he said, adding that the Iranian boats turned away "literally at the very moment that U.S. forced were preparing to open fire" in self defense.

The AP source said he didn't have the precise transcript of communications that passed between the two forces, but the Iranians radioed something to the effect that "we're coming at you and you'll explode in a couple minutes."

I recently responded to a list making its way around the internet on the top 10 things Americans want. I made my own list of the REAL things Americans want, and both addressed the Iranian situation. I pointed out that the ball was in Iran's court. I wonder if the Revolutionary Guard commander will get another medal for this endeavor like he did when they illegally kidnapped the British sailors last year.

The REAL List Of The Top 10 Things Americans Want But Can't Have

There is a list that some nincumpoop made up that is circulating around the net that is alleging to list the supposed "top 10 things Americans want." It is, of course, 10 things that socialists and their liberal allies want ... not most Americans.

The list has made itself popular with the Diggbots (which is enough to discredit the list), and is spreading like wildfire amongst the online liberal community. It appears that Geekarmy.com is the original author of the list. Frankly, I find that hard to believe, but they cite no other source. I just have a hard time believing that a fellow geek would not put any effort into proper research. Usually, we geeks are great with facts. Not so in this case I'm afraid.

I will only list the 10 items below ... you will have to visit their site for the explanation of why each item made their list.

10. Marijuana Decriminalization.
9. Universal Health Care.
8. Stricter Campaign Finance Laws.
7. Equal Aid to Palestinians and Israelis.
6. Reducing Military Spending.
5. Increased Social Spending.
4. Acceptance of the Kyoto Protocol.
3. A Diplomatic Solution with Iran.
2. Pulling Troops out of Iraq.
1. The Impeachment of George W. Bush.

On top of that ridiculous list, that is not backed up by any solid facts, there is a special runner up to the list.

Jurisdiction to the International Criminal Court.

It's a hell of a list, isn't it? It looks a lot more like a the course syllabus for Socialism 101 than anything the average American would want.

The author does cite some some polls, but none of the polls they cite are not contradicted by other polls. Actually, there are usually more polls that say the opposite of what the author is claiming. I'd also like to point out that the author cites Zogby several times. Zogby is notorious for spinning his data to reflect his personal leftist point of view.

Later on I will make the REAL list of top 10 things Americans want, but I want to give short rebuttals to this other list.

10. Marijuana Decriminalization.

This is a spin at best, but not completely inaccurate. Most Americans do support reducing the criminal punishment for using small amounts of marijuana. However, most Americans do not support legalizing marijuana at all. Decriminalization was not the proper terminology to use since most Americans still want growing, selling, and using marijuana to be criminal. Nor would I classify that as a "top 10" want of the American people. There are better things to worry about ... unless you are a pot head, of course.

9. Universal Health Care.

Again ... spin. Most Americans do want an improvement in our health care system, but the polling is all over the place as to whether they want universal health care or not. While most Americans want the government to guarantee that everyone will have health care, this poll shows that only 36% support a completely rebuilt system. Universal health care is health care provided to everyone by the government, and paid for with taxes. It removes the option of choosing your plan, and often your doctor. There is a huge difference between guaranteeing everyone has health care (which we have for emergencies now anyway), and universal health care funded by your tax dollars.

8. Stricter Campaign Finance Laws.

Been there, done that, made things worse. It's called McCain/Feingold, and all it did was limit the constitutional rights of voters to express their support for a particular candidate. Those who support campaign finance reform are those who support censorship, and are threatened by a powerful group of people with a particular point of view that differs from theirs. Anytime you go against the Constitution ... expect trouble.

7. Equal Aid to Palestinians and Israelis.

This is a joke! In fact, it is not even close. The vast majority of Americans support Israel (59%), and do not want any money funneled to the Palestinian Authority. Only 15% of Americans are sympathetic to Palestinians according to Gallup. The highest percent of American sympathy for the Palestinian cause was 18% in 2004-2005. If Palestinian terrorists were to lose control over the people that number would change. Americans know who the enemy is.

6. Reducing Military Spending.

Yet another example of the author's personal opinion being superimposed upon the American public. You can take dozens of polls from the 90's through today, and get a myriad of answers. This is largely due to the ignorance of the civilian population in thinking that the military is the highest funded part of government. It's a pervasive myth, but a myth nonetheless.

We spend far more on unnecessary social programs than we do on defense, but if you break down the departments we pay more for social security than we do on the department of defense. The DOD is a close second to social security as individual departments. There is far more spending cuts available outside of defense that we should examine first. We must also keep in mind that we have several active military campaigns across the world right now, and the military is undergoing a massive modernization effort. Once the new equipment (fighters, aircraft carriers etc.) are in service the budget will go down again.

