THE PARTY OF NO...IS THE DEMOCRATS

...Democrats in Washington still won't let a good crisis go to waste. Their current gambit is to use Hurricane Irene as a pretext to prevent spending cuts to one of Washington's most notorious boondoggles.

That quote is from the Wall Street Journal article Leveraging a Hurricane Remember it was the Democrats who claimed on the issue of the Debt Crisis, that the Republicans (especially the Tea Party) said no to every proposal of the Left. In truth this is impossible because there was no specific plan from the Democrats or the President. We only got general statements and the accusation that the Tea Party was refusing to budge on any proposal. Actually the Tea Party and the Republican lead House proposed at least 4 different plans and passed 2. All would have ended the Debt Crisis and insured that our obligations as a country were paid.

Paul Ryan and Michele Bachmann each proposed solutions which would have averted any default. However, it was the Democratic Senate and the Democrat in the White House who said no. Now they are doing it again.

INDEPENDENT PRESS - NOT THIS WAY

Senator John Kerry (D-MA) wants to bail out failing Newspapers like the Boston Globe. Kerry aims to rescue newspapers

"America's newspapers are struggling to survive, and while there will be serious consequences in terms of the lives and financial security of the employees involved, including hundreds at the Globe, there will also be serious consequences for our democracy where diversity of opinion and strong debate are paramount," Mr. Kerry said.

Mr. Kerry is absolutely correct to point out that "...there will also be serious consequences for our democracy..." when the Government OWNS the paper. Just exactly how objective and unbiased can the paper dare to be when every Government Official, every Elected Official directs the paper's policy and content? Any paper that receives bailout money is no longer "Independent" or a part of the "Free Press".

This is an idea which is a waste of time and Tax Dollars (our money).

"I am committed to your fight, committed to your industry and committed to ensuring that the vital public service newspapers provide does not disappear," Mr. Kerry told the Globe employees.

If Senator Kerry "...wants to ensure the vital public service newspapers provide does not disappear...", he should subscribe rather than hold hearings (at Taxpayer expense).

Lawmakers are witnessing the crisis firsthand. Press watchdogs who once prowled Capitol Hill are disappearing, replaced by special-interest publications and foreign news organizations.

If our Government provides funds for the Newspaper industry, will not the Press be totally replaced by more special-interest publications? Good-grief what a waste of time and money. Lets get back to the Business of Government, which should be responsibility, accountability and a balanced budget.

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S DISTORTION OF FACTS

The controversy over stem cell research is being distorted by President Obama with the help of the main-stream media. This article, Obama opens up stem cell work, science inquiries, contains the following quote by President Obama.

"Our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values,"

The authors are referring to President Obama's decision to allow FEDERAL FUNDS (our tax dollars) to be used for Embryonic Stem Cell Research. The problem is that the President and the Media make it appear that there was a BAN on Embryonic Stem Cell Research. This is a GROSS DISTORTION OF THE FACTS!!!

FACT: There has NEVER been a ban on Embryonic Stem Cell Research. The ban was on using FEDERAL MONEY (our Tax Dollars) to fund Embryonic Stem Cell Research. There was NEVER a total ban on FEDERAL MONEY (our Tax Dollars) as funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research either. President Bush only baned the use of FEDERAL MONEY (our Tax Dollars) on NEW Embryonic Stem Cell Research. President Bush allowed FEDERAL MONEY (our Tax Dollars) as funding for the 21 Embryonic Stem Cell already underway when the ban was imposed.

FACT: The most promising research on Stem Cells involves Adult Stem Cells, NOT Embryonic Stem Cells. President Bush approved the use of FEDERAL MONEY (our Tax Dollars) as funding for Adult Stem Cell Research.

FACT: President Bush was the 1st President to allow ANY FEDERAL FUNDING (our Tax Dollars) for STEM CELL RESEARCH.

FACT: President Obama enabled by the sloppy, misleading reporting by the Main-Stream Media, distorts these facts to make it appear he has removed the ban which will allow "SCIENCE" to conquer all of the worst Medical Afflictions of today.

"It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda - and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology," Obama said.

FACTS, POLITICAL AGENDA AND DISTORTION ARE THE TRUTH IN THIS STORY. President Obama is not being HONEST about this issue, and he is being enabled by the Main-Stream Media.

Here is the full text of President Obama's remarks. (Obama's Remarks at Stem Cell Executive Order Signing) After you read these remarks, you CANNOT, in all honesty believe President Obama DID NOT DISTORT the FACTS???

SCIENTISTS DISAGREE WITH UN IPCC & AL GORE

Currently the UN is meeting in Poland to discuss the Topic of Man-Made Global Warming. The 52 Scientists who authored the UN IPCC are opposed by the 650 Scientists (including former members affiliated with the UN). The U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Minority Members page has published many articles and facts which do not support the UN IPCC. UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims highlights the fact that 12 times as many scientists disagree with the UN's 52 who agree.

POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

Also featured on the Minority Page of this US Senate Committee are links to FACTS. Interesting FACTS such as the PLEDGE which Al Gore asked the people of the World to sign, the Goracle will not himself SIGN. Ask yourself why!!! For all of us, the matter of Global Warming is a matter of concern. But is Global Warming Man-Made? and therefore something we need to act on with drastic measures? More and More Scientiests are saying NO!!!

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet. [Emphasis mine]

Clearly the words of AL GORE "It's Settled" are not true. It is time for doing what we can to preserve the planet, but the DRASTIC Political solutions the "Chicken Little" types are calling for are not warranted at this time.

More and more FACTS are pointing to the fact that Carbon Dioxide (CO₂) is not the cause of Global Warming and therefore Man-Made CO₂ is not the cause of Global Warming. How do I know that? Since 2001 the temperature of the Earth has not increased while the CO₂ levels have significantly increased.

