Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Everything Happens Because of Global Warming

At least that's what some Politicians Think Say. And for the most part the MSM agrees. One exception is John Stossel as shown by this The Global-Warming Debate Isn't Over.
First he won the Oscar -- then the Nobel Peace Prize. He's being called a "prophet."
And out of the mouth of the "Prophet" comes the statement that Global Warming is not a Political Issue.
Impressive, considering that one of former Vice President Al Gore's chief contributions has been to call the debate over global warming "over" and to marginalize anyone who disagrees. Although he favors major government intervention to stop global warming, he says, "the climate crisis is not a political issue. It is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity". [emphasis mine]
When is the debate over? Most would agree when your opponent is beaten with facts into submission. Such is not the case for Al Gore's brand of Global Warming. However, Al considers the oratory of a "Prophet" (even if self-declared) to be the final word in any debate.

Gore declares that his facts are bigger than the opposition. So even if a British Judge, and Countless Scientists disagree based on evidence and factual findings the Goracle claims he's right and you're wrong. Gore operates on the following Principal. If the facts don't fit the Theory, throw out the facts, or recount until I win.

Mr. Stossel asks and answers a very important question.
The globe is warming, but will it be catastrophic? Probably not.
Stossel enumerates the inconsistancies of Al Gore's Movie, "An Inconvenient Truth". For instance Al claims the Sea will rise 20 FEET due to polar ice melting, but the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, (who shared his Nobel Award), says 7 to 24 INCHES. Gore claims Polar Bears are drowning due to lack of ice, but only 4 have drowned due to a storm and the Polar Bear population is growing.
And while man's greenhouse gasses may increase warming, it's not certain that man caused it. The most impressive demonstration in Gore's movie is the big graph of carbon-dioxide levels, which suggests that carbon levels control temperature. But the movie doesn't tell you that the carbon increases came after temperatures rose, hundreds of years later. [emphasis mine]
Actual historic evidence shows the Carbon Dioxide (CO2) increase happens about 800 years after a naturally occurring Warming Period. It appears clear that CO2 cannot be responsible for Global Warming. It is an more of a delayed indicator rather than a cause of Global Warming.
John Christy and Roy Spencer, who won NASA's Medal for Exceptional Achievement for figuring out how to get temperature data from satellites, agree that Earth has warmed. "The thing that we dispute is, is it because of mankind?" Spencer says.
Scientific Data show that Natural Volcanic action contributes about 50% of the CO2 to the atmosphere.
Some scientists say the warming may be caused by changes in the sun, or ocean currents, or changes in cloud cover, or other things we don't understand. If it's all man's fault, why did the Arctic go through a warm period early last century? Why did Greenland's temperatures rise 50 percent faster in the 1920s than they are rising now?
Good questions. What does Al Gore say in answer to these questions? Nothing, because he refuses to debate anyone and everyone on the issue of Global Warming. (This refusal to debate is one reason he will not run for President. If he were to Campaign, he would have to defend his views.)
The media also treat the IPCC as impartial scientists, but Reiter and Christy, who were members of the IPCC, say it is not what the public thinks it is. Many of the people involved in writing its report "are not scientists at all," Reiter says. "They were essentially activists." Members of groups like Greenpeace were involved. Skeptics were often ignored. [emphasis mine]
Many of the Scientists who were part of the IPCC resigned, but their names still appear on the IPCC Reports.
Skeptics like Reiter, Christy, Spencer and Tim Ball, who studies the history of climate change and heads the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, are often smeared as "deniers," lumped in with Holocaust deniers and accused of being "on the take" from energy businesses." Gore impugns skeptical scientists by saying "the illusion of a debate has been purchased."
Many of the Scientific Studies which conflict with the Chicken Little Global Warming Alarmists screed, do not receive money from Exxon or any of the other Energy Companies, Energy Groups or Energy Lobbyists. The ones who do receive far less than the money available to the Global Warming Alarmists like Al Gore.

The rule of debate invoked by Al Gore is classic. If you can't win on the facts, don't debate the issues, smear the opposition with personal attacks.

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Politicians Are Slow Learners

Party affiliation does not matter to Politicians when it comes to Earmarks, commonly known as Pork. Most Politicians support this waste of Taxpayer dollars, while most of the public does not. One of the reasons the Republican Party lost control of both the House and Senate, was Earmarks. For Politicians, Earmarks are an addiction. All Politicians need remedial Earmark education.

Here is more proof that Senate Republicans are not getting passing grades in this class. Oink! Oink! Senate Republicans still slobbering over earmarks names names and points fingers at the Republicans needing a wake-up call on this issue.

While Democrats are also guilty of this practice, one would think the 2006 Mid-Term Elections would have had some effect on both parties, but especially the Republicans. It appears we, the Voters, will have to take matters into our own hands. We need to stop voting for any Politician, regardless of party, who supports Earmarks.

Thursday, October 18, 2007

Birds of a Feather

We are known by the company we keep. Since on of Hillary's Closest advisers is a person Convicted of Stealing Classified Documents. This makes a very clear statement about Hillary Clinton's Character. In an article at, Ronald A. Cass makes this point, and we should all consider the implications. (Sandy Berger and the Real Hillary Clinton)
Sandy Berger isn't just a former National Security Advisor - he's also the only National Security Advisor in U.S. history to be convicted after stealing and destroying classified documents.
Many will judge Hillary other issues. There are many issues on which she is out of touch with the Average American. For me this one issue is enough to reject her at the polls.

Monday, October 15, 2007

Global Warming - Non-Issue (Politically)

Blog Action Day Post

First, please note that I consider Global Warming an issue, but not one needing Political Mandated Legislation.

Greenhouse Gases, and Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in particular, are claimed by Global Warming Alarmists to be responsible for "run-away" Global Warming. The Alarmists also claim the Earth will suffer cataclysmic disasters unless actions begin immediately to eliminate Carbon Emissions in the form of CO2. The reason CO2 is so often mentioned is simple. We really can't do much about the other Greenhouse Gases.

