[Thanks, M!] I do not like this Uncle Sam, I do not like his health care scam. I do not like these dirty crooks,
or how they lie and cook the books. I do not like when Congress steals, I do not like their secret deals. I do not like this speaker Nan , I do not like this 'YES WE CAN'. I do not like this spending spree, I'm smart, I know that nothing's free, I do not like your smug replies,
when I complain about your lies. I do not like this kind of hope. I do not like it, you BIG Dope. I do not like it, NOPE NOPE NOPE!
How bad has the situation actually gotten when the Dutch police consider using 'decoys' to fight rising anti-semitism?? Check this out from the AP via FoxNews (emphasis added):
Dutch May Use 'Decoy Jews' to Fight Rising Anti-Semitism
AMSTERDAM -- Reports of increased anti-Semitism and a secret video showing Jews harassed on the street in Amsterdam have prompted Dutch authorities to consider using "decoy Jews" -- undercover officers wearing yarmulkes -- to combat hate crimes.
No decision has yet been made to use the tactic. But the country's justice minister and Amsterdam's acting mayor both say they are considering it. And advocacy groups say intimidation has become a serious issue for Jews in the Netherlands.
"For ten years now Jews who are recognizable as such from their clothing can't walk peacefully on the street," the Center for Information and Documentation Israel, a Jewish activist group, said in a statement Friday. "The perpetrators of this kind of incident almost always get away unpunished."
The issue was given new impetus with the airing on television last week of a hidden-camera video produced by Joodse Omroep, or Jewish Broadcaster -- a small television company that gets an allotted amount of airtime each week on public TV stations.
For the video, two youths and a Rabbi wearing yarmulkes went walking in a primarily Moroccan neighborhood in Amsterdam. The footage showed them being subjected to a range of ill-treatment, from dirty looks to insults -- and even, from one man, a Nazi salute. ... Recent press reports have claimed that anti-Semitism is on the rise in the Netherlands due to increasing friction with the country's Muslim minority, which now makes up 6 percent of the population.
But Hirsch Ballin told parliament -- in a debate prompted by the video -- that "anti-Semitism is not on the rise," citing government statistics from the first months of 2010.
"The number of incidents rises and falls, and is connected to tensions in the Middle East," he said.
The number of anti-Semitic discrimination cases in Amsterdam did rise in 2009 from the previous year, according to the country's anti-discrimination bureau, from 17 to 41. Discrimination cases on the basis of skin color or country of origin rose from 232 to 336 in the same period. ...
Hirsch Ballin's spokesman, Wim van der Weegen, said that other measures, such as increased camera surveillance on some streets, might be a more effective way of registering incidents.
But Van der Weegen said the justice minister believed using decoy Jews would be within the boundaries of the law.
"It would be impossible to say that wearing a yarmulke amounts to entrapment," he said.
I bet if Holland had its equivalent of our ACLU, there would be a fight over that "yarmulke-entrapment" issue.
Here is further information regarding that 2009 increase in, which was worldwide and not just an isolated surge in Holland (emphasis added):
A report released in April by a university-based group in Tel Aviv, the Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Anti-Semitism and Racism, agreed that street-level anti-Semitism seems to rise around the world when the Israeli government does something unpopular. A “visibly Jewish” man told the institute’s researchers that “when an Israeli military operation dominates the headline, I am the first to notice it on the streets.”
But the report also argued — without citing much evidence — that the rash of attacks in 2009 was somewhat organized: “The intensity and nature of the wave that began in January 2009 testified to pre-planned mobilization among radicals from the left and among Muslim immigrant communities.” Hamas leaders also claimed a level of organization. During the Gaza War the Times of Londonreported, “a hard-line Hamas leader, Mahmoud Zahar, warned that the Islamists would kill Jewish children anywhere in the world,” to avenge Palestinian deaths. [source]
"... among radicals from the left ..." -- in March, Gary Bauer at Human Events wrote about rising anti-semitism on the Left:
In 2006, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a Campus Anti-Semitism report announcing that anti-Semitism is “a serious problem” on many American university campuses, those bastions of political liberalism.