World Cools On Man-Made Global Warming

MUMBAI COULD HAPPEN HERE BECAUSE ...

WE HAVE BECOME COMPLACENT - THAT'S DANGEROUS. Complacent about the real threat of another Terrorist Attack aka 9/11 in the USA. Ray Kelly is the Police Commissioner in New York City. Mr. Kelly is in a position to know what is possible, but are the authorities listening? Ray Kelly's Wiretap Alarm says not nearly enough to prevent an attack similar to Mumbai, India.

India's three days of carnage stand as another warning about how easily terrorists can perpetrate a major attack. So when top New York City counterterrorism officials declare that U.S. intelligence laws are shackling their powers to prevent the next Mumbai, it ought to raise more than eyebrows.

After reading this article please ask yourself if total privacy is worth the loss of life this privacy allows? Or should we give up some reasonable amount of personal privacy to save lives by preventing the Terrorists from using American Legal Procedures to Handcuff the authorities? So when Mr. Kelly speaks are the right people listening? NO!

Instead, almost nobody seems to care. Seven years without an attack on the U.S. mainland has created a growing public complacency. And the anti-antiterror lobby has exploited that complacency to assail and constrain critical Bush Administration intelligence programs, making it harder to intercept terrorists before they strike. As a consequence innocent Americans may be killed.

We need to open our collective eyes to how much the success of the Bush Administration has wrought. President Bush, despite the Democrat Liberals, have been able to prevent further attacks similar to 9/11 and Mumbai. But the success has come at the price of reducing the perceived danger.

What Democrats have done, in essence, is to insert an unelected judiciary into the wartime chain of command. As Mr. Kelly notes, this is producing a "lack of accountability" and "the lack of transparency into the inner workings of the FISA process." If some faceless FISA judge denies a surveillance request from Mr. Kelly and New Yorkers die as a result, that judge will answer to no one. Under current FISA rules, we won't even know who that judge is. Meanwhile, the very Members of Congress who insisted on FISA's limitations will blame the executive branch that they put under the supervision of those anonymous judges.

There is no supportable justification for the current restrictions on warrant-less wiretaps for communications which originate or end outside the USA. Those afraid of losing their privacy due to Government Warrant-Less Wiretaps in these cases are generally the same people who gladly use services like "On-Star" and "Lojack". Both these services allow 24-7 monitoring of our driving. We surrender our privacy for this Intrusion, but not to prevent Lives From Being Lost. Remember this "Big Blue Button" privacy mentality when NSA, FISA and Warrant-Less Wiretaps are attacked.

Personally I trust Ray Kelly a Hell-of-a-lot more than the Liberal Congress.

NYT & AP Get Obama Ayres Connection Wrong

Republican VP Candidate Sarah Palin has attacked the judgment of Democrat Presidential Candidate Barack Obama because of his connection to a Domestic Terrorist, William Ayers. Mr. Ayers is one of the founding members of the Weathermen. The Weathermen were anti-Vietnam War militants who conducted violent attacks on the Pentagon and United States Capitol. Mr. Ayers is unrepentant about being a Domestic Terrorist, and in fact claims that the Weathermen did not do enough.

Both the New York Times [Obama and ’60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths] and the AP [Analysis: Palin's words carry racial tinge] have recently whitewashed and brushed aside the significance of this connection. But in fact, the connection is very important. It is important because it shows the lack of judgment on the part of Senator Obama. And because Senator Obama has not been completely truthful about his relationship with an unrepentant Domestic Terrorist, William Ayers.

NYT's Ayers-Obama Whitewash by Stanley Kurtz reveals the importance and the extent of the Obama-Ayers connection.

As others have noted, today’s New York Times carries a story on the relationship between Barack Obama and unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist, Bill Ayers. The piece serves as a platform for the Obama campaign and Obama’s friends and allies. Obama’s spokesman and supporters’ names are named and their versions of events are presented in detail, with quotes. Yet the article makes no serious attempt to present the views of Obama critics who have worked to uncover the true nature of the relationship. That makes this piece irresponsible journalism, and an obvious effort by the former paper of record to protect Obama from the coming McCain onslaught. [Emphasis mine]

How close a relationship Obama has with Ayers is presented as the result of the work of Mr. Kurtz.

The title of the article when it first appeared on the web last night was, "Obama Had Met Ayers, but the Two Are Not Close." That was quickly changed to, "Obama and the ‘60's Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths." Perhaps the first headline made the paper’s agenda a bit too obvious. Even so, the new title simply parrots the line of Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt that the two first met through an early "education project" and since have simply "encountered each other occasionally in public life or in the neighborhood." Or, as New York Times reporter Scott Shane puts it at the head of his article, since an initial lunchtime meeting in 1995, "their paths have crossed sporadically...at a coffee Mr. Ayers hosted for Mr. Obama’s first run for office, on the schools project (i.e. the Chicago Annenberg Challenge) and a charitable board, and in casual encounters as Hyde Park neighbors."

So when Senator Obama claims in reference to his relationship with Ayers ... he's just some guy from the neighborhood is Senator Obama being Truthful? No, he is not. Senator Obama is really misleading all of us. Senator Obama and his campaign have the Mainstream Media like the New York Times and the AP to thank for attempting legitimize and mislead the public - US. Here is what Mr. Kurtz has to say about the Senator's and Ayers friendship.

There is nothing "sporadic" about Barack Obama delivering hundreds of thousands of dollars over a period of many years to fund Bill Ayers’ radical education projects, not to mention many millions more to benefit Ayers’ radical education allies. We are talking about a substantial and lengthy working relationship here, one that does not depend on the quality of personal friendship or number of hours spent in the same room together (although the article greatly underestimates that as well).

The Obama-Ayers connection, and others of questionable merit, definitely reflect on Senator Obama's Judgment and fitness for the Presidency of the United States.