The major greenhouse gases are: water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane and ozone. Of these gases, water vapor is by far the largest component and the one over which mankind has the least control. Carbon Dioxide is the only one of the remaining 3 over which mankind has any real chance to control. And about 1/2 of the atmospheric carbon dioxide comes from natural causes (mainly volcanoes).

It is generally accepted that much of the atmospheric CO2 increase during the last 150 years is most likely due to mankind's increasing use of Fossil Fuels (Oil, Gas and Coal) to produce energy. However, the scientific evidence is not yet clear as to several things. Therefore, before we go off the "High Dive into the Global Warming pool", it would be wise to insure that there is water in that pool.

Last month the OpinionJournal of the Wall Street Journal published an excellent article Chill Pill by a former Governor of Delaware, Pete Du Pont.
There is both global warming and global cooling on the planet Earth. There always has been and there always will be, because temperature change is cyclical: The Earth's temperature oscillates up and down, ebbs and flows, over decades and centuries. Sometimes the earth warms, as it did in the Roman Warming period (200 B.C. to A.D. 600), the Medieval Warming period (900 to 1300) and in modern times from 1910 to 1940. And sometimes it cools, as it did in the Dark Ages (600 to 900); the Little Ice Age (1300 to 1850) and from 1940 to the late 1970s.
As Mr. Du Pont notes, the Earth naturally goes through cycles of cooling and warming. It is known that the Vikings cultivated Greenland and in fact there is a reason it is called Greenland not Whiteland.

While CO2 is one of the Greenhouse Gases, it's role in the Earth's Climate Change Cycles is not clear. The levels of CO2 have risen and fallen in the past, but not necessarily in direct correlation to Earth's Temperature Cycles.
For example, about half of the global warming increases since the mid-1800s occurred before greenhouse gas emissions began their significant increases after the 1950s, and then temperatures declined well into the 1970s when CO2 levels were increasing.
Recently it was discovered that a mistake in US yearly temperatures shows that the widely held idea that 1998 was the Warmest Year is wrong. When the error was corrected, 1934 became the Warmest Year, and 5 of the 10 Warmest Years occurred before 1940, when CO2 levels were relatively low.
During the 20th Century the earth warmed by one degree Fahrenheit, and today the world is about 0.05 degree warmer than it was in 2001. These small increases have led the global-warming establishment to demand that we adopt the international Kyoto policy of stopping the growth of CO2 emissions so that global warming does not destroy us all. Or in Al Gore's words, "At stake is nothing less than the survival of human civilization and the habitability of the earth for our species."
Mr. Gore is a recent recipient of a Nobel Peace Prize. However, his "claims" as presented in Mr. Gore's Movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" are not backed up by hard evidence and facts. Recently a British Court found that Mr. Gore's Movie could not be shown in British Schools without a disclaimer due to the films errors. The court found that the errors were so great that it is more Political Propaganda than Scientific Evidence. Quoting again form Mr. Du Pont's Editorial.
Six years ago Danish scholar Bjorn Lomborg's "The Skeptical Environmentalist" took a look at the global-warming data and found it to be far less threatening than the Gore globalists were claiming. Mr. Lomborg's new book "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide To Global Warming," makes the case that while "global warming is real and man-made," the Kyoto approach is the wrong way to improve the lives of the world's people.
The Kyoto Accord was rejected by the US Senate on July 25, 1997. The Vote was 95-0! At the time, Al Gore, Jr. was presiding over the Senate as the Vice President of the US (The VP can only cast tie-breaker votes). Mr. Du Pont continues with these interesting statements.
Global warming is supposedly killing people. The 35,000 deaths from the August 2003 European heat wave were, in Al Gore's view, an example of what "will become much more common if global warming is not addressed." But the actual data put things in perspective. Whereas 2,000 people died in the United Kingdom in that heat wave, last year the BBC reported that deaths caused by cold weather in England and Wales were about 25,000 each winter, and 47,000 a year, in the winters of 1998 to 2000. Similarly, in Helsinki, Finland, 55 people die each year from heat and 1,655 from cold. In Athens, Greece, a much warmer place, the deaths from excess heat are 1,376 each year and the deaths from cold 7,852. All told, Mr. Lomborg calculates that about 200,000 people die in Europe each year from excessive heat, and 1.5 million from excessive cold.
Sometimes the fact of a situation present very interesting conclusions, when one steps out of the box of conventional thinking. But there's more.
The final table in the book dramatically makes the case. Fully implementing Kyoto would cost $180 billion per year, but for $52 billion per year we could do much better by tackling the challenges Mr. Lomborg mentions. The world would avoid 28 billion malaria infections (and 85 million deaths) over a century, instead of Kyoto's avoidance of 70 million infections (and 140,000 deaths). There would be one billion fewer people in poverty instead of Kyoto's one million fewer, and 229 million fewer people would suffer from starvation rather than Kyoto's two million.
The evidence presented here clearly indicates that there are better places, with a much higher cost/benefit ratio, to spend our money.

For an idea of the Political Cost of Global Warming Legislation, look here.

For more on why Al Gore, Jr. may be pushing for Political Legislation to control Global Warming, see this previous post. For more on Global Climate Change, look here.

Finally, if you have the time, view this Video. Caution, it's about an hour and a quarter in length.

H/T Flopping Aces

Sunday, October 14, 2007

Gore Looses New Hampshire

Al Gore, Jr. has become one of the most heralded winners of The Nobel Peace Prize. The New Hampshire Union Leader Newspaper is underwhelmed. Todays on-line edition calls Gore's prize: A fraud on the people.
Five Norwegians gave a prize to Al Gore, and all the world is supposed to heed his counsel henceforth. No, thanks.
The article continues with an explanation of the purpose of the Prize as set-up by Alfred Nobel.
Alfred Nobel felt horrible about the uses to which his invention -- dynamite -- was put. So he endowed the Nobel Peace Prize and instructed that it go "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

Al Gore has done exactly none of those things.