Anti-Semitism has become a staple of bloggers on leftwing websites like the Huffington Post, the Daily Kos and MoveOn.org. Former Clinton administration official Lanny Davis wrote in the Wall Street Journal of his dismay at the anti-Semitic “hate and vitriol” against Joe Lieberman, for whom Davis was campaigning, in his 2006 primary campaign against Ned Lamont. Davis recounted some of the attacks, and concluded that “bigotry and hate aren’t just for right-wingers anymore.”
The Left’s growing anti-Semitism is discouraging in part because the party many radicals associate with has been home to Jews for nearly a century. And Democrats have historically been some of Israel’s greatest defenders.
The "tolerant" Left growing increasingly intolerant of many and, in particular, of Jews.
Again, I ask: How bad have things gotten when police consider using "Jew decoys?"
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is threatening McDonald's with a lawsuit if the hamburger chain does not remove toys from its Happy Meals. Here's what Jon Hood of ConsumerAffairs.com reports (emphasis added ... along with a few snarky comments in italics):
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has given McDonald's an ultimatum: do away with the Happy Meal toys or lawyer up.
The Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit served McDonald's with notice of intent on Tuesday, giving the company 30 days to drop the toys before it finds itself defending against a class action complaint. CSPI contends that including toys with "unhealthy junk food" is illegal under consumer protection statutes in California, Texas, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia.
CSPI founder Michael Jacobson, who claims to have invented the phrases "empty calories" and "junk food," said "multi-billion-dollar corporations make parents' job nearly impossible by giving away toys and bombarding kids with slick advertising." [Parents have apparently forgotten that 1) they are in charge and not the kids; and 2) the word "no." I guess they've been brainwashed by McDonald's slick advertising, too, and simply victims in this evil corporation's scheme for world dominance. The blame game is far easier than parenting.]
The group went so far as to compare McDonald's with a child molester in a statement.
"McDonald's is the stranger in the playground handing out candy to children," said CSPI litigation director Stephen Gardner. "It's a creepy and predatory practice that warrants an injunction."
Difference of opinion
McDonald's sees things slightly differently.
"We couldn't disagree more with the misrepresentation of our food and marketing practices," reads a statement from company spokesman William Whitman. "McDonald's is committed to a responsible approach to our menu, and our Happy Meal offerings. We have added more choice and variety than ever before, a fact that has been widely reported and recognized."
The Happy Meal toy has been a staple of the meal since its introduction in 1979. [Sadly, I was too old to take advantage ... er, 'fall victim' ... to the Happy Meal.] For a number of years, McDonald's partnered with Disney to provide toys inspired by recently-released family films. Disney ended the relationship in 2006, however -- a decision that insiders speculated was based on the increasing amount of scrutiny put on the nutritional value of McDonald's menu choices.
Other challenges
This is hardly the first time that McDonald's has faced a potential nutrition-related lawsuit. In 2005, the company settled a suit concerning its use of trans fats, agreeing to pay $7 million to the American Heart Association and another $1.5 million for a public advertising campaign alerting the public to the dangers of those fats.
In 2008, the company announced that it would begin cooking its fries and other baked items with a new, zero-trans-fat oil.
And the CSPI isn't the only one taking on the Happy Meal toy specifically. In April, Santa Clara County, California, officially prohibited restaurants from including toys with any high-calorie meals, a category into which Happy Meals conveniently fall ...
Note to parents:You still are in control of yourself and your children. If your kids are fat and lazy, it's YOUR FAULT!!!!! Quit going to McDonald's several times a week, quit buying junk food at the store, quit making excuses, quit being a poor health example yourself to your kids ...
... and just simply GROW THE F#%& UP!!!! BE THE PARENT!!!!!!!!
With the recent firing of Gen. McChrystal and the re-hiring of Gen. David Petraeus, I kept recalling some shenanigans from two summers during the election furor ... something to the effect of "Gen. Betray Us." Luckily, Weasel Zippers has brought relief to my seeking mind ... (H/T BabaluBlog) ...
It was that lovely group MoveOn.org that lead an attack campaign against Gen. Petraeus back then. I guess now they're trying to bury their past activities in order to show their adulation for Dear Leader.