Shane’s article buys the spin on Ayers’ supposed rehabilitation offered by the Obama campaign and Ayers’ supporters in Chicago. In this view, whatever Ayers did in the 1960's has somehow been redeemed by Ayers’ later turn to education work. As the Times quotes Mayor Daley saying, "People make mistakes. You judge a person by his whole life." The trouble with this is that Ayers doesn’t view his terrorism as a mistake. How can he be forgiven when he’s not repentant? Nor does Ayers see his education work as a repudiation of his early radicalism. On the contrary, Ayers sees his education work as carrying on his radicalism in a new guise. The point of Ayers’ education theory is that the United States is a fundamentally racist and oppressive nation. Students, Ayers believes, ought to be encouraged to resist this oppression. Obama was funding Ayers’ "small schools" project, built around this philosophy. Ayers’ radicalism isn’t something in the past. It’s something to which Obama gave moral and financial support as an adult. So when Shane says that Obama has never expressed sympathy for Ayers’ radicalism, he’s flat wrong. Obama’s funded it. [Emphasis mine]

Nor can it be said that Senator Obama did not know about Mr. Ayers radical views.

Obama was perfectly aware of Ayers’ radical views, since he read and publically endorsed, without qualification, Ayers’ book on juvenile crime. That book is quite radical, expressing doubts about whether we ought to have a prison system at all, comparing America to South Africa’s apartheid system, and contemptuously dismissing the idea of the United States as a kind or just country. [Emphasis mine]

The fact that there is little evidence that Senator Obama shares these radical views, does not change the reason for questioning Senator Obama's judgment. Since Senator Obama has a tolerance for radical views of the United States and juvenile crime, we have the right to question Senator Obama's judgment and temperament to hold the office of the United States President.

Global Warming - A Fraud & A Scam

John Coleman makes this claim. More on that in a moment.

First Who is John Coleman? A Google search for John Coleman turned up this:

John Coleman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

John Coleman may be:

* John Coleman (Australian footballer)
* John Coleman (author), British spy and author
* John Coleman (British footballer)
* John Coleman (Medal of Honor), Medal of Honor recipient
* John Coleman (news weathercaster), founder of The Weather Channel
* John Coleman (VC), Victoria Cross recipient
* John Coleman (British author and psychologist)

In baseball

* John Coleman (outfielder/pitcher) (1863-1922)
* John Coleman (1890 pitcher) (1860-1915)
* John Coleman (1895 pitcher) (1873-1925)

Disambiguation Notice This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same personal name. If an article link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Coleman"
Categories: Lists of ambiguous human names

Certainly an interesting group of people all named John Coleman. The John Coleman we are interested in is John Coleman (news weathercaster), founder of The Weather Channel.

This John Coleman is very experienced and very knowledgeable about all things Weather Related - including Global Warming. He has spent a lifetime studying and reporting weather, climate and related issues. As one who has had a distinguished career, the founder of the Weather Channel, has come to the conclusion that Global Warming is not a settled issue. His credibility dictates we should listen.

With this background information about John Coleman, we are back to the Fraud and Scam issue. Mr. Coleman currently works at KUSI-TV in San Diego, CA. He contributes to a blog of sorts (Coleman's Corner) on the stations web site. Global Warming and the Price of a Gallon of Gas is where Mr. Coleman makes his case.

You may want to give credit where credit is due to Al Gore and his global warming campaign the next time you fill your car with gasoline, because there is a direct connection between Global Warming and four dollar a gallon gas. It is shocking, but true, to learn that the entire Global Warming frenzy is based on the environmentalist’s attack on fossil fuels, particularly gasoline. All this big time science, international meetings, thick research papers, dire threats for the future; all of it, comes down to their claim that the carbon dioxide in the exhaust from your car and in the smoke stacks from our power plants is destroying the climate of planet Earth. What an amazing fraud; what a scam.

The data supports Mr. Coleman, and he makes that Clear. In this article, Mr. Coleman gives us a great description of Who, What, When and How this Fraud/Scam has been promulgated.

To start with global warming has the backing of the United Nations, a major world force. Second, it has the backing of a former Vice President and very popular political figure. Third it has the endorsement of Hollywood, and that’s enough for millions. And, fourth, the environmentalists love global warming. It is their tool to combat fossil fuels. So with the environmentalists, the UN, Gore and Hollywood touting Global Warming and predictions of doom and gloom, the media has scrambled with excitement to climb aboard. After all the media loves a crisis. From YK2[sic] to killer bees the media just loves to tell us our lives are threatened. And the media is biased toward liberal, so it’s pre-programmed to support Al Gore and UN. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, the Associated Press and here in San Diego The Union Tribune are all constantly promoting the global warming crisis.

That's a powerful group of advocates, but it is not settled yet according to climate researchers.

On May 20th, a list of the names of over thirty-one thousand scientists who refute global warming was released. Thirty-one thousand of which 9,000 are Ph.ds. Think about that. Thirty-one thousand. That dwarfs the supposed 2,500 scientists on the UN panel. In the past year, five hundred of scientists have issued public statements challenging global warming.

It is time to end this myth. Global Warming is more of a Natural Cycle of Earth. It is NOT a Man-Made catastrophe.

If you are concerned about the Global Warming issue, read John Coleman's comments and Statements. The links above will take you there. We are being hood-winked and it is a serious issue.

Taxpayer Dollars Well Spent on Energy?

How does the Government spend our tax Dollars for energy production, research and development. The Wall Street Journal On-Line edition gives us an idea in this article - Wind ($23.37) v. Gas (25 Cents).

Congress seems ready to spend billions on a new "Manhattan Project" for green energy, or at least the political class really, really likes talking about one. But maybe we should look at what our energy subsidy dollars are buying now.