Gore, however, did write a book and make a film about global warming. He has become the second environmental activist to win the peace prize in the past four years. Wangari Muta Maathai won it in 2004 for planting trees. [emphasis mine]
Maybe it is too kind to say they are underwhelmed. Sounds more like they are outraged. In fact a fraud on the people is what they called this award.
Thus we have indisputable confirmation that the Nobel Peace Prize is no longer a serious international award. In 1994 the five Norwegian politicians who award the prize gave it to the murdering thug Yasser Arafat. Two years before that they gave it to literary fraud Rigoberta Menchu, whose autobiography was largely fabricated. (An example: The brother she supposedly watched die of malnutrition was later found by a New York Times reporter to be very much alive and well.)
Has the Nobel Peace Prize become a meaningless award? Should the IRS consider removing the Tax Free Status from the Award? It sounds like the Union Leader would not be offended by this measure, rather they would probably applaud.
On Friday the prize was given to Al Gore and the International Panel on Climate Change. Two days before, a British judge ruled that Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth," contained so many errors (read: lies) that it could be shown in British public schools only if accompanied by a fact sheet correcting the errors.

The Nobel Peace Prize is worse than a joke. It's a fraud. It is such a transparent fraud that the five Norwegian politicians who award it have been reduced to defending their decision by concocting elaborate rationalizations. This year they laughably claimed that Gore deserves the prize because, well, global climate change" may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the Earth's resources," and "there may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars." (Emphasis added by the Union Leader.)
Next a little sarcasism from the Union Leader.
And Islamic terrorists may give up jihad and sing Kumbaya after listening to old Cat Stevens records. But that's no basis for distributing the world's formerly most prestigious prize.
Prior posts here have already shown my view towards the Goracle. (Here, here and here, for starters) The Union Leader exemplifies the independent spirit of the New Hampshire populace.
If winning this useless medal prompts Al Gore to get into the presidential race, which we doubt, the irony will be that the American people will turn a more skeptical eye to His Smugness than the Nobel committee did.

The American public won't accept at face value Gore's self-righteous proclamations or his self-serving predictions of looming global catastrophy. And Gore has to know that, which is why he will almost certainly stick to the world of make-believe -- Hollywood and International Do-Goodery -- where he can pretend to be the great sage and savior he wishes he really were and left-wing Europeans and thespians try to convince us he is.
For more posts on the General subject of Global Warming click the link.

Touch Screen Voting Machines

Much was made of the 2000 Florida hanging chad endless recounts. It was a real problem and it was amplified by repeated handling of the punch cards. Each time the card was handled for a one of the repeated recounts, the potential for dislodging chads increased. The recounts, therefore, had the potential to change the outcome of the election, and thereby the will of the people. It is an outdated system and needed to be changed.

In many ways the Florida 2000 mess reminded me of the problem NASA encountered during the beginning of the space program. Current pens would not write in zero gravity. So NASA spent something like 6 million dollars to create a pen that did not require gravity to leave its mark. The Russians used a pencil. So too we often out fox ourselves to solve problems.

Florida is one case currently facing a financial headache of monumental proportions. Voting Machines Giving Florida New Headache from New York Times online has the details. Florida has declared the "Touch Screen Voting Machines" cannot be used because they don't leave a paper trail. Without a paper trail, recounts are suspect and therefore have about as much confidence level as the old punch cards.
Across the nation, jurisdictions that experimented with touch-screen voting after 2000 are starting to scale back or abandon it based on a growing perception that the machines are unreliable and concern that they do not provide a paper trail in case questions arise. California will sharply scale back touch-screen voting next year after a review by the secretary of state found it was vulnerable to hackers.
Having served for the past few years as an Election Judge in Cook County Illinois, I have some experience with "Touch Screen" machines. As in Florida, the machines we use are products of Sequoia Voting Systems. But apparently Cook County spent the extra money for the "Deluxe" model, because our machines unlike the Florida machines do have a paper trail. We also have optical Scan Machines for those who prefer a paper ballot.

The value of a paper trail is however, lost on some of the Cook County Voters. Cook County "Touch Screen" machines require on screen approval and an approval of a visible paper trail printing of each voters ballot choices. If at any point in this voting process, even after the printed choices are displayed, each voter is given the chance to make changes.

Interestingly, according to Illinois Law, any voter who leaves before finalizing his ballot is considered a "fled voter" and none of his/her choices are recorded. To Be Counted, a ballot must be inserted and counted by optical scan or by completing and approving the entire process, including the printed paper trail, on a "Touch Screen" Machine. Partially completed ballots are voided and cannot by law be cast or recorded.

Only after the Voter has visually approved both the on screen visual and the printed ballot is the ballot cast. If changes are made during the Printed Ballot process, the Printed Copy is Visibly Voided in Print and must be approved again both on screen and in print before being cast. To most voters, this is a needless process. One value which Cook County Voters have, but most don't appreciate.

As an additional feature and "Touch Screen" advantage, "Over Votes" are not permitted, and "Under Votes" must be approved by the Voter before the machine will allow the ballot to be cast. "Over Votes" indicates that the voter has made too many choices. In this situation, no votes will be counted for that office, but any correctly made choices will be recorded. "Under Votes" indicate that some offices remain unselected. "Under Voting" is acceptable if the Voter specifically approves the "Under Vote". After all, sometimes no candidate is preferable to those running.

Optical Scan Machines also notify the voter of "Over Votes", which then must be approved or remrked by the voter. However, to change an "Over Vote" Optical Scan Ballot, the original ballot is marked "Spoiled", signed by 2 Judges and the Voter must make all his/her choices again. Optical Scan Ballots do not notify the voter of "Under Vote" situations.

Both Systems do allow Write-In Candidate Votes to Be cast. Plus the "Touch Screen" Voting Machines have provisions for the handicapped. There is a Braille keypad, an Audio option and even "sip and puff" for those who need these features.

In order to save some money in Florida, the no paper trail option was a costly choice. My experience with the Cook County "Touch Screen" machines shows that they are quick, easy to use and with the paper trail, less susceptible to voter fraud than other systems. Even the Optical Scan Paper Ballot is not as easy to use, and could be more easily changed after the voter has cast his/her choice.