WASHINGTON (Friday, September 21, 2007) — The Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly passed a measure condemning MoveOn.org for a newspaper ad it ran last week attacking Gen. David Petraeus. The move came as President Bush accused Democrats of cowering to the liberal political action group.
. . . Partisans also took the opportunity to slam Clinton and Obama for not voting on the amendment.
“Senators Clinton and Obama need to decide whether they’re running for America, or running for MoveOn.org. If Clinton and Obama cannot bring themselves to take a stand against a vicious attack on the man leading our forces in Iraq, why should American voters believe they are capable of demonstrating the leadership we need in a commander in chief?” said Republican National Committee chairman Mike Duncan.
Update 2: According to a lorien1973 (a Hot Air regular), the page was up this morning…
A new study by the National Association of Scholars has found that 70 percent of the summer reading books assigned to incoming college freshmen in the U.S. show a liberal bias and are not academically challenging, setting off a storm of debate in educational circles. The report, "Beach Books: What Do Colleges Want Students to Read Outside Class?", surveyed 290 colleges and categorized their summer reading lists in broad terms, such as "multiculturalism, immigration and racism" (the most common category chosen by colleges), or "environmentalism, animal rights and food" (the second largest liberal category selected by colleges). The study found that "the choices by and large reflect leftist political perspectives."
"Even where the books themselves may convey more complex social views, most of the books on the list fit neatly with the agenda of the campus left: anti-Western, anti-business,multicultural, environmentalist and alienated. The books do signal what lies ahead for students in many colleges: a four-year program of more of the same," the report concluded.
The study did not look at the alleged bias of the assigned books individually, according to NAS spokeswoman Ashley Thorne, who helped create the list. "We looked at what the books were about," she said, and then categorized the general subject as either liberal or conservative.
"Only 2 percent of the books were considered conservative," she said.
The study also found that the selection of books focused heavily on "pop culture and sports and not core curriculum," which is where Thorne argued higher education should be going.
“They were not intellectually challenging,” she said.
The report also argued that "the current reading programs take little interest in the classics." It found that there were no works by Shakespeare or from the Renaissance and that ancient works were completely ignored.Of the 290 assignments by colleges, only five schools came close to assigning classics, according to the report. Those "classics" were: Frankenstein, The Communist Manifesto, Walden and the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn -- which was assigned by two colleges. But educators argue that classics are curriculum material best studied in the classroom, and that students are unlikely to read Rousseau over the summer. They argue that popular books not only build common ground, but help students learn to write better than the textbooks and classics they will be required to read in their courses
The NAS's use of broad-brush categories also came under widespread criticism from educators. John K. Wilson, an Illinois educator who writes the College Freedom blog, said that the most assigned book was "This I Believe," a collection of statements of what people believe by a wide array of contributors that could hardly be considered liberal or conservative.
"It doesn't appear that anyone at NAS has read the book," he said.
He also challenged the inclusion of "Persepolis," a graphic novel about the brutal dictatorship in Iran, as liberal, and the failure to list "Freakonomics," a libertarian book about economics, as conservative ...
But Peter Wood, president of NAS, stood by his group's report, saying, "Something is wrong when Frankenstein is the best book on the list; the only work of philosophy is The Communist Manifesto; and books on Africa outnumber books on Europe nearly six to one."
Freakonomincs' and 'The Communist Manifesto' are two of the controversial books chosen for college summer reading options. (Amazon)
For me, this calls to mind my recent experience in graduate school. The blatant liberal bias of my professors was shocking, evident in both reading materials as well as political beliefs expressed in class.
I always say that there is a fine line between education and indoctrination.
Eight Republican senators and an independent group that supports tighter limits on immigration are warning that the Obama administration is drafting a plan to "unilaterally" issue blanket amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants as it struggles to win support in Congress for an overhaul of immigration laws.
The senators who wrote the White House on Monday say they are concerned that the administration is readying a "Plan B" in case a comprehensive reform bill cannot win enough support to clear Congress. "It seems more real than just bullying (Republicans) into a bill -- that it's a plan that they can actually put forward ... circumventing Congress," an aide told FoxNews.com on Wednesday.