5. Increased Social Spending.

See above ... most Americans do NOT support higher taxes. It's not that we want more spending on social programs ... it's that we want the money the government already has taken from us spent on the RIGHT social programs.

4. Acceptance of the Kyoto Protocol.

Polls are useless on this question. They run the full gambit of support, or lack thereof, for Kyoto. It is important to note that Kyoto is more popular in the US than it is in the countries that signed the treaty. The US is performing far better than the Kyoto nations are in emissions, and many Kyoto countries are slamming Kyoto for actually harming the environment. Whether you are a greenie or not ... Kyoto is a bad idea all around. You have a better chance at saving the planet with current US policy than you do with Kyoto.

3. A Diplomatic Solution with Iran.

Everyone can agree with this one. No one wants another war. The population is simply split between those who will take action if a diplomatic solution becomes impossible, and those who won't. The ball is in Iran's court. They have got to stop their weapons program (permanently), stop fomenting terrorism, and stop getting into firefights with US troops inside Iraq. Our government will talk to anyone so long as they are not waging war against us, clandestine or otherwise.

2. Pulling Troops out of Iraq.

This could mean a thousand different things. Most Americans don't want an indefinite war. Nor do we want to remain in Iraq without the Iraqis stepping up. However, most Americans want to succeed in Iraq. Since the Iraqis are stepping up, and the surge has been a resounding success, nearly half of all Americans are optimistic. 51% of young people are optimistic about Iraq. Since the Iraqis are kicking the UN out of Iraq and asking us to stay indefinitely ... the point is moot.

1. The Impeachment of George W. Bush.

More fantasy and proof that the author of this list has BDS. 55% of Americans do not support impeachment. Not to mention the reasons given by the author are blatant lies. Bush did not mislead us into war with Iraq. Nor are the wiretaps illegal. Make sure you read the quote at the top of this page from Charles Duelfer saying that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program when we invaded.

The "runner up" desire of the American people is laughable, and doesn't deserve to be addressed. The notion that most Americans want to be under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court rather than the Constitution is nothing but pure anti-American fantasy.

Well, there you have it. The so called "top 10" list is not an accurate representation of the American population at all. My list will be, and I'll put my list up against any as a better overall representation for what the American people really want.

10. Ability To Get Medication Not Approved By The FDA.

I firmly believe that Americans want the choice to get drugs from Canada, and even Mexico. However, most Americans would only support this if the US would not face liability if the medication didn't work as advertised.

9. School Vouchers.

Parents have grown tired of being forced to send their kids to inferior schools that are more worried about attendance than academics. If a school is underperforming parents should have the right to change schools to ensure their child gets a quality education.

8. Politicians To Keep Campaign Promises.

Quite possibly the oldest desire of the American public is for politicians to actually follow through with their promises. It stretches across party lines, but the current situation with Congress highlights this desire perfectly. The Democrats abandoned all of their campaign promises (with the exception of raising the minimum wage ... for most places). Now they are the proud owners of the lowest congressional approval ratings in history.

7. Less Foreign Aid To Unfriendly Nations.

This is a constant source of agitation for the American public. We are fed up with our enemies getting all of our money. There are cases where attempts to buy peace with aid pays off, but there are other cases where there is a pattern of failure. Yet we continue to throw money at the problem expecting a different result (Palestine). That's the definition of insanity.

6. Seriously Reconsider Our Relationship With The UN.

We could lump this one with number seven above, but the UN is its own monster. There are 192 member nations in the UN, and only 47% are free countries. That statistic says a lot about the UN's conduct. They are anti-American, racist, hypocritical, and ineffective. Forget about their support for terrorists in recent conflicts, and refusal to act in others. Then there is the massive amount of criminal activity, and corruption that run rampant there.

We could talk for years about how the UN is not only not good for the US, but not good for the world. These truths are self-evident, and most Americans are sick and tired of footing the bill for an organization that spends its time working against our interests. The US and Japan fund just under half of the UN annually by themselves. That's 2 countries paying half the budget, and 190 paying the other half ... hardly fair. Not only are Americans tired of the UN, but Japan ready to draw a line in the sand as well. You also have Iraq kicking the UN out of their country next year.

5. Less Taxes.

If you feel that Americans want to increase their donations to the government, you are CRAZY! Libs constantly mess this one up. They will frequently say we aren't paying enough taxes right now, and when asked will provide a percentage of our income that they feel is "fair" taxation. Usually, they will throw out a number between 15-25%. Problem is that on average we send 40% of our income to the government in the form of various taxes.