Secure The Border(s) - It's Worth the Wait

W. Ralph Basham, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner, says it's worth the wait to secure the border. In his article, Secure Border is Worth the Wait, Mr. Basham makes the following claim.
But any way you look at it, a safer, more secure border is well worth the investment and the wait.
That line is the final line from Mr. Basham's article. The beginning of states the following key points.
  • All vehicles are now being scanned for radiation and;
  • In fiscal 2007, 270 people with known terrorists ties were identified attempting to enter the country.
If 270 people with Known Terrorist Ties were prevented from entering the country at the border, how many more crossed without being detected? The potential damage inflicted by 19 Terrorists on September 11, 2001 indicates what can be done by those with an evil purpose.

In many instances, increased border enforcement will inconvenience some legal entrants, but it is obviously preferable to the alternative.
To keep bad people and bad things from entering America, at a minimum we scan all vehicles for radiation and check all individuals for proper documents. This process is not a bureaucratic game, but a security imperative. At our 99 land ports of entry, we processed just under 300 million people last year. We spend approximately 45-60 seconds with each person at the primary inspection booth, where we check for terror watchlist matches, outstanding criminal warrants, public health and narcotics lookouts and other indications of risk. Those who present some concern and require additional scrutiny are then referred for secondary inspection.
From this article we learn that 300 million people were screened, and now the results that Mr. Basham says make it worth the wait.
This process has yielded approximately 25,000 arrests during the 2007 fiscal year that just ended, a 10 percent increase over the previous year and a two-thirds increase from the launch of DHS in 2003. Keep in mind that these arrests are more than just a number; they represent the capture of murders, drug dealers, child molesters and potential terrorists. We’ve kept 300 tons of marijuana from entering the U.S. through the ports, as well as 93,000 pounds of cocaine. Last year we encountered 270 people suspected of having terrorist ties.
I believe we need to be aggressive in enforcing our border security for many reasons. This is one of them and is reason enough for Congress to Fund, Build and Staff the Border, Both of them.

Nuclear Syria?

In early September this year, Israel attacked and destroyed something in Syria. Of course Syria complained about the attack, but oddly, so did North Korea. Even more surprising was the lack of information from all, especially Israel. Normally Syria and Israel would be leaking information about this incident like a sieve. But after this Israeli Military Air Strike, a virtual black hole developed. Normally this would call for Banner Headline News and Government chest thumping from all sides. In this case after initial one line Government Statements, almost nothing.

It is therefore not surprising that speculation runs high that what little information and rumor about this raid is known, the information supports the idea that something very big happened. North Korea, silence from Israel and Syria, could indicate a Syrian Nuclear facility and aid from North Korea. North Koreans are thought to have been killed by this attack in Syria. It seems likely that the attack involved Nuclear Expansion.

Analysts Find Israel Struck a Nuclear Project Inside Syria from the online New York Times is the latest to make this link.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 — Israel’s air attack on Syria last month was directed against a site that Israeli and American intelligence analysts judged was a partly constructed nuclear reactor, apparently modeled on one North Korea has used to create its stockpile of nuclear weapons fuel, according to American and foreign officials with access to the intelligence reports.
In 1981, a similar Israeli attack set back the Iraq Nuclear Capability many years. But some, including American Analysts, believe the attack was premature. The Reagan Administration officially condemned the 1981 attack, while the Israeli government considered it one of their finest military victories.
Many details remain unclear, most notably how much progress the Syrians had made in construction before the Israelis struck, the role of any assistance provided by North Korea, and whether the Syrians could make a plausible case that the reactor was intended to produce electricity. In Washington and Israel, information about the raid has been wrapped in extraordinary secrecy and restricted to just a handful of officials, while the Israeli press has been prohibited from publishing information about the attack.
The Bush Administration has remained concerned about the effect of this attack. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates have expressed this concern for the implications of a pre-emptive strike in the absence of an urgent threat.

The silence from the principals, and everybody else concerning this attack is very unusual.
In his only public comment on the raid, Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, acknowledged this month that Israeli jets dropped bombs on a building that he said was “related to the military” but which he insisted was “not used.”

A senior Israeli official, while declining to speak about the specific nature of the target, said the strike was intended to “re-establish the credibility of our deterrent power,” signaling that Israel meant to send a message to the Syrians that even the potential for a nuclear weapons program would not be permitted. But several American officials said the strike may also have been intended by Israel as a signal to Iran and its nuclear aspirations. Neither Iran nor any Arab government except for Syria has criticized the Israeli raid, suggesting that Israel is not the only country that would be disturbed by a nuclear Syria. North Korea did issue a protest.
The Bush Administration also refuses to discuss this matter.
The White House press secretary, Dana Perino, said Saturday that the administration would have no comment on the intelligence issues surrounding the Israeli strike. Israel has also refused to comment.
There are 2 different paths to enriched nuclear material used nuclear weaponry.
Nuclear reactors can be used for both peaceful and non-peaceful purposes. A reactor’s spent fuel can be reprocessed to extract plutonium, one of two paths to building a nuclear weapon. The other path — enriching uranium in centrifuges — is the method that Iran is accused of pursuing with an intent to build a weapon of its own.

Syria is known to have only one nuclear reactor, a small one built for research purposes. But in the past decade, Syria has several times sought unsuccessfully to buy one, first from Argentina, then from Russia. On those occasions, Israel reacted strongly but did not threaten military action. Earlier this year, Mr. Assad spoke publicly in general terms about Syria’s desire to develop nuclear power, but his government did not announce a plan to build a new reactor.
Whatever was located at the attack site appears to have been discovered by Israeli satellite photography. It is believed Israel was the first to detect the possible nuclear activity, and then brought it to the attention of the Bush Administration. North Korean involvement is interesting, and very likely significant.
North Korea has long provided assistance to Syria on a ballistic missile program, but any assistance toward the construction of the reactor would have been the first clear evidence of ties between the two countries on a nuclear program. North Korea has successfully used its five-megawatt reactor at the Yongbyon nuclear complex to reprocess nuclear fuel into bomb-grade material, a model that some American and Israeli officials believe Syria may have been trying to replicate.