In their letter, the senators -- Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa; Orrin Hatch, R-Utah; David Vitter, R-La.; Jim Bunning, R-Ky.; Saxby Chambliss, Ga.; Johnny Isakson, R-Ga.; James Inhofe, R-Okla.; and Thad Cochran, R-Miss. -- urge the president to "abandon" what they say is a move to "unilaterally extend either deferred action or parole to millions of illegal aliens in the United States."
"Such a move would further erode the American public's confidence in the federal government and its commitment to securing the borders and enforcing the laws already on the books," they wrote.
Deferred action and parole, which give illegal immigrants the ability to seek a work permit and temporary legal status, are normally granted on a case-by-case basis. But the aide said the lawmakers have learned from "sources" that the administration is considering flexing its authority to grant the status on a mass basis.
Numbers USA, an organization that presses for lower immigration levels along with humanitarian treatment of illegal immigrants, has started a petition to the president expressing "outrage" at the alleged plan.
Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations with Numbers USA, said she's been hearing for weeks from "sources close to the Democratic leadership" in both chambers that administration officials are discussing whether the Department of Homeland Security could direct staff to grant "amnesty" for all illegal immigrants in the country.
"They're trying to figure out ways around a vote," she said.
"Any attempt to force an amnesty on the American people using this underhanded method smacks of despotism," reads the fax the group is urging supporters to sign.
The White House has not responded to a request for comment.
The Department of Homeland Security estimated last year that 10.8 million undocumented residents live in the United States; other estimates have ranged higher. Any move to grant blanket legal status, even temporary, would raise questions about how Homeland Security would be able to handle the caseload. Jenks said Congress certainly wouldn't grant the administration the funding for more caseworkers ...
Mexico should have re-examined its own immigration policy carefully before joining in on a lawsuit filed against Arizona's proposed immigration law ... Mexico may very well be setting itself up for lawsuits from other countries due to its own tough immigration regulations.
From FoxNews, that gloriously evil bastion of biased reporting (emphasis added):
Mexico on Tuesday asked a federal court in Arizona to declare the state's new immigration law unconstitutional, arguing that the country's own interests and its citizens' rights are at stake.
Lawyers for Mexico on Tuesday submitted a legal brief in support of one of five lawsuits challenging the law. The law will take effect July 29 unless implementation is blocked by a court.
The law generally requires police investigating another incident or crime to ask people about their immigration status if there's a "reasonable suspicion" they're in the country illegally. It also makes being in Arizona illegally a misdemeanor, and it prohibits seeking day-labor work along the state's streets.
Until recently, Mexican law made illegal immigration a criminal offense -- anyone arrested for the violation could be fined, imprisoned for up to two years and deported. Mexican lawmakers changed that in 2008 to make illegal immigration a civil violation like it is in the United States, buttheir law still reads an awful lot like Arizona's.
Arizona's policy, which President Felipe Calderon derided during a recent U.S. trip as "discriminatory," states police can't randomly stop people and demand papers, and the law prohibits racial profiling.
Mexican law, however, requires law enforcement officials "to demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in the country before attending to any issues."
Amnesty International recently issued a report claiming illegal immigrants in Mexico -- typically from Central America -- face abuse, rape and kidnappings, and that Mexican police do little to stop it. When illegal immigration was a criminal offense in Mexico, officials were known to seek bribes from suspects to keep them out of jail.
But Mexico said it has a legitimate interest in defending its citizens' rights and that Arizona's law would lead to racial profiling, hinder trade and tourism, and strain the countries' work on combating drug trafficking and related violence.
Citing "grave concerns," Mexico said its interest in having predictable, consistent relations with the United States shouldn't be frustrated by one state.
"Mexican citizens will be afraid to visit Arizona for work or pleasure out of concern that they will be subject to unlawful police scrutiny and detention," the brief said.
It will be up to a U.S. District Court judge to decide whether to accept the brief along with similar ones submitted by various U.S. organizations ...
Let's take a look (again) at Mexico's immigration policy and its own track record of human rights violations ...