The average family in the US makes around $50,000 a year according to the Census Bureau. That means that family will send $20,000 of their $50,000 income to the government. You'll be hard pressed to find an American who thinks it is acceptable for the average family to send $20,000 to the government every year.

4. An Honest, Unbiased Media.

The reason the new media is becoming so popular is because Americans know the MSM is undeniably slanted to the left. The MSM has had several scandals involving dishonesty in the past couple of years, and people are taking notice. The MSM coverage of Katrina, Rathergate, Reutersgate, and others showed that not only is the MSM getting a lot wrong, but they are flat out lying to us in many cases. I've heard liberals say that conservatives control the media, but the link above proves that wrong. Fox News is also frequently attacked, but they were just ruled the most fair news source on television. All we want is for liberal and conservative news outlets to tell us they are what they are. Stop pretending to be something they are not ... unbiased.

3. Get The Government Out Of Our Lives.

Contrary to what a few fringe groups would have you believe ... Americans do not want government telling them what to eat, what to drive, and what they can and can not say. Nor do they want government banning types of dogs, baseball bats, the circus, and Wal-Mart. We just want our government to behave as our founding fathers intended ... not as the monarchy our founding fathers rebelled against.

2. Fix Immigration.

It's a no brainer, I know. No matter what side of the issue you come down on ... you want it fixed ... NOW!

1. No More Bush Or Clinton In The White House.

Don't get me wrong ... I like President Bush, but we've had a Bush or Clinton in the White House for the past 2 decades. That's 20 years of the same ruling families, and now we face the very real possibility of another 8 years with Hillary. You also can't forget about a Jeb Bush run after Hillary's reign. Frankly, I think the two royal families of our political parties have succeeded in dividing our country in ways that would have been impossible otherwise. Half the country hates the Bushes, and half hates the Clintons. It's time to make a change, and let the healing begin.

Now THAT is a list most Americans can get behind. The previous list was made up by a hardcore lib, was biased, and full of falsehoods. I think mine was far more accurate, crossed party lines, and is truly the top 10 things Americans want the most. What do you think?

Think You Know Which Candidate Best Represents Your Views? Take This Quick Quiz To Find Out Who You Should Support In 2008.

I hope everyone had a great Christmas. I love getting people to sit down and take typology tests to find out what their "true" political affiliation is. Most liberals are more conservative than they thought, and the same goes for conservatives. They just need an objective method sorting through the issues.

I ran across this little quiz (2 minutes tops) that will compare your beliefs with the entire 2008 presidential field. You may think you are supporting the candidate that best represents your views, but you might be wrong. I was slightly off in my thinking. I have had Fred Thompson as my number one guy for a while now followed closely by Duncan Hunter. Well, according to the quiz I had that backwards ... who knew.

Here's my full results.

1. Hunter 68%
2. Thompson 63%
3. Romney 58%
4. Huckabee 55%
5. Giuliani 53%
6. McCain 45%
7. Paul 40%
8. Richardson 23%
9. Edwards 15%
10. Obama 15%
11. Biden 13%
12. Clinton 13%
13. Gravel 13%
14. Dodd 8%
15. Kucinich 5%

Take the quiz yourself and post your results in the comments, and let us know if you were surprised by the results.

Great News! Murder At Two Year Low In Baghdad Boundary Region

Not going to find this in the MSM anywhere, but it is true non-the-less.

Defenselink:

Reported murders in a region adjacent to Baghdad on the city’s eastern boundary have dropped to levels not seen in two years, a senior commander in the region said today.

Barring any extreme spike in murders this month, Army Col. Wayne W. Grigsby Jr., commander of 3rd Heavy Brigade Combat Team, said he expects the year to finish out with as many as 400 fewer reported murders in the area than reported in 2005.

Someone should tell Harry "Pinky" Reid that the surge is responsible for this positive development.

Racist, Genocidal Maniac President Bush Asks For More Funds To Help African AIDS Victims

Maybe the BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) crowd thinks Bush wants to poison them with a fake form of treatment. That way he, Rove, and Cheney can prolong the suffering of these people while they kick back and stuff their faces with popcorn.

WP:

A regal-looking Zambian woman known as "Auntie Bridget" noted that she is both a beneficiary and an implementer of the president's ambitious anti-AIDS initiative. Known as the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the program is devoting about $15 billion over five years to buy antiretroviral drugs, create prevention programs and fund assistance for people suffering from the disease all over the world.

Wait ... does this mean that Kanye was wrong? President Bush DOESN'T want to kill all black people? Naaaaaah?