The North conducted a partly successful test of a nuclear device a year ago, prompting renewed fears that the desperately poor country might seek to sell its nuclear technology. President Bush issued a specific warning to the North on Oct. 9, 2006, just hours after the test, noting that it was “leading proliferator of missile technology, including transfers to Iran and Syria.” He went on to warn that “the transfer of nuclear weapons or material by North Korea to states or non-state entities would be considered a grave threat to the United States, and we would hold North Korea fully accountable.”
President Bush has not repeated his warnings about North Korea. This silence is likely because of the delicate balance and sensitive negotiations while the 6 party talks between North Korea, the US and 4 other nations, continue in an attempt to convince North Korea to end their Nuclear Weaponry ambitions.
While the partly constructed Syrian reactor appears to be based on North Korea’s design, the American and foreign officials would not say whether they believed the North Koreans sold or gave the plans to the Syrians, or whether the North’s own experts were there at the time of the attack. It is possible, some officials said, that the transfer of the technology occurred several years ago.

According to two senior administration officials, the subject was raised when the United States, North Korea and four other nations met in Beijing earlier this month.
Whatever happened on September 6th remains a mystery and therefore subject to speculation. But there is an excellent chance that the speculation about Syrian Nuclear Facilities and North Korean aid are correct.

One important detail is left out of the New York Times article, however. That is the fact that Syrian Air Defenses were unable to prevent Israeli Air Attacks. This is siginificant because the Syrian Air Defense System was an advanced Russian System similar to, but more advanced than the Russian System in Iran.

We continue to watch for further developments.

Friday, October 12, 2007

Al Gore - Nobel Peace Prize Winner????

Considering the fact that Al Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth", has questionable facts, and that it has nothing to do with Peace, the action of the Nobel Peace Prize committee is surprising. A British Court has recently correctly decided that "An Inconvenient Truth" is not Scientific fact, but rather Political propaganda.

The Telegraph of Britain on-line article, What has Al Gore done for world peace?, raises some good reasons for calling this a bad choice. Frankly, I believe it ranks with the past Nobel Peace Prizes given to Jimmy Carter and Yasar Arafat, and the Telegraph is not very kind to the Goracle.
So Al Gore is the joint winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. Admittedly, he has to share it with the United Nations’ climate change panel - but, even so, I think we need to declare an international smugness alert.
But smugness is not the end of their characterization of Mr. Gore. They follow with this comment.
The former US Vice-President has already taken over from Michael Moore as the most sanctimonious lardbutt Yank on the planet. Can you imagine what he'll be like now that the Norwegian Nobel committee has given him the prize?
According to the Telegraph, Al Gore is not only a hypocrite,
More to the point, can you imagine how enormous his already massive carbon footprint will become once he starts jetting around the world bragging about his new title?

Just after Gore won an Oscar for his global warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth - in which he asked American households to cut their use of electricity - the Tennessee Centre for Policy Research took a look at Al's energy bills.

It reckoned that his 20-room, eight-bathroom mansion in Nashville sometimes uses twice the energy in one month that the average American household gets through in a year. The combined energy and gas bills for his estate came to nearly $30,000 in 2006. Ah, say his defenders, but he uses rainwater to flush his lavatories. Is there enough rainwater in the world, I wonder?
he is also guilty of exaggerations and unsubstantiated claims.
Gore claims that the rises in carbon dioxide and temperature over 650,000 years show an "exact fit". That's wrong, says Mr Justice Burton: there is a connection, but not a precise correlation.
And then there is this.
Gore predicts sea levels rising by up to 20ft in the near future. Not so, according to the judge: that will happen only after millions of years.

Those low-lying Pacific atolls that Gore claims have been evacuated? No evidence. Polar bears who drowned swimming to look for ice? Again, no evidence: four bears have drowned - but because of a storm.
As the article makes clear, he may not be a liar, but he is an "exaggerator and a braggart".
In 1999, he boasted about having uncovered the most famous toxic waste site in America ("I found a little place in upstate New York called Love Canal"). Yes, but Love Canal was already notorious by the time Gore "found" it.

That's typical of his arrogance, says the non-partisan US politics website Skeleton Closet: "When he says the words 'little place', you can feel him struggling to contain his pleasure with his good deeds."
And he has serious trouble withe his memory.
Gore struggles with his memory, too. "I certainly learnt a lot from 3,000 town hall meetings across …Tennessee over a 16-year period," he told National Public Radio. And so he would have, had he actually attended 187 town hall meetings a year, which is what it works out as: he might even have managed to hold his home state in 2000.

But my favourite Gore memory lapse is his account of being sung to sleep with the lullaby Look for the Union Label, written in 1975. How sweet: being sung to sleep by your parents at the age of 27.

Then there's his evasiveness on the subject of alleged ethical violations. He resorts to "legalisms", says Skeleton Closet: although he might technically be in the right, "he has such a tin ear for the way normal people talk that he sounds like a mafia don".
In addition to Al Gore, Jr.'s memory, exaggeration and arrogance what does the Global Warming question have to do with World Peace?
Climate change is a threat to the environment, not to "peace" and international order. The prize has gone to some sleazy recipients in the past, but at least you can make a case that their actions staved off bloodshed.

Lumping together global warming and terrorism, as David Cameron did in his conference speech, is a rhetorical sleight of hand typical of opportunistic politicians who are trying to hoover up liberal and conservative votes at the same time. I don't think that description applies to the Tory leader, but it sure as hell fits Albert Gore, Jr.
When it comes to big heads, Al Gore, Jr. was already one of the biggest. Now I'm afraid he will be even more insufferable.

Monday, October 8, 2007

Illegals Issued IDs

Illegal immigrants issued ID cards reminds us of some of the problems caused by the "Bleeding Heart Liberals" and the "Amnesty" for illegal aliens policy. Let's start with the following paragraph from the article and consider through to the conclusion(s) of these actions.
Illegal immigrants are getting driver's licenses and identification cards in cities and states that are bucking the national trend to take official documents and public benefits away from them.
We are a wealthy nation who should take care of the less fortunate. Sounds good, but think about what that involves for a minute. Do we really want to encourage all who have less, which is most of the World, to illegally enter our country so they can get on the benefit rolls? Then ask who do you think will pay for all these benefits?
New Haven, Conn., began issuing municipal ID cards in July to all residents, including illegal immigrants. New York will join eight other states in giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, starting in December.