Most of us can agree that a reasonable look at any project needs to be free of emotion. Green is a Politically Emotional Term. So it is fair to go beyond the emotion and look at reality.

First let's start with the total Tax Dollars expendated by our Government concerning energy.

Some clarity comes from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), an independent federal agency that tried to quantify government spending on energy production in 2007. The agency reports that the total taxpayer bill was $16.6 billion in direct subsidies, tax breaks, loan guarantees and the like. That's double in real dollars from eight years earlier, as you'd expect given all the money Congress is throwing at "renewables." Even more subsidies are set to pass this year.

Now what are we getting for our $16.6 Billion spent? So that we are really comparing apples to apples the Wall Street Journal article points out that the taxpayer cost per unit of energy is one way of standardizing expenses. And here are the results.

For electricity generation, the EIA concludes that solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and "clean coal" $29.81. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents, natural gas a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59.

Since the research into alternative (green) energy has been going on for several years, it is clear that without a technological break-through solar, wind and clean coal don't deserve the bulk of the research money.

Notice I did not say cut off all funding. I'm only suggesting we insist on a more Fiscally responsible way to allocate our Tax Dollars. Research needs to continue, but reality needs to govern how the Research Tax Dollars are spent so that we get the most bang for our Tax Buck.

Where then should we put the bulk of our tax dollars?

... nuclear power provides 20% of U.S. base electricity production, yet it is subsidized about 15 times less than wind. We prefer an energy policy that lets markets determine which energy source dominates. But if you believe in subsidies, then nuclear power gets a lot more power for the buck than other "alternatives."

The figures up to this point have been for Electrical Energy Production. However the study also calculated the tax dollars spent on federal subsidies for non-electrical energy production. For fuel the figures are:

... ethanol and biofuels receive $5.72 per British thermal unit of energy produced. That compares to $2.82 for solar and $1.35 for refined coal, but only three cents per BTU for natural gas and other petroleum liquids.

Even with the high cost of oil, natural gas and petroleum liquids are ONLY 3 CENTS PER BTU. Remember these figures next time any of the politicians talk about expendatures for Green Energy Production. Our Tax Dollars are truly best spent on Oil and Gas.

Rathergate - Dan's Waterloo

Byron York writes about the surprise move on Dan Rather's part to sue CBS News. Return to Rathergate exposes several interesting claims by Dan.

First, he claims that, after the report stirred controversy, top CBS management conducted a sham investigation of the story for the purpose of making sure that damaging information about George W. Bush be kept secret.

“CBS announced that it was conducting a thorough independent investigation into the underlying story of the broadcast and its production,” the lawsuit says, “when in fact its intention was to conduct a biased investigation with controlled timing and predetermined conclusions in order to prevent further information concerning Bush’s Texas Air National Guard service from being uncovered.”

This fake investigation, Rather charges, was done so that CBS could “pacify the White House” by making Rather the “scapegoat” of what would become known as Rathergate.

Mr. York is as surprised as I was to learn that CBS was interested in pacifying the Bush White House. It will certainly be entertaining to see Dan Accuse CBS of being a friend of George Bush, while CBS makes the case for being non-biased.

---

Meanwhile at the Huffington Post, Mary Mapes Congratulates Dan because Rather still has more reportorial testosterone than the entire employee roster at FOX News in her post Courage for Dan Rather

Mary was Dan's associate who, as I recall, obtained the documents for the Story. She makes a big deal about the Right Wing Bloggers who attacked the authenticity of the documents concerning George Bush's National Guard Service.

Whether President Bush was ducking Vietnam Service or not was not any more of a story than President Clinton's Draft Dodging. Unlike John Kerry, George Bush did not try to use his Military Service as a stepping stone to the Presidency. Actually Senator Kerry's Senate Testimony which criminalized the US Military was his downfall.

But Mary's most revealing statement is this paragraph.

We reported that since these documents were copies, not originals, they could not be fully authenticated, at least not in the legal sense. They could not be subjected to tests to determine the age of the paper or the ink. We did get corroboration on the content and support from a couple of longtime document analysts saying they saw nothing indicating that the memos were not real.

On the one hand she says the originals could not be produced, therefore, they could not be authenticated. On the other hand Mary claims a couple of document analysts saw nothing indicating the memos were not real, but neither did or could they say they were real. She fails to mention that many more document analysts strongly felt they could not be authentic.

One expert was able to reproduce the document letter for letter with Microsoft Word default settings. Strange coincidence since Microsoft Word was not available when the memos were claimed to have been written.

Elvira Arellano Is Like Jesús

Surprised? According to EAST BAY express news columnist Gustavo Arellano, Elvira is not like a Mexican Rosa Parks, she is like Jesús (The Mexican Rosa Parks). It appears that Mr. Arellano writes the column "Ask A Mexican". One of the letters he received, and his answer, follows.

Dear Mexican: Do you agree with immigration rights activists calling Elvira Arellano, who is an illegal immigrant AND a criminal, I might add, the Mexican Rosa Parks? The very idea that these people refer to her as such is deeply disturbing. Rosa Parks was a legal resident of this country and took a stand against the injustices against African Americans AND, by extension, all other minorities in this country. I can't imagine what goes through the minds of some of these people when they made ludicrous statements comparing Arellano to Parks. I have a problem with illegal immigrants, period! I don't care where they come from on this planet, illegal IS illegal.
Swing Low, Sweet Migra

Dear Gabacha: You're right. How dare yaktivists compare Elvira Arellano (an recently deported illegal Mexican immigrant who earned national attention this year by seeking sanctuary in a Chicago church) to Rosa Parks! Besides, everyone knows the better historical counterpart is Jesus. Think about it: Like Jesús, Arellano was a brown-skinned alien who sparked equal parts rage and praise while promoting their movement. Both lived in defiance of authorities who obsessed over laws that ignored the Segundo Coming. Arellano and the Nazarene knew their ultimate martyrdom yet met grim destiny with serenity, asking followers not to react angrily but rather allow God's will. I already hear the gnashing teeth of Know Nothings — but what about the fake Social Security number? The breaking of federal law? The fact that ILLEGAL IS ILLEGAL? — but let the record show that no matter how you spin it, Arellano's tale is biblical in its intentions, and she sure as hell ain't Jezebel. Only time will tell if Arellano's efforts will convert the Pharisees or cause the exile of her people to Babylon — er, Mexico.