• Mexico's army is under attack by the UN and other activists groups for human rights violations of its own citizens and human rights activists (go here, here, and here)
• Illegal immigrants from Central America passing through Mexico are quick to make it to the U.S. to avoid Mexico's harsh immigration policies (go here and here)
• Consider Mexico's own dark history of human rights violations -- this from El enemigo común:
Current human rights concerns in Mexico include arbitrary arrest, torture and ill-treatment, violations in due process and denial of fair trials, the investigation and trial of military officials accused of human rights violations in military courts and the role of the military in law enforcement functions, violence against women, harassment and killing of journalists, intimidation of human rights activists and discrimination and marginalization of Indigenous peoples.
Impunity for human rights violations remains constant, stretching back to crimes from the “dirty war” of the 1960s, 70s and 80s, whose victims are still denied justice.
So, with Mexico joining suit against the State of Arizona, the Calderón administration may very well be opening itself up to a flood of suits against the Mexican government ... the proverbial pot calling the kettle black.
The situation on the border between Arizona and Mexico continues to deteriorate ... thanks to drug thugs' evil boldness and Obama's evil political shenanigans.
First, there's this week's story of Arizona Senator John Kyl claiming that Obama is playing political games using border security as leverage. According to Kyl, Obama won't secure the border between Arizona and Mexico until Arizona lawmakers adopt comprehensive immigration reform.
"The problem is, he said, if we secure the border, then you all won't have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform," Kyl said, as the crowd in the room gasped loudly. "In other words, they're holding it hostage."
The White House denied the claim on Monday. Spokesman Bill Burton and Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer both said Kyl "knows" Obama did not make that comment to him in their meeting.
"The president didn't say that and Senator Kyl knows it," Pfeiffer said in a written statement. "There are more resources dedicated toward border security today than ever before, but, as the president has made clear, truly securing the border will require a comprehensive solution to our broken immigration system."
Still, Senator Kyl's sticking to his guns and Tuesday morning Arizona's senior senator came to his defense. Senator John McCain said, "I tried explaining to the president that we gave amnesty back in the 1980's. Somewhere around three million illegal immigrants were given amnesty, but the promise was that we'd secure the border. Obviously, we didn't secure the border. We now have 12 million people in this country as Senator Kyl mentioned some hundreds of thousands in the state of Arizona illegally. So, our point is that even if we went through comprehensive immigration reform, if we didn't have a secure border, then sometime from now we would have another group of illegal immigrants that we would have to address the issue." [source]
To add to Kyl's claims, a 2004 recording of Obama speaking on Chicago Public Radio back in 2004. Does he, in his twisted phrasing, advocate a trade-off between border security and finding a path towards citizenship for illegal aliens? From POed Patriot via Breitbart TV:
"... the trade off is going to have to be improved security of our borders, at the same time, allowing those who are already here to reach out for that American dream."
As this situation gets increasingly "ridiculouser" by the day, I became angrier reading yesterday's news: first, that there are drug gangs on the border with look-outs and that Mexican drug cartels had the cojones to issue a warning to Arizona cops who make drug busts while off-duty (confusing, isnt' it? ... as well as ballsy):
First, here's a bit from FoxNews' Adam Housley's report about the look-outs (emphasis added):
Mexican drug cartels have set up shop on American soil, maintaining lookout bases in strategic locations in the hills of southern Arizona from which their scouts can monitor every move made by law enforcement officials, federal agents tell Fox News.
The scouts are supplied by drivers who bring them food, water, batteries for radios -- all the items they need to stay in the wilderness for a long time.
“To say that this area is out of control is an understatement," said an agent who patrols the area and asked not to be named. "We (federal border agents), as well as the Pima County Sheriff Office and the Bureau of Land Management, can attest to that.”
Much of the drug traffic originates in the Menagers Dam area, the Vekol Valley, Stanfield and around the Tohono O’odham Indian Reservation. It even follows a natural gas pipeline that runs from Mexico into Arizona.
In these areas, which are south and west of Tucson, sources said there are “cartel scouts galore” watching the movements of federal, state and local law enforcement, from the border all the way up to Interstate 8.