Gov. Eliot Spitzer "believes it's important to bring a significant population in New York state out of the shadows … (and) allow them to participate in the economy," Motor Vehicles Commissioner David Swarts says. [ellipsis in original; emphasis mine]
Notice the use of the word "participate" above. There are 2 ways to participate. Participators can put into or take out of the economy. They can be either contributors or beneficiaries.

It would be wise to look at the potential for each type of participant. How likely is it that these would be highly skilled or highly educated individuals? The evidence indicates it is more likely that they will be poorly skilled and uneducated immigrants. Therefore, it also seems likely that the great preponderance of the illegal immigrants will be "participants in the economy" as beneficiaries. Like most immigrants, they come to America because of the opportunity to improve their socio-economic situation. After all, if they had opportunity in their native land, they have no need, and little desire, to illegally enter the USA.

We are the most generous country in the world, but there is a limit to our generosity. We simply cannot support the entire world. By allowing illegal immigrants access to the wealth of our country, we will taxing (pun intended) our legal population beyond their capacity to pay. To this mix, we must add the criminal element that is assimilated into our society as illegal immigrants. (Do some research on MS13)

As the article points out, there are some illegal aliens who are hard working and will contribute positively to our economy, but the cost/benefit analysis shows that the cost exceeds the benefits of granting "official documents" to illegal immigrants. The fact remains, they came to a country which became great because we are a country of Laws, equally applied to all. The illegal immigrants broke the law and continue to break the Law by staying in America.
Tom Fitton, president of the conservative Judicial Watch, says the cards "raise the specter of local governments conspiring with illegals to help them stay here."

"In the least, they undermine federal law," he says, "and at worst, they violate the law."

Friday, October 5, 2007

Political Global Warming

The Groupthink Global Initiative appears to have as it's agenda the implementation of costly and drastic life-style changes mandated by Political Solutions Worldwide. Political Solutions to the Global Warming Crisis which may not be a crisis. And even if it were a crisis, Global Warming may be something which we can do almost nothing to prevent. Global Warming is one of those issues that could prove that the cure is worse than the illness. So much worse that the patient (Earth) could die from the effects of the Political Cure.
One would expect some diversity of opinion at a gathering of heads of government, CEOs and nonprofit organizations from different sides of the political spectrum. That was not the case at the Clinton Global Initiative meeting last week, devoted mostly to climate change. From the CEO of Duke Energy Corp. to the president of the Natural Resources Defense Council to Al Gore, everyone agreed on the need for draconian limits on carbon emissions worldwide. The proposals varied from taxes on a carbon "cap and trade" system, but the assumptions on which they were all basing them were the same -- and they seem somewhat premature. No one was too concerned with the costs that a blanket limit on emissions worldwide could inflict on millions of desperate people trying to pull themselves out of poverty. [emphasis mine]
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is widely claimed to be the cause of Global Warming. But there are 2 facts make it obvious that CO2 is not a significant contributor to Global Warming. First, most of the increase in CO2 occurred after 1950. Second, 5 of the 10 warmest years occurred before 1940. These two facts illustrate the need to question the Global Warming Alarmists insistence that Immediate, Drastic, Costly Life-Style Changes are needed Worldwide to avert their doomsday predictions. It is therefore hard to explain that the cause follows the effect rather than precedes the effect. Real World events require the order to be Cause first, Effect second.

Global Warming crisis predictions are inconsistent and vary widely due to computer generated predictions of future conditions. The widely different projections are the result of insufficient Historical data. Simply put, the programs do not have enough historical data to make accurate consistent predictions of future Climate Change. And Inconveniently for the Global Warming Alarmists, recent studies are tending to show that current Global Change is well within Normal variance.
Finally, everyone seemed to assume that government imposition works better than voluntary action. They kept citing the case of the European Union, where a cap and trade system establishes a general limit on carbon emissions and allows companies to exchange carbon "rights." However, in the last 10 years the rate of growth of carbon emissions has been much lower in the United States, where there is no federal limit, than in Europe. There was even a reduction of 1.3 percent in carbon emissions in the United States last year. [emphasis mine]
Seems to be another case of the Private Sector being able to do things better and usually cheaper than the Government. And here's more proof that Private is better than Government in this case.
Corn is a much less efficient source of ethanol than is sugar cane. Private companies are well ahead of the politicians with regard to the environment. They are investing in new technologies, making more efficient use of energy and beginning to develop financial instruments that will provide liquidity to nascent ecological markets. For instance, Jeff Bortniker, the CEO of Equator Environmental, is creating financial assets and carbon credits linked to reforestation in Brazil that can then be traded internationally. "The market is by far a better solution," he tells me, "and we are already showing that without bureaucratic interference we can create value and at the same time protect the environment." Brazilians will appreciate it -- they have lost nearly 150,000 square kilometers of Atlantic forest since 2000, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Amazon rain forest lost in recent decades because no one felt the need to protect land that was nobody's property. [emphasis mine]
If you take nothing else from this post, remember this quote.
Governments need to look at the science more closely before taking actions that could have damaging consequences. We also must remember that, when it comes to protecting the environment, private enterprise can be more successful than governments.
It is very telling that Al Gore, The Leading Spokesperson for Global Warming Alarmists, will not debate the inconsistencies and falsehoods in his Inconvenient Truth. Chilly reception for debate offer asks the question, Why won't Al Gore or his representative debate the facts of Global Warming? The Heartland Institute will spend $1.2 Million by next March in an attempt to get Mr. Gore to debate the issues which are not settled. There are many recently completed scientific studies which present facts and draw valid conclusions that are in direct conflict with the claims made in Al Gore's Movie, "An Inconvenient Truth".
"We have tried, repeatedly, to contact Gore directly, with registered letters and calls to his office, and have never received a reply," says Joseph Bast, Heartland president.
It appears Mr. Gore may be avoiding the issue. One could easily assume that his reasoning for not debating the issue, is he knows he can't win.
A spokeswoman for Gore told me by e-mail that Heartland is an oil-company-funded group that denies that global warming is real and caused by human activities.