Let's Face It, Hillary Will Struggle As President Because She Is A Woman

Before I start getting the obligatory hate mail stating that I am a misogynist, I must clarify that I am ok with a woman as president. While there are numerous reasons to not support Hillary, we should not kid ourselves that her gender will inhibit her ability to lead as president.

Last week on my show, my co-host and I were railing Hillary for playing the gender card, and then denying doing so. I have no problem with the gender card being played, but I would like her to admit that she's doing it.

We began to give reasons why Hillary's sex is important to her ability to lead should she win. My co-host, a woman, stated that she wouldn't vote for Hillary because she is a woman ... even if she did like her politics. Simply because of the global situation the US is in right now. Whether you like it or not ... Middle Eastern nations will not respect a woman, even if she is president of the United States.

A young woman called to say that she didn't care what other countries thought of Hillary. She would not allow another country's opinion of Hillary to sway her vote.

On the surface this sounds like the proper attitude in selecting a leader. I immediately reminded her that the Democrats have made it a part of their official platform to attack President Bush because of what other nations think of him ... especially Hillary.

The notion that we should elect a president based on whether they are popular in other nations is laughable. That is what Bush supporters have been saying for years now. However, the Democrats have said the exact opposite. They believe that we should elect a president that is popular in other countries because they feel that will ease relations. The problems is that Hillary is not popular in the most important, and volatile, part of the world that she will deal with as president ... the Middle East.

It is one thing to have the Middle East not like a US president because they are tough. There is at least the possibility of respect if our leader is a man. A woman is not afforded that courtesy. Not only will Hillary be unpopular in the Middle East, but she will have no respect ... simply because she is a woman. Which means she may not be an effective leader for our country when it comes to that part of the world. That could be dangerous.

I cited Condaleeza Rice as an example. Condi is infinitely more intelligent, articulate, experienced, and likable compared to Hillary. Yet she struggles in the Middle East, and you'd be foolish to think her sex has nothing to do with it.

Now this doesn't mean that no woman can be effective in the Middle East as president, but you owe it to yourself, the country, and the world to find out if Hillary is that woman. So far, no one has asked the questions that will allow the voters to determine if Hillary can be effective with her Middle East policy.

So far, all we know about Hillary's Middle East policy is that she would talk to Iran without conditions. She also said she would leave US troops in Iraq, but allow ethnic cleansing without US interference.

What else do we really know about Hillary's Middle East policy? How will she deal with those countries we are not at war with? Can she warm relations with those countries, and how will she do it? How will she stick up for human rights in those countries ... especially women's rights?

While none of those questions have been answered, or asked for that matter, the last one about women's rights could easily have been addressed by Hillary during the last debate here in Las Vegas.

The current situation in Saudi Arabia provided Hillary the opportunity to shine, and show the American people that she will stick up for women's rights ... even if it meant going against an ally.

A woman in Saudi Arabia was kidnapped, and gang raped by seven men. She was originally sentenced to receive 90 lashes from a whip because the man she was with before they were kidnapped was not her husband. Apparently, her family attempted to bring the media into the case. As a result of this effort, the court increased her sentence to 200 lashes and six months in jail. Though people have survived 200 lashes in the past ... they have also died from it. The family said they will appeal the ruling, but have been told by the Saudi court that if she loses the appeal, the sentence will increase yet again.

Now why didn't anyone at the debate ask Hillary (or the other candidates) how they would handle the incident? Oh yeah, I forgot everyone who asked a question was a plant.

Let's not forget that Hillary labels herself a champion of women's rights. What's wrong with asking her to address the current situation in Saudi Arabia? It has everything she would need to prove that she can be a strong leader in dealing with that part of the world. She can prove that she will stick up for women's rights against an ally, and that she has that extra toughness required of a woman to have influence in that region.

She also had the opportunity to criticize the Bush administration for its weak stance on the matter. Yet she is silent ... why?

It is possible she doesn't even know it is happening. She wouldn't be the first candidate to forget about reading the news while campaigning. She may not really care about the woman, and the situation surrounding her. Perhaps she doesn't want to anger a critical US ally in the Middle East ... which warrants criticism. Then there is the possibility that she doesn't want to expose the Middle East's lack of reception to her leadership. All are plausible, and all are very concerning to prospective voters.

We can no longer ignore the fact that Hillary is different from the other candidates, and her gender will provide unique challenges never before encountered by a US president. The American voter needs to assess whether or not Hillary has what it takes to address the challenges we face in the Middle East today. Yet we continue to refuse to ask those all important questions of the defacto next president.