“Every night we’re getting beaten like a pinata at a birthday party by drug, alien smugglers," a second federal agent told Fox News by e-mail. "The danger is out there, with all the weapons being found coming northbound…. someone needs to know about this!”
The agents blame part of their plight on new policies from Washington, claiming it has put a majority of the U.S. agents on the border itself. One agent compared it to a short-yardage defense in football, explaining that once the smugglers and drug-runners break through the front line, they're home free.
“We are unable to work any traffic, because they have us forward deployed," the agent said. "We are unable to work the traffic coming out of the mountains. That traffic usually carries weapons and dope, too, again always using stolen vehicles.”
The Department of Homeland Security denies it has ordered any major change in operations or any sort of change in forward deployment.
(Reuters) - Police in an Arizona border city are on heightened alert after receiving a warning from a Mexican drug cartel that officers may be targeted if they carry out off-duty drug busts, authorities said on Tuesday.
Nogales Police Chief Jeff Kirkham said the department received the threat through an informant after two off-duty policemen seized 400 pounds (182 kg) of marijuana while horseback riding outside the city in early June.
"The warning was ... that the officers, if they are off duty, are to look the other way and ignore any drug trafficking loads that are coming across the border, otherwise they will be targeted," Kirkham told Reuters.
Arizona straddles a major corridor for Mexican smugglers who haul illegal immigrants and drugs north to the United States in a illicit trade worth billions of dollars a year.
Cartel turf wars and attacks on police have killed more than 25,000 people across Mexico since President Felipe Calderon launched a military crackdown on drug gangs in late 2006. [Looks like Calderon has a lot of blood on his inept hands.]
In recent years, U.S. authorities have become increasingly concerned about drug violence spilling over the border and taking hold in the United States.
Kirkham said he took the threats against Nogales police "very seriously." He said he had asked the Border Patrol for additional support, and had ordered officers to carry communications equipment and guns at all times.
Too bad Obama doesn't take the threats seriously like Police Chief Kickham.
It sure doesn't seem like Obama is looking after his country ...
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
For you good folks in Missouri, I wanted to be sure you were aware of a very important vote coming up on August 3rd -- the Health Care Freedom Act. This, the first in the nation, will amend Missouri statutes denying the federal government authority to penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private health insurance or infringe upon the right of citizens to offer or accept direct payment for lawful healthcare services.
Over the past year’s debate over health care reform, voters have had many opportunities to make their views known. The Tea Party movement rose up through rallies across the country. Frustrated voters packed town hall meetings with their representatives to speak their mind. While both of these were done to dramatic effect, we live in a republic and their effectiveness ultimately depended upon the actions of others.
In the 23rd Congressional District of New York and the special election for the Massachusetts Senate seat, voters had an opportunity to vote on health care reform, but it was by proxy at best. They were voting for someone who they hoped would then vote to protect freedom.
Ultimately, the Congress passed the President’s health care reform bill. While many saw this as a defeat for the movement that rose up to oppose it, the truth of the matter is that there is still much regulation, legislation and litigation ahead.
Several states’ Attorneys General have filed a lawsuit against the bill. Many more states have enacted statutes in opposition to federally mandated health insurance and penalties for paying for care out-of-pocket. A small handful of states have proposed constitutional amendments to that effect. All these votes are to take place in November. All except for one: Missouri.
The Missouri General Assembly passed the Health Care Freedom Act, placing on the August 3 primary ballot an opportunity for voters to approve a bill that would, “deny the government authority to penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private health insurance or infringe upon the right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful healthcare services.”
This referendum is remarkable for two reasons: (1) it gives voters a direct opportunity to affect the health care debate and (2) it is the first such vote in the nation, driving the debate for the next three months until the general election.
The committee urging a vote to protect our health care rights is called Missourians for Health Care Freedom, and our webpage is www.mohealthfreedom.org While only Missourians can vote on this matter on August 3, this is in every way a national battle—and it is the next battle in the fight for individual rights. Whether you are in California, Florida, or some place in between, please consider riding to the sound of the guns and supporting us in our fight. A victory in the Show-Me State will show Washington that Americans value our liberty and will not easily surrender it. Patrick Tuohey is president of Market and Communications Research Inc., a public opinion and communication research firm he founded in 1999.