"The debate has shifted to how to solve the climate crisis, not if there is one,"
said Kalee Kreider. "It does not make sense for him to engage in a dialogue with them at this time." [emphasis mine]
The oil-company-funding is an often repeated attempt to discredit any and all conflicting results as biased. But Mr. Gore and the other Global Warming Alarmists fail to note that significant amounts of their funding comes from agenda biased groups too.
As for the Gore camp's statement about Exxon funding, Bast says those contributions are too little to control Heartland policy and amount to "far less than what Heartland spends speaking out on climate change."
But the real head-scratcher is the fact that the debate has shifted from if to how to solve the problem. It seems to me that if there is no Global Warming Crisis, there is no need to solve a problem which doesn't exist. Mr. Gore is still claiming that "It is settled" in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary.

According to the Heartland Institute there is no crisis requiring a Costly, Political action in the immediate future.
The issue is a bit more complicated than that. What Bast wants is for Gore to debate one of three authorities who dispute the former vice president's assertion that global warming is a crisis that requires an immediate, hugely expensive response potentially damaging to the U.S. and world economies.

One of the Heartland experts is Dennis Avery, an economist, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and co-author, with Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, of the book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years. As you might guess from that title, Avery sees global warming as a natural phenomenon in which "there may be a human factor but if so it's small." He describes the warming as "moderate" and says there's been no warming since 1998. "Where's the crisis?"
Good question. Where's the Crisis, Mr. Gore? Please explain your insistence on claims in dispute, and overwhelming facts which conflict with your Inconvenient facts.
The Heartland case is not the first time Gore has ducked a forum. Earlier this year he canceled an interview with Denmark's largest newspaper when he learned it would include questions from Bjorn Lomborg, respected author of The Skeptical Environmentalist. "Gore's sermon is not one that will stand scrutiny," says Christopher C. Horner, another one of Heartland's debate candidates, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism.
It may be that soon the warmest place on Earth will be the "Hot Seat" on which Mr. Gore rests during the mounting clamor for grilling explanations.

Thursday, October 4, 2007

Symbol of America

UPDATE For Clarification: Wearing or not wearing a Flag Pin does not make anyone more or less a true patriot. But to stop wearing a Flag Pin because of someone else's perceived attitude is a show of naivety. It is the sign of a Follower, not a Leader.

If someone were to ask you to name one item which is the best representation of America, what would that symbol be? To me it is our American Flag, which is the reason it is featured so prominently on this Blog. Apparently that is not the case for Senator Barack Obama according to this AP article (Obama Stops Wearing Flag Pin).
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says he no longer wears an American flag lapel pin because it has become a substitute for "true patriotism" since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
I am sure that there are some who take a flag pin for granted, but I do not understand how our flag can become a substitute for "true patriotism". Our Flag is the most recognized symbol of our way of life, our freedom and our country. It cannot become a substitute for anything else.

On my left hand, I proudly wear a gold band as the most recognized symbol of my marriage, even though it too can be a substitute for "true feelings".
"My attitude is that I'm less concerned about what you're wearing on your lapel than what's in your heart. You show your patriotism by how you treat your fellow Americans, especially those who serve. You show your patriotism by being true to our values and ideals. That's what we have to lead with is our values and our ideals." [emphasis mine]
Those who serve salute our flag because it is the symbol of the country they serve. It is true that what's in your heart is important, but so is the visible outward symbol of your patriotism exemplified by a lapel flag pin. The sincerity of some other person should not prevent me from proudly displaying a flag pin as a recognizable symbol of my True Patriotism.

The clothes I choose to wear to an event makes a statement about me long before I reveal my Heart by opening my mouth. A lapel flag pin is the American Symbol which functions in much the same way.

Free Clipart

I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Censorship By Senate Democrats

Limbaugh Makes His Case is one of the recent articles by Byron York for National Republic Online (NRO). Mr. York makes the case for Rush Limbaugh and why the Senate Democrats are attacking Rush. Charlie Gibson on ABC's World News, ran a story with this headline: "Phony War Vets".
On Monday evening, September 24, Rush Limbaugh was struck by a story that appeared on ABC’s World News with Charles Gibson. “A closer look tonight at phony heroes,” Gibson said in his introduction to the report, which was about men who claim to be veterans but are not. In the story, reporter Brian Ross discussed two men who claimed to have served in wartime, possibly to receive free veterans’ hospital and other benefits. [emphasis mine]
Could it be that Rush was only following up an ABC World News story? Obviously the phony heroes, phony war vets and phony soldiers are all very similar characterizations of the Fake Military Veterans the Left has hailed in their attempts to turn public opinion against the IRAQ WAR. Fake because Jessie Macbeth, Reggie Buddle, Scott Beauchamp and others have either not served or otherwise made FALSE claims about their service.

ABC World News, as noted above, aired this story on September 24th. Two days later Rush made his "phony soldiers" comment. Why haven't the Senate Democrats, who attacked Rush, not attacked ABC and Charlie Gibson? Answer - The MSM, of which ABC is a Member, is generally biased to the Left's Political View. Rush is not.