The Founder Of The Weather Channel Says Global Warming Is The "Greatest Scam In History"

Do you all remember when the Weather Channel's Heidi Cullen said the American Meteorological Society should revoke their "Seal of Approval" for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe? Then those who don't believe man is behind global warming were compared to holocaust deniers?

Well, now the person who founded the Weather Channel, John Coleman, is speaking out against those like Heidi Cullen. He says global warming is a huge scam.

Icecap:

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild “scientific” scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmentally conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minute documentary segment.

I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party. However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you “believe in.” It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam.

PWNED!

The guy has been a meteorologist since 1953. You can read more about him here.

I wonder if he'll get as much attention as Heidi did from the MSM when she made her opinions clear ... I doubt it.

Oh, and to make this story even more fun ... he does the weather in San Diego now. That's the same San Diego that just had those major fires that Harry Reid attributed to global warming (at least partly). That was just a few days before Reid started talking about how very cold it was.

60 Minutes Lies About Saddam's WMDs

I'll save the overall argument about Saddam's wmd programs for another time. I'm writing a book about it so I'm not giving out a bunch of free info on the matter. You can always join the over 1,500 people that have taken The Iraq War Test to learn more. Bottom line is that we found BM-21 rockets loaded with sarin and ready to fire during the invasion ... case closed.

The reason I'm focusing on the uranium argument here with 60 Minutes is that the 500 tons of uranium found, and removed from Iraq, is a slam dunk as it is the most reported story of Saddam having banned substances before the invasion. If you don't know the story of the 500 tons of uranium you should ...

1. Recuse yourself from any wmd discussion because you don't know what the hell you're talking about ... and
   
2. You should read on because I will give you more info, and provide you with links to the story.

Now back to 60 Minutes' lying ways.

Before we start in on 60 Minutes it is important to know the highly liberal stance they take. For instance, they did a whole segment on the Appeal for Redress (an anti-war petition from military personnel) a while back, but they refused to provide the same airtime to the Appeal for Courage (a pro-war petition from military personnel) even though the Appeal for Courage has more signatures. I've received the runaround from 60 Minutes about the issue, and I've spoken with LT. Nichols about the matter. For a giggle, you should look at both appeals media page to see the huge distortion in media coverage. LT. Nichols, by the way, is in Iraq.

Last week, 60 Minutes ran this story ...

Did Saddam Hussein have weapons of mass destruction? No, he did not. We've known that for some time now. So where did the intelligence come from that he was building up his arsenal? Fantastically, the most compelling part came from one obscure Iraqi defector who came in and out of history like a comet. His code name, ironically, was "Curve Ball" and his information became the pillar of the case Colin Powell made to the United Nations before the war. Who is Curve Ball and how did he fool the world's elite intelligence agencies?

60 Minutes spent two years, and traveled to nine countries, trying to solve the mystery. We talked to intelligence sources, to people who knew Curve Ball and to people who worked with him. As correspondent Bob Simon reports, Curve Ball's real name has never been made public, nor has any video of him, until now.

A very "unbiased" and "honest" introductory isn't it. Too bad the wmd statements are completely false, but I digress.

We do know that we were fed some bad intel on Iraq's wmd programs ... that is not in dispute. Charles Duelfer said as such in his report, and congressional testimony. He essentially said that Saddam did have the weapons programs, but they were not as advanced as we thought. More on that later.

60 Minutes then went on to out "Curve Ball" as Rafid Ahmed Alwan, and break down how he became an informant. It is important that you know he refused to see any Americans and was interrogated by Germany for a year and a half. Transcripts of what he said were sent to the CIA by Germany. The CIA was actually denied requests to debrief "Curve Ball" before making their case against Iraq to President Bush. 60 Minutes never blames Germany for misleading the US.

60 Minutes also completely ignores that the wmds found before the invasion by the UN. Here's an example, but you have to do the rest of the legwork.

They also ignore that every UN weapons inspector said Saddam was hiding weapons programs before the invasion. Yes I know some of them changed their mind suddenly after years of their own saber rattling. In response to that I would say to check out ex-inspector Richard Butler, and ask yourself why Ritter suddenly went from saying Saddam was hiding weapons to Saddam is a great guy. The answer to that is that Ritter started receiving money funneled out of the oil-for-food scandal, and was essentially paid by Saddam to make an anti-war film. It makes me wonder why other inspectors changed their tune so quickly.