SPREAD THE WORD!!! Let's see if the good folks in "flyover country" can influence other states to band against ObamaCare.
A Bronx firehouse is feeling the heat after officials discovered an image of President Obama was painted on a toolbox - and then defaced with the word "hustler."
An iconic picture of the President above the word "BELIEVE" appears to have been stenciled on a large toolbox visible inside Engine 45, Ladder 58 in East Tremont.
Right across Obama's face is the word "HUSTLER" in big red letters.
And underneath the image, someone scrawled "Allah Akbar" - "God is great" in Arabic - in black ink. Lt. Kenneth Durante refused to comment on the images when questioned at the firehouse Monday.
FDNY officials said last night they launched an internal probe after the Daily News brought the images to their attention.
"This matter is under investigation," said FDNY spokesman Jim Long.
He declined to go into detail on how long the investigation might take or what disciplinary action some of New York's Bravest could expect to face.
On an adjacent panel of the toolbox was the famous police sketch of the Unabomber and words that had been covered with black tape until only "ET ME" was visible.
The images are a direct violation of FDNY rules that prohibit firefighters from displaying vulgar or offensive material in the firehouse or on their lockers.
The president of the Vulcan Society, the organization of black firefighters, said he was disappointed that the image was on display.
But he said he was not surprised.
"Racism is alive and well in America, and the Fire Department is evidence of that," John Coombs said. "Whoever the supervisors are, they need to be suspended, and real examples made [of them]."
"The day it went up, it should have been taken down," he added.
"It's anti-Fire Department policy . . . we're fighting institutional racism, but it's actually deeper than that, it's cultural," Coombs said.
The flap comes at a sensitive time for the FDNY, which is under federal scrutiny for a lack of diversity.
Of the roughly 11,500 firefighters working in the city, 91% are white and only 350 are black.
It was unclear if the city has any Muslim firefighters. Unlike the NYPD, the FDNY does not have a fraternal organization for Muslim members.
In January, a federal judge ruled the force's entrance exam intentionally discriminated against blacks and Hispanics and called the practice "a persistent stain on the Fire Department's record."
Racism? Come on! People have got to quit pullin' that whenever anything said is critical of Obama! How is the image racist? Is it in the mind of actual racists to think "hustler" can only apply to Blacks? All politicians are hustlers, as far as I'm concerned.
This is an obvious expression of anger towards Obama for his weak leadership, lame promises, and his administration's considering trying Guantanamo criminals in New York. Oh, and don't forget the whole mosque-built-at-Ground-Zero issue.
You know they wouldn't have been peeing themselves if the same had been done to an image of Bush.
Judge sides with industry, which opposed six-month moratorium
NEW ORLEANS - A federal judge Tuesday ruled against the Obama administration's six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling in the wake of the BP oil spill. The White House, which had hoped the ban would provide time to ensure other wells are operating safely, immediately said it would appeal.
The ruling comes in a lawsuit filed by drilling companies to reverse the ban imposed by the Department of Interior, which halted the approval of any new permits for deepwater drilling and suspended drilling at 33 exploratory wells in the Gulf.
A federal judge in Louisiana granted the drillers' request for a preliminary restraining order that would prevent the ban from taking effect until a trial is held. He did not set a trial date.
District Judge Martin Feldman said the Interior Department failed to provide adequate reasoning and that the moratorium seems to assume that because one rig failed, all companies and rigs doing deepwater drilling pose an imminent danger.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs countered that "continuing to drill at these depths without knowing what happened does not make any sense and ... potentially puts the safety of those on the rigs and the safety of the environment in the Gulf at a danger that the president does not believe we can afford right now." ...
We don't know what happened?!? Fer cryin' out loud! Let's not waste precious time on a panel to investigate what caused the explosion. WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENED!!
The article then raised the question as to whether the judge in the hearing has ties to oil ...