Only in America could a common criminal be elevated to this level. Ms. Arellano is a National Celebrity in Mexico. In the USA she was an Illegal Alien with no respect for the laws of the US.

Border security is one of the failures of the Government. Failure because we have not enforced the laws which govern who is allowed into this country legally. Failure because we have allowed legal aliens to stay in this country beyond the period of their visa thereby becoming illegal aliens. Failure because we have not penalized employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens. Failure because we have allowed illegal aliens to enjoy the benefits of our social programs, hospitals, schools and other government services which should be available only legal residents. Failure because some cities do not report the criminal activities of illegal aliens and deport them. Failures which we need to fix without amnesty.

Ms. Arellano believes she has been deported unfairly. She believes she is entitled to remain in the USA. She does not think our laws apply to her. If she wants to be re-admitted to this country, she needs to stand in line and follow the application policy and laws of the United States of America.

Bush Petraeus Lied, Troops Died

The New York Times Editorial "Empty Calories" is an opinion that stops just short of using the word Lie. This editorial implies that 2 career men in fact did lie under oath about the situation in Iraq.

For months, President Bush has been promising an honest accounting of the situation in Iraq, a fresh look at the war strategy and a new plan for how to extricate the United States from the death spiral of the Iraqi civil war. The nation got none of that yesterday from the Congressional testimony by Gen. David Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. It got more excuses for delaying serious decisions for many more months, keeping the war going into 2008 and probably well beyond.

General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker are not Political appointees. They have not shown any reticence in the past to express any differences of opinion. Why would they do so now? They don't owe their jobs to any Politically Elected official. And they did not sugar coat the fact that they too are disappointed with the Iraq Government. But what they did point out is the fact that prematurely leaving will have dire consequences.

The general claimed a significant and steady decline in killings and deaths in the past three months, but even he admitted that the number of attacks is still too high. Recent independent studies are much more skeptical about the decrease in violence. The main success General Petraeus cited was in the previously all-but-lost Anbar Province where local sheiks, having decided that they hate Al Qaeda more than they hate the United States, have joined forces with American troops to combat insurgents. That development — which may be ephemeral — was not a goal of the surge and surprised American officials. To claim it as a success of the troop buildup is, to be generous, disingenuous.

Whether it was a goal of the surge is immaterial. It did happened as a serendipity result of the surge. To claim that it was not a goal of the Surge and should therefore not count as a success is, in the word of Editorial Writer, disingenuous.

The Editorial does make clear that a Military Success is necessary to allow a Political Solution.

The chief objective of the surge was to reduce violence enough that political leaders in Iraq could learn to work together, build a viable government and make decisions to improve Iraqi society, including sharing oil resources.

Previously the Surrender Group has claimed we need to "re-deploy" the Troops first. Then negotiate a Political Solution. What they should have realized is a basic fact of Warfare. All wars are settled Politically by Diplomatic agreement when one side has suffered enough losses by the Military Actions of the Victor. In simple terms, the Loser is the first one to give up militarily.

The Situation in Iraq is not what we want, but if we leave because the Iraqi Politicians aren't measuring up, we loose, they win. As both the General and the Ambassador testified, we are making progress, and we can win. There have been mistakes. There have been set-backs. Success is not going to be achieved as quickly as everyone wants, but we can't leave just because things are not exactly the way we want them, unless we are willing to accept the consequences.

Those consequences are real and serious, and like an antibiotic medicine, "Don't stop taking this medicine until the prescription is used up".

Pentagon's Plan For Iran

According to the British Newspaper "The Sunday Times" on-line, the Pentagon's Military Strategists have a plan for a three day strike against Iran (Pentagon ‘three-day blitz’ plan for Iran). Frankly, it would be more newsworthy if they didn't.

THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.

The Iranians are destabilizing the Middle East and in particular the Iraq situation. Iran is suppling Iraqi insurgents with Training and Iranian produced Weapons (VIED's, IED's and Munitions). In addition there are Iranian Troops in Iraq. Simultaneously, Iran is ratcheting up its Nuclear Weapons Development Programs. Under these circumstances, it would be foolish for the Military not to have a Plan. But having and acting are two different things.

The details of the plan, according to the article, are not pinpoint strikes to neutralize the Nuclear Development. The plan calls for the taking out the entire Iranian military. Should this really surprise anyone? They probably have at least 2 plans. One pinpoint, one full-scale.

Bush noted that the number of attacks on US bases and troops by Iranian-supplied munitions had increased in recent months “despite pledges by Iran to help stabilise the security situation in Iraq”.

If the Government identifies Iran's Military as a credible threat to Iraq's or Middle East Stability, and the Iranians Continue to make threats with Nuclear Weapons Technology, we could kill 2 birds with one stone. The World Wide Political fall-out would be about the same with either a pinpoint of full-scale strikes.

Bush is committed for now to the diplomatic route but thinks Iran is moving towards acquiring a nuclear weapon. According to one well placed source, Washington believes it would be prudent to use rapid, overwhelming force, should military action become necessary.

It is a surprise that the presence of a plan of Military Action against Iran has not been revealed before, not that we have one.