So what did Duelfer really have to say about Saddam's weapons programs? Not what you've heard from your teenage friends on the left-wing blogs ... I guarantee it. Again, the programs were not as advanced as we thought, but he did have them. You can read his congressional testimony here. Listen to this little tidbit that 60 Minutes and others always leave out:

There were also efforts to retain the intellectual capital of nuclear scientists by
forbidding their departure from Iraq and keeping them employed in government areas. However, over time there was decay in the team.

Despite this decay, Saddam did not abandon his nuclear ambitions. He made
clear his view that nuclear weapons were the right of any country that could build them.

He was very attentive to the growing Iranian threat—especially its potential nuclear
component, and stated that he would do whatever it took to offset the Iranian threat,
clearly implying matching Tehran’s nuclear capabilities.

What? You've never heard Duelfer say that before? Curious.

Here's what Duelfer said about the chemical and biological chapters of his report:

Once inspections began in 1991, Iraq chose to yield most of its weapons and bulk
agent as well as the large facilities that were widely known to exist. As in the other WMD areas, Saddam sought to sustain the requisite knowledge base to restart the program eventually and, to the extent it did not threaten the Iraqi efforts to get out from sanctions, to sustain the inherent capability to produce such weapons as circumstances permitted in the future.

Let's recap so far. At a bare minimum Saddam did not declare and destroy all of his wmds, he committed hundreds of violations with respect to conventional weapons (most notably developing long range missiles), and he retained the infrastructure, knowledge and desire to restart his wmd programs once sanctions ended. All things listed as concerns for the future, and reasons for war.

Wait til you hear what Duelfer had to say about Saddam using the oil-for-food program to increase his wmd capability.

Over time, and with the infusion of funding and resources following acceptance
of the Oil for Food program, Iraq effectively shortened the time that would be required to reestablish CW production capacity.

By 2003, Iraq would have been able to produce mustard agent in a period of months and nerve agent in less than a year or two.

Uh huh ... so with the oil-for-food program Saddam was able to buy off at least one UN inspector, and increase his wmd capability. Nice.

Iraq decided to retain the main BW production facility, but under guise of using it to produce singlecell protein for animal feed. These decisions were taken with Saddam’s explicit approval.

Preservation of Iraq’s biological weapons capabilities was simpler than any other
WMD area because of the nature of the material.

What is clear is that Saddam retained his notions of the use of force and had
experience that demonstrated the utility of WMD. He was making progress in eroding sanctions and, had it not been for the events of 9-11-2001, things would have taken a different course for the Regime. Most senior members of the Regime and scientists assumed that the programs would begin in earnest when sanctions ended---and sanctions were eroding.

Duelfer also highlighted the threat of such knowledge being given to terrorists, which Saddam openly supported.

A risk that has emerged since my previous status report to Congress is the
connection of former regime CW experts with anti-coalition forces. ISG uncovered
evidence of such links and undertook a sizeable effort to track down and prevent any
lash-up between foreign terrorists or anti-coalition forces and either existing CW stocks or experts able to produce such weapons indigenously. I believe we got ahead of this problem through a series of raids throughout the spring and summer. I am convinced we successfully contained a problem before it matured into a major threat. Nevertheless, it points to the problem that the dangerous expertise developed by the previous regime could be transferred to other hands. Certainly there are anti-coalition and terrorist elements seeking such capabilities.

Take the statements above with his previous statements to Congress 7 months earlier, and you start to see the picture that 60 Minutes ignored in their latest report.

Iraq did have facilities suitable for the production of biological and chemical agents needed for weapons. It had plans to improve and expand and even build new facilities.

Then there is the dual use chemicals.

With respect to chemical production, Iraq was working up to March 2003 to construct new facilities for the production of chemicals. There were plans under the direction of a leading nuclear scientist/WMD program manager to construct plants capable of making a variety of chemicals and producing a year’s supply of any chemical in a month. This was a crash program.

Most of the chemicals specified in this program were conventional commercial chemicals, but a few are considered “dual use.” One we are examining, commonly called DCC (N,N-Dicyclohexyl carbodiimide), was used by Iraq before 1991 as a stabilizing agent for the nerve agent VX.

Since many of you out there don't believe chemical and biological weapons are "really" wmds ... here's info on Saddam's nuclear weapons program.

Likewise, in the nuclear arena, the ISG has developed information that suggests Iraqi interest in preserving and expanding the knowledge needed to design and develop nuclear weapons.

One significant effort illustrating this was a high-speed rail gun program under the direction of two senior scientists associated with Iraq’s pre-1991 nuclear weapons program. Documents from this project show that the scientists were developing a rail gun designed to achieve speeds of 2-10 kilometers per second. The ostensible purpose for this research was development of an air defense gun, but these speeds are what are necessary to conduct experiments of metals compressing together at high speed as they do in a nuclear detonation. Scientists refer to these experiments as “equation of state” measurements.