By creating a false firestorm of controversy in order to discredit one of the biggest opposing views, the Democrats have gained sorely needed points with the Democrats Far Left base. In addition to which Harry Reid et al want to further silence the Right Point of View by having Rush taken off Armed Forces Radio. And the Democrats need as many points as they can after the General Betray Us ad. had mentioned "Phony Soldiers" last May, and for those who claim that Rush did not mention Jessie Macbeth until almost 2 minutes after he made the Phony Soldiers comment.
Limbaugh decided to make the story [about Macbeth] the subject of his commentary for Tuesday, September 25, a commentary that played in the morning on the 600 stations that carry Limbaugh’s show. “We researched it and put the commentary together,” Limbaugh continued. “In our research, we also found a story on from, I believe, May 20th on Macbeth that had ‘Phony Soldier’ in the headline. We also found a press release from the U.S. Attorney, Western District of Washington, on 9/21, who had successfully prosecuted eight of what he called ‘Fake Soldiers’ who had defrauded the VA system.”
If you chose to read the selected quotes posted at Media Matters, the picture is very different than listening to the actual Rush Broadcast. Media Matters is not the Non-Biased Media Watchdog Group that the name suggests.
And even though there are political arguments on all sides of this controversy, independent-minded critics who look at Media Matters might conclude that its political motivations are simply too strong to merit serious consideration. In addition to its ties to major Democratic donors and to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Media Matters is a deeply politicized organization down to its lowest levels. In the past few days, it has posted eleven stories on the Limbaugh matter. Those postings were written by, among others, Julie Millican, a veteran of the Kerry campaign,, and the Democratic turnout organization America Coming Together; Sarah Pavlus, formerly of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee; Andrew Ironside, who worked for the Howard Dean campaign; Adam Shah, a lawyer who worked for the Alliance for Justice, the organization best known for opposing President Bush’s judicial nominees; Jeremy Schulman, a former spokesman for Colorado Democratic congressional candidate Dave Thomas; and Matthew Gertz, former deputy campaign manager for Connecticut Democratic congressional candidate Diane Farrell, as well as intern for New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer.
In other words, one might justly conclude that Media Matters is a Biased Democratic Political Front Group that wants to use Congressional Censorship to silence one of the Rights Most Effective Voices.

For more on Media Matters Political Ties, read this article also by Byron York. (The Real Media Matters)

Tuesday, October 2, 2007

Obama - My Senator, But NOT My Candidate

It is my distinct pleasure to enjoy the antics of two Senators, and be able to call them my own. Senator Dick Durbin and Senator Barack Obama represent my State of Illinois. Add to that, Senator Hillary Clinton was born and raised just outside Chicago, in Park Ridge, Illinois. Whoopee!! Dubious Distinctions to be sure. But too much for one post, so today let's look at just the junior Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama.

Talk about naive. First, he wants to invade the sovereign territory of one of our allies. Second, he wants to hold talks with Foreign Leaders, hostile to the US, without any prior concessions. Now, he wants to Eliminate all Nuclear Weapons in the World. This astonishing show of Political Naivety is documented in The New York Times. (Obama to Urge Elimination of Nuclear Weapons)
Senator Barack Obama will propose on Tuesday setting a goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons in the world, saying the United States should greatly reduce its stockpiles to lower the threat of nuclear terrorism, aides say.
What's he thinking? Can anyone realistically envision countries like Iran, North Korea, China and Russia agreeing to do so and then keeping their word? This idea has worked so successfully in the past as evidenced by over 50 years of the Soviet, US Cold War. Remember treaties like SALT I, SALT II, START I, START II and SORT?

International Treaties have not worked any better. North Korea agreed to one such Treaty, Violated the Treaty and then withdrew from the Treaty when caught.
Mr. Obama, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, often tells voters that the Iraq war has consumed American foreign policy to the detriment of its ability to address other threats facing the nation. In his speech on Tuesday, aides said, Mr. Obama will assert, as he has before, that the United States should not threaten terrorist training camps with nuclear weapons.

If elected, Mr. Obama plans to say, he will lead a global effort to secure nuclear weapons and material at vulnerable sites within four years. He also will pledge to end production of fissile material for weapons, agree not to build new weapons and remove any remaining nuclear weapons from hair-trigger alert. [empahasi mine]
This sounds like a plan which will work. And for his next act I am sure Senator Obama will propose the Government buy Power Ball Lottery tickets to pay off the National Debt!

Monday, October 1, 2007

More Evidence the Surge IS Working

Besides the Leading Democrats sudden position switch, there have been a series of reports of al Qaeda Leaders being eliminated in Iraq due to Military Operations. One of the latest comes from the World Tribune online. Last letter from doomed Al Qaida chief: 'We are so desperate for your help' is the latest report from Baghdad about the success of the Surge.
Officials said several leading aides to Al Qaida network chief Abu Ayoub Al Masri have been killed by the U.S.-led coalition. They said two out of the four foreign aides of Al Masri remain alive.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain the previous Democratic Position exemplified by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) "This war is lost." April 19, 2007. The article makes clear that it is the Terrorists in Iraq who are losing. Sometimes it makes you wonder if Senator Reid really does want The US to Win in Iraq.
On Sept. 25, the U.S. military killed an Al Qaida chief deemed responsible for transporting foreign operatives to Iraq. The Al Qaida commander, identified as Abu Osama Al Tunisi, was killed in a U.S. air strike as he met his colleagues in Musayib, about 60 kilometers south of Baghdad.
Besides the elimination of an important member of the al Qeada in Iraq's Chain of Command, the letter which Abu Osama Al Tunisi wrote shortly before he was killed is a good indicator of the Surge's Success.
Shortly before he died, Al Tunisi wrote a letter that warned of a threat to Al Qaida operations in Karkh. The lettter, found by the U.S. military, sought guidance from Al Qaida leaders amid coalition operations that hampered Al Tunisi's network.

"We are so desperate for your help," the letter read. [emphasis mine]
Further indication of the Surge's Success comes from the declining casualty figures for the last few months and especially for the month of September. Despite the fact that about 30,000 additional troops are in Iraq, September's death toll of American Forces was the lowest since July 2006. It is hard to deny there is improvement, and this is causing the Front Runners of the Democratic Party to retreat from previous anti-war and anti-surge comments.
Al Tunisi was termed the emir, or commander, of foreign operatives in Iraq. [U.S. Brig. Gen. Joseph Anderson, chief of staff of the Multinational Corps Iraq] said Al Tunisi was responsible for the arrival of Al Qaida recruits into Iraq and their placement in operational cells.

Officials said more than 80 percent of suicide bombings have been by foreign operatives. They said most of the Al Qaida recruits arrive in Syria by air and continue overland into Iraq.
In addition to the handling of Foreign al Qaeda recuruts, Al Tunisi was ... responsible for the abduction and killing of two U.S. soldiers in June of that year. [2006]