WTF

Tim Robbins and Brian DePalma. Those names need to be seared into the memory of every American. These two individuals have used their celebrity status to disgrace every American. Their actions will probably lead to the death of more Americans and most certainly will give aid and comfort to the enemy. Not too long ago, their actions would be classified as Treason.

Both Robbins and DePalma have an agenda. They want the US out of Iraq now. There is room for debate about the right or wrong of this war, but in this case the ends do not justify the means. Robbins uses figures almost 600% of actual numbers, while DePalma portrays the facts of a brutal crime as if all American Soldiers act this way. This is bias at its worst. Propaganda for the enemy.

The "Daily Standard" has the details in the current scrapbook section (Hollywood Hates the Troops). According to Robbins, US Troops have " ... been slaughtering 300 Iraqis a day for the last four years."

"We've killed over 400,000 of their citizens." That's what actor Tim Robbins thinks U.S. troops have been doing in Iraq. He made the claim last week in an appearance on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher.

And according to DePalma's latest film, Redacted, US Troops are worse than John Kerry's slander of Vietnam Veterans.

The film is based on the story of a brutal rape and murder of a young Iraqi girl and the killing of her family at the hands of four American soldiers. Sgt. Paul Cortez, who has admitted his role in the attack, was sentenced earlier this year to 100 years in prison. Most Americans who read about this brutal crime probably understood that most soldiers don't behave this way. DePalma does not. "The movie is an attempt to bring the reality of what is happening in Iraq to the American people," he said last week.

While most Americans realize that because the criminal element is a very small part of the Military, rape and murder are not the normal daily actions of our Troops. However, much of the World will perceive the criminal part, as shown by this incident, to be the Reality of all Americas. Free Speech does not allow someone to yell "FIRE" in a crowded building, and that's exactly the effect these 2 will have on much of the world.

Realize it or not, it is me and you, "Mr. and Ms. General Public", who have been painted with this brush. It is all Americans whom the world will see through the distorted words and pictures of these 2 haters. When the World sees an American, this is what we look like to them. In short, to much of the enemy, the True Face of America is the images they perceive it to be. It is not what you and I know as Reality. Their Reality is Their Perception.

Iraq From The Other Side Of The Equation

We often hear about the "Quagmire" of Iraq. Until now always from the Coalition Forces experiences. What about the Terrorist side of this "Quagmire"? This question is answered by way of an article posted at TCSDAILY (The Iraqi Quagmire You Don't Hear About).

Say there's a group of people in Iraq fighting what looks increasingly like an unwinnable war. The core of this group is made up of foreigners intent on a mission of 'liberation' in a land historically alien to their ideologies. In the process of enacting their designs, this group has suffered considerable casualties, sunk untold sums in resources, and lost many once-reliable friends. Sound familiar? This is the current state of international jihadism, an institution with a situation grimmer and an outlook more despairing than for the US-led coalition. [emphasis mine]

This is part of the Iraq good news we don't often hear about in the MSM. And looks at the situation from a view not often considered.

There is a quagmire going on in Mesopotamia. Lost in the partisan heave-ho is strong evidence of a situation that's proving intractable, perilous, and with no end in sight. Yet, it's not our war; it's the one being waged by the forces of international jihadism. For as much as the Coalition has sacrificed - over a half-trillion dollars, nearly four-thousand dead, over-drafted international political capital, and upsetting the relative stability of certain commodity markets - our enormous commitment is a relative sideshow compared with the problems facing our enemy. Pound for pound, they've lost a lot more than gained and done so at a much more grievous rate than we [have]. [emphasis mine]

To say the least, encouraging and from a perspective which most of us would not have otherwise considered. This could be a preview of the Iraq Situation Report to Congress from General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker.

Militarily, the United States and some of its allies are seen as being bruised, but this has more basis as a political talking point than as an honest reflection of events on the ground. Without a doubt, morale among US troops is high and continues to rise in proportion to the rate of successes. Where Coalition troops encounter enemy combatants, there is generally but one outcome: victory. Instead, our enemies are increasingly reliant on media misinformation and sensational campaigns to portray their war as being anything other than what it actually is: a downward spiral. Although it's true that the United States military is suffering strains from the extended rigors of warfighting and peacemaking, ours is not a broken army and the enemy sure as hell doesn't have themselves another Afghanistan; as things stand, the enemy is a long way from being able to pop the proverbial corks of (non-alcoholic) champagne and relish American military recession. [emphasis mine]

I would be willing to bet that Democrats and for that matter the General Public have never considered the view presented by "walking a mile in al Qaeda's shoes".

When Iraq War critics employ loaded terms like 'quagmire' so freely, it's done in a manner that suggests aversion to actual debate on the realities on the ground. This can be best exemplified in Sen. Harry Reid's laughably premature declaration of defeat or Sen. Barack Obama's clumsy reasoning that genocide, as the likely result of impulsive withdrawal, should be of no concern to the United States. Most importantly, such statements highlight an uncomfortable unwillingness on the part of many war detractors to see the situation in a rounder, fuller perspective - that victory is an option and that defeat isn't an exclusively American, or a partisan, problem. Yes, there is much work ahead for the Coalition. And yes, the surprising turnaround of fortune could reverse just as quickly if we do not exploit the situation. But for now, momentum is on our side and not for our enemies. [emphasis mine]

Take note.

Progress In Iraq

Michael Yon is one of the few embedded journalists I trust to report with accuracy. He doesn't sugar coat his reporting. It's all there, and it's a view you don't get from the MSM or other embedded reporters who spend 1, or 2 days or even a week with the units. Michael spends months with the troops. He has seen how the Iraq Army and Police operate. In 2005, the Iraqis ran, were as likely to shoot friend as foe, and were for the most part incompetent. The Iraqis are different in 2007. They have driven al Qaeda from Mosul although the insurgents still commute from the surrounding area to conduct ever decreasing attacks.