Not only were these scientists developing a rail gun, but their laboratory also contained documents describing diagnostic techniques that are important for nuclear weapons experiments, such as flash x-ray radiography, laser velocimetry, and high-speed photography. Other documents found outside the laboratory described a high-voltage switch that can be used to detonate a nuclear weapon, laser detonation, nuclear fusion, radiation measurement, and radiation safety. These fields are certainly not related to air defense.

It is this combination of topics that makes us suspect this lab was intentionally focused on research applicable for nuclear weapons development.

No - he - did - not - just - say - that! Oh yes he did. Charles Duelfer, author of the famously misquoted Duelfer Report did just say that Saddam had a nuclear weapons program.

Duelfer and Kay also stated that they found:

"Uranium-enrichment centrifuges" whose only plausible use was as part of a clandestine nuclear-weapons program. In all these cases, "Iraqi scientists had been told before the war not to declare their activities to the U.N. inspectors," the official said.

Duelfer also went on to talk about the secret missile program that the UN failed to uncover even though Iraq test fired these missiles right under the UN's nose. Duelfer also stated that foreign assistance was utilized in assisting Iraq in these missile programs in violation of UN sanctions.

What were the three countries that were caught violating UN sanctions by assisting Saddam's weapons programs again? Ah yes, I remember, Russia, France and GERMANY! The same Germany that 60 Minutes fails to criticize for feeding us incorrect information from "Curve Ball."

Since we all now know that Saddam did have a nuclear weapons program ... that brings me to the 500 tons of uranium we found in Iraq that so many news agencies choose to ignore these days. Of course, they didn't ignore it when it happened because it was a huge story. How soon we forget eh?

Here's a couple of links for the 500 tons of uranium. Full urls left in place so you know they are separate articles.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/20/85636.shtml

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1516235/posts

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10613FA345B0C718EDDAC0894DC404482

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/13/101911.shtml -- this quotes a NY Times article

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/2/220331.shtml

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040522/news_1n22uranium.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3009082.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3872201.stm

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/12/103450.shtml

Yep ... Saddam had 500 tons of uranium (1.8 tons partially enriched), and a clandestine nuclear weapons program. So how many nuclear bombs could this 500 tons of uranium have produced as a result of this clandestine nuclear weapons program? The answer is 142 nuclear bombs.

Too bad 60 Minutes didn't do any show prep before they ran this story. Especially since they said they spent two years on said story.

Just to add salt to the wound ... a friend of mine stationed in al Asad, Iraq sent me several pictures of chemical warheads. I figured I would share one with you today.


Al Asad is where Saddam's air force was found buried under the sand. Coincidently that's where they found this bad boy. When they removed the protective coverings they discovered that it was loaded with sarin bomblets. Notice that this is not an old, harmless weapon. It is modern, and in very good condition.

Below is a reference image of a US sarin warhead with its bomblets. Again, the bottom photo is older, and from an American warhead. It was not found in Iraq. It is only demonstrating what a sarin bomblet is.


Too bad 60 Minutes hasn't paid attention to what is really coming out of Iraq, and no the pictures are not classified.

NAACP Says Halloween Display Is Racist, Family Forced To Remove It

Warning: The following post will contain some strong language not usually present in my writing, but I am super pissed about this. I have removed letters of certain words, but felt it was appropriate to warn those of you who are regular readers. I'm usually not this personal or confrontational, but given the past couple of weeks with similar stories an aggressive response was warranted.

Update: I have added a poll at the top right of this site. Let us what you think of the display. Is it racist, or not?


Photo Courtesy Of The Daily Record

So much for the NAACP actually becoming a respectable organization again. I had hope for a while there because they had been settling down a bit. The NAACP "seemed" to be getting away from the Jackson/Sharpton ideology. Oh well, it looks like they are back in full force.

The NAACP, along with a couple of oversensitive neighbors, blew a simple Halloween decoration waaaay out of proportion.

The Star Ledger:

Chesla Flood couldn't believe her eyes. A hangman's noose circled the neck of a black-hooded, jeans-clad dummy suspended from the chimney of a house in Madison.

Flood called her mother, Millie Hazlewood, who reported the Halloween display to police. She wasn't the only one. Police went to the property at least three times starting Sunday, and even the mayor asked the homeowners to take down the figure.

The police took time out of their day to harass a family for Halloween decorations, multiple times? The mayor even requested the family take down the decoration? What in the hell is this world coming to that you can't put a commonly used Halloween display up? I can't count how many times I've seen a hangman's noose as part of Halloween decorations, haunted houses, and even my own decorations. These people are acting like this is the first time this has been done. When, in fact, it's somewhat of a traditional display.

So is this the first time this family has used the noose?

D.J. Maines, the 27-year-old son of Cheryl and David Maines, has bedecked the house for seven Halloweens using $5,000 worth of decorations he has collected. He has used the hanging dummy each year.

Nope. He's used the display for 7 YEARS with no incident! Why no incident? Because it's a common display used by thousands of homes across the US!

Finally, the pressure got the family, and they removed the display because they feared for their safety.

At 8 last night, the family relented, saying they feared for their safety.

"It's no more like freedom of speech anymore," Cheryl Maines said. "My son had to take this down because these people have blown this thing out of proportion."

Hell, it doesn't even really have to do with freedom of speech because it is a Halloween decoration!

Here is what the mayor (a white guy) had to say:

Before the figure was removed yesterday, Madison Mayor Ellwood "Woody" Kerkeslager said "the appearance and the suggestion (of racism) is there, and it's inappropriate."

What? How? They didn't show a black person being hung. They showed a person in a black hood being hung. When we used to hang people in this country guess what we did? We put a black hood over their heads!

Now listen to how everyone is trying to tie this story in with other noose stories in the news lately in an effort to paint this family as racist.

At least four recent noose displays -- one each in Jena, La., and Philadelphia and two in New York City -- are drawing renewed attention to a potent symbol of racism, lynchings and the era of Jim Crow segregation.

Unlike those incidents, the Madison figure was part of a Halloween display, and for two days, homeowners Cheryl and David Maines, the borough's superintendent of public works, refused to budge. They said they had done nothing wrong.

ARE YOU F___ING SERIOUS!?

Credit goes to the author for pointing out the obvious ... this was a decoration, at a home, for Halloween. To draw correlations to Jena, La. is insane at best.

Here's where the NAACP jump in, and make complete fools of themselves.

Meanwhile, the state chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People denounced the display as offensive, racist and insensitive.

"I think there are many people who understand the significance of a noose as it relates to the history of African-Americans," said James Harris, president of the NAACP's state chapter. "We thought we lived beyond the era when people felt it was okay to have that type of display."

"As it relates to the history of African-Americans?" F__K YOU!

There is another population that has a history with the noose James ... COWBOYS! And most cowboys were what? White!

Why don't we just make the argument that the display was inappropriate because it might offend criminals. After all, we used to hang criminals exactly as the display is shown ... black hood and all.

"We thought we lived beyond the era when people felt it was okay to have that type of display?" What era are you talking about James? The era when we used to hang people as capital punishment? We HAVE lived beyond that era James. That's why your argument makes no damned sense! We DON'T hang people anymore ... white, black or any other race for that matter. Hence, it was only a Halloween decoration!

The only people who haven't lived past that era is you, James. You and your supporters want old feelings from another time to surface. That way you can foment hate, prove the NAACP is still needed and maybe make a quick buck while you're at it.

To top it all off ... not only are you still living in the past, but you are projecting a falsehood upon this family. You keep talking about racism when there was no part of this display that could be construed as racist by any sane, logical person. So are you fomenting hate James, or are you just lacking sanity and logic?

The family has sworn off holiday decorations for good because of this fiasco. I assume that was the goal all along as there is a concerted effort to remove holiday displays in this country.

Last night, the Maines family said they would be replacing their Halloween display and erecting a sign reading: "Thanks to the assistance of Millie Hazlewood and her friends, Halloween and Christmas decorations will no longer be celebrated here."

This is very sad.

Authorities also said that the display was not illegal, and couldn't be ordered down. If that is the case ... then why did the police harass this family on three separate occasions? I hope the family sues the department for harassment, and I hope they sue the people who complained and the NAACP for violating their civil rights. The mayor should also be a target for lawsuit for his interference.

Read the rest of the article and you'll see a bunch of people who lived through the horrific time where lynching was common, and were offended by the display. The south is featured prominently in the article, but this is taking place in New Jersey so don't be fooled.

The Maines family also responded to those who have a history with lynching.

"Don't bring your ancestors into this -- it's something that happened; you've got to get beyond it or you're going to make yourself sick," she said.

She is right. To bring up history having nothing to do with her or her decorations in an effort to demonize her family is completely uncalled for.

Had the display featured a black person being lynched, I would have supported it being taken down. However, there was no racial undertones at all in the display. This was just another excuse by racists themselves to attack white people.

Here is another picture of the display for you to decide yourself.

The Daily Record