Today Michael has a new post about Progress In Iraq. I suggest it's a must read. Three Marks on the Horizon As we all know the National Iraq Parliament has taken the Month off. What you don't hear is the local Iraq Government is beginning to function for the benefit of the Iraq citizens. Generally the Iraqis trust what they can see. You have to earn their respect and trust, as most of the US Troops are doing. Units in Theater, earn the Iraqis trust and respect because these Troops have demonstrated that they are trustworthy.

Our military has increasing moral authority in Iraq, but the same cannot be said for our government at home. In fact, it’s in moral deficit because many Iraqis are increasingly frightened we will abandon them to genocide.

The Iraq Army and Police units are much more capable than a year or two ago. Especially the Army, to the point that the Iraq Army Units in Mosul are conducting their own missions. They still need US support, but that's all they need.

Because the Iraq Soldiers have progressed to this point, US Troops have been reduced in the Mosul Area. It's not completely safe yet, but it's getting there. Not because of Washington Politicians, but because of the soldiers and officers that Iraq is growing towards Independence and Democracy.

Today, the clout still is partially from the gun, and definitely the money is key, but there is an intangible and growing moral clout and it flows from an increasing respect among Iraqis for our military. Washington has no moral clout in Iraq. Washington looks like a circus act. The authority is coming from our military. The importance of this fact would be difficult to understate.

Iraq is a country that can be won. Iraq is a people who are becoming our allies.

Bush's Vacation Time

Bush on track to become the vacation president is the title of an July 9^th article from the Houston Chronicle. The article by Julie Mason of the Chronicle's Washington Staff starts with the following.

On Thursday, Bush left for a weekend in Kennebunkport, Maine, and his family's summer compound, Walker's Point. On Monday, he heads to his Crawford retreat, where he has spent all or part of 418 days of his presidency, according to Mark Knoller, a CBS News White House correspondent and meticulous record-keeper.

What Ms. Mason is implying is that the President is going to take a Vacation from Government. Who does she think "fills in" for the President while he takes his Vacation? Well apparently she does not know that there is no one who can just step in and do the President's Job. The President may go to Crawford, or Maine or anyplace else, but as long as he is on American Soil, he is on the job. The idea a President gets away and turns off the cell, TV, Radio, etc. is ridiculous and shows the depth of Bias by the Press.

The presidential vacation-time record holder is the late Ronald Reagan, who tallied 436 days in his two terms. At 418 days, and with 17 months to go in his presidency, Bush is going to beat that easily.

Reagan didn't do too badly. Maybe if Clinton has taken more Presidential Vacation-Time, the Country would have been in better Shape when Bush Took Office. Or could it be that Ms. Mason is jealous because she has to stay in Hot, Sticky Summer-Time Washington, while the President gets to go to Texas.

By the Way, apparently Ms. Mason knows Vice President Cheney will not be available to fill in, because she also wrote this into her piece.

Vice President Dick Cheney generally takes August off, often heading to Wyoming or coastal Maryland. Congress left last weekend and is gone until Sept. 4.

Memo to Ms. Mason: It is Congress, not the President, that gets to take Vacation-Time.

Newsweek's Global Warming Bias

Bias. A particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.

In the August 13, 2007 issue of Newsweek Magazine Sharon Begley has authored the Cover Story on Global Warming, where she shows her profound bias. (The Truth About Denial) Early in this article Ms. Begley quotes the following statement as made by a staffer to Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) who assumed the chair of the Senate's Environment Committee in January 2007.

A conservative think tank long funded by ExxonMobil, she [the staffer] told Boxer, had offered scientists $10,000 to write articles undercutting the new report and the computer-based climate models it is based on.

But not contained in the article is any reference to the funding sources for the supporters of Global Warming. Media Ignore Al Gore’s Financial Ties to Global Warming exposes Al Gore, and many of his friends, who stand to make a fortune if they can sell Global Warming as fact. Thereby leaving the reader with the impression that Global Warming deniers are skewing the data for monetary gain, while the Global Warming preachers have no such prejudice. It is dishonest to suggest that only one side may be influenced money, when in fact both sides could be, but this does fits the definition of bias.

In addition Ms. Begley infers that results are being "bought" by Special Interests without offering a single example of skewed, biased, incomplete or inaccurate results. By making this accusation, Ms. Begley soils the reputation of any Scientist associated with an Energy Company or Group whose research conclusions don't conform to her preconceived ideas. In the Scientific Community, Reputation and therefore Respect of peers is paramount.

Ms. Begley further implies that these Special Interest groups succeeded in rendering useless any attempt by President Clinton to obtain Senate Ratification of the Kyoto Treaty.

Although Clinton did not even try to get the Senate to ratify the Kyoto treaty (he knew a hopeless cause when he saw one)...

But she makes no mention of the fact that the Senate did Vote on the Kyoto Agreement (S.RES.98) which

Declares that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997 or thereafter...

The Senate passed this item on 7/25/1997 by a vote of 95-0. This oversight constitutes the definition of bias. Further into her article, Ms. Begley states the following in reference to current President George W. Bush:

In March [2001], he [President George Bush] withdrew from the Kyoto treaty.

How can you withdraw from something to which you were never a party?

Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless.

Most Deniers I have knowledge of don't hate being called deniers, rather they don't think the term is accurate. It is political name-calling. It's a term used to shut down honest debate about a subject whose cause and effects are not yet understood. So called Deniers do not deny that the Earth is Warming, or that Carbon Dioxide (CO₂) increases are largely due to man. They do argue that the World has at times been much warmer than today's predictions for the future. They do argue that more research is needed before drastic and Expensive Life-style changes are Politically Mandated. The research to date is subject to honest interpretation and differences of opinion as to cause and effect. In the simplest terms, the Global Warming Issue is not settled. See This Web Page for a rational discussion of Global Warming.

Carbon Dioxide (CO₂) is the only Greenhouse Gas over which man can have any real effect. But between 90 and 95% of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases is water vapor (H₂O), the rest is CO₂, Ozone, Methane, Nitrous Oxide and other minor Greenhouse Gases. Atmospheric CO₂ is the result of both man and nature. About 1/2 of this Gas is the result of the Earth's natural processes, mainly Volcanoes. To eliminate the part attributable to man, is going to be very expensive and will have minimal effect. For an idea of the expense, see this previous post, and be sure to follow this link.

In summary, Newsweek has taken the low road with this cover story. This article by Sharon Begley is more opinion than fact. Is it Biased? I think so, but you should decide for yourself.

For another disection of this article see this post at NewsBusters.

Senate All Nighter Out Take

By now most people have heard about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) political grandstanding stunt of keeping the Senate in session all night last Wednesday/Thursday. The stated reason for this unusual event was the Democrats desire to force President Bush to agree to Time Lines for Iraq Troop Withdrawals. While the event did go all night, the Troop Withdrawal measures failed.

That much you have probably heard, but you probably did not hear about the Non-Binding resolutions which objected to the pardons issued by both President Bush and his Predecessor, Former President Clinton. The AP has the story though. The story title, Senate Bickers Over Libby Legislation, tells only half of the story, however. But that's OK because we know the MSM is not biased. The AP, after all, does report the Libby Pardon in paragraph 2.

In the heat of a partisan spat, Democrats forced a vote on a nonbinding measure to instruct President Bush not to pardon former vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. But there's no record of the 47-49 vote in the daily record of congressional proceedings - or anywhere else. [Emphasis mine]

I'll come back to the reason there is no record of the vote a little later. But, 1^st notice the bolded vote total. Even though it was non-binding, it failed. Now in its' fair and balanced reporting, it's paragraph eleven before the AP reveals the details of the offending pardons under President Clinton. Notice there's no mention of a vote total.

Republicans took their turn, offering a nonbinding resolution deploring the actions of Bill Clinton for issuing pardons to the likes of his half brother Roger, and clemency for members of a Puerto Rican nationalist group blamed for bombings in the 1970s and 1980s.

Now why was the vote not recorded? The AP explains.

That's because senators agreed less than an hour later to undo their vote and pretend it had never happened.

There was one measure during this Overwhelmingly Political event which passed by a wide majority.

They included a measure by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., approved 94-3, putting the Senate on record against transferring terrorism detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to "facilities in American communities and neighborhoods." That was a direct dig at Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, who has proposed shifting the detainees to U.S. prisons and shutting down Guantanamo. [Emphasis mine]

At least it was not a total waste of taxpayer money.

Operation Arrowhead Ripper - Day 16

Michael Yon has another dispatch from Iraq - Baqubah Update: 05 July 2007.

If you really want to know what's happening on the ground, outside the Green Zone, read it. Things are getting better and it's the Iraq government and Iraq people who are beginning to pull their weight. In other words the 'Surge' is Working.

Media coverage went from a near monopoly ... to a nearly capsized boat as journalists flooded in ... to see the fight. They managed to miss most of it.

What gives Michael the edge over the MSM is that he stays with the operations in the field. He does not go back to the safety of the Green Zone at every opportunity. He also reports it as he sees it - the good, the bad and the ugly.

...[T]he people of Baqubah are generally ecstatic ...[W]e have morphed from being invaders to occupiers to members of a tribe. I call it the “al Ameriki tribe,” or “tribe America.”

Operation Arrowhead Ripper is in its 16 day as of Michael's dispatch dated July 5th.

...[M]ost Iraqis seem now to realize that we really don’t want to stay here ... we are not resolved to stay ... we are telling the truth.

Yes, there are encouraging signs from Iraq, but you probably will not read about them in the MSM.

[AT first] ... the Iraqi leaders seemed mostly inert. ...[Now] they are out politicking, showing their faces in public, letting the people know they are in charge.

Be sure to pay Michael Yon a visit.

Global Warming Lite

Global Warming is a serious issue. There are strong opinions on both sides. So depending on which side of the debate you support, you will either find this offensive or maybe like me full of sarcastic humor. I am referring to an editorial opinion piece from yesterdays Las Vegas Review-Journal. Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of said Newspaper and has penned a piece of opinion titled The real cure for global warming.

Mr. Suprynowicz is obviously in the correct group of us who believe If some of the Global Warming Alarmists (i.e. Al Gore) would just shut up we could continue about our business a little happier. Not so much because we are fat or dumb but we are happy with the knowledge, and supported by ever growing Scientific Facts, that Global Warming is a Natural Event.

"The planet is currently warming at a rate of perhaps one degree a century, part of an ongoing cycle of global warming and cooling which (ice cores and other fossil records tell us) has been ongoing for millions of years."

Mr. Suprynowicz continues to make the point that the Global Warming hysteria will be remembered

"...as one of those episodes of "the madness of crowds" which saw bands of flagellants wandering Europe urging folks to finish work on those cathedrals real soon because the world was going to come to an end at the millennium, in 1,000 A.D., and the minor panic of Oct. 30, 1938, when numerous radio listeners were taken in by the realistic Orson Welles broadcast of "The War of the Worlds."

There follows some reaction to a previous editorial supporting a construction project to bring new clean water to Las Vegas. Finally we come to the solution to the Global Warming Issue.

"Clean nuclear and natural-gas-fired power plants must be shut down and immediately replaced with coal plants burning the softest, dirtiest coal -- peat would be better -- that can be found. "Smog inspections" will take on a new meaning as our cars will be checked regularly to make sure each is pouring out the densest possible cloud of carbon particulates and lifesaving black soot."

Or we could create a really big volcano.