Feldman's financial disclosure report for 2008, the most recent available, shows holdings in at least eight petroleum companies or companies that invest in them, including Transocean Ltd., which owned the Deepwater Horizon. The report shows that most of his holdings were valued at less than $15,000, though it did not provide specific amounts.
It's not clear whether Feldman still has all of the energy industry stock listed in the report. Recent court filings indicate he may no longer have Transocean shares. He did not own any shares in big companies such as BP PLC, which was leasing the rig that exploded, or ExxonMobil.
Feldman did not immediately respond to a request for comment about his current holdings.
Josh Reichert, managing director of the Pew Environment Group, said his ruling should be rescinded if he still has investments in companies that could benefit from Tuesday's ruling ...
But, let's not be too hasty about giving Judge Feldman the boot on account of his investments in oil. The AP reported earlier this month that many federal judges have ties to the oil industry:
MIAMI — More than half of the federal judges in districts where the bulk of Gulf oil spill-related lawsuits are pending have financial connections to the oil and gas industry, complicating the task of finding judges without conflicts to hear the cases, an Associated Press analysis of judicial financial disclosure reports shows.
Thirty-seven of the 64 active or senior judges in key Gulf Coast districts in Louisiana, Texas, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida have links to oil, gas and related energy industries, including some who own stocks or bonds in BP PLC, Halliburton or Transocean — and others who regularly list receiving royalties from oil and gas production wells, according to the reports judges must file each year. The AP reviewed 2008 disclosure forms, the most recent available.
...
Judge Feldman's ties to oil look rather small ... and his brains appear to be functioning far more rationally and ethically than the Obama Administration's. Remember that the Obama Administration first misrepresented the recommendation of scientists with regards to offshore drilling. Then, Obama appointed "experts" to a special panel to investigate the oil spill, selecting seven individuals, six of whom are 'short on technical expertise' but long on decrying America's addiction to oil.
There surely will be no bias on that panel, right? Right?
Looks like the Right has another political turncoat on its hands: Meg Whitman, gubernatorial candidate in California. Check this out from the LA Times blog:
During the Republican gubernatorial primary, Meg Whitman responded to her rival, Steve Poizner, by enforcing her opposition to amnesty for illegal immigrants. She even went so far as to enlist former Gov. Pete Wilson, who declared Whitman "tough as nails" on the issue.
But that was then.
Now, Whitman is on the air with two new Spanish-language ads, and Wilson is nowhere to be found. Instead, the ads discuss Whitman's opposition to Arizona's immigration law and to Proposition 187, the 1994 measure backed by, you guessed it, Pete Wilson.
You can see one of the new ads below. The audio from the ad is running during Thursday's World Cup broadcast on Spanish-language radio.
-- Anthony York
So, what do voters do when a candidate campaigns on a particular platform, gets elected or nominated, and then does the exact opposite?!? Still gotta check into those recall rules ...
It's the middle of the day on a deserted Washington street. You're on your way to a reelection fund raising brunch. Suddenly a gang of crazed camera-wielding teabaggers jump out from the alley and lunge at you with their razor-sharp switchblade questions!
Would YOU know WHAT TO DO?
Don't let panic and confusion put your poll numbers in the hospital - or worse! Fight back with CONG-FU, the exclusive congressional seat-defense system developed by Sensei Bob Etheridge, world renowned Dragon-level 8 term master of Hu-Yu Drunken Tarheel Style! And now you can learn the forbidden fighting secrets of East Carolina in Sensei Bob's new book, "CONG-FU: The Death Touch."
Other campaign methods focus on evasive action like fleeing town halls and throwing cash at problem constituents. But CONG-FU is the only system that attacks the problem at the source -- your opponents' windpipes! End those reelection fears and gain self confidence. With CONG-FU, you'll turn the tables on angry critics by making them flee from you. Order "CONG-FU: The Death Touch" today and by November your constituents will be afraid to pull the lever for anybody else!
For only $19.95, you'll learn the 17 deadly katas of the CONG-FU fighting discipline -- including Hu-Yu, Flip Slap, Ah-Sol palm thrust, wrist grab rabid monkey style, and Nu-Gi -- along with step-by-step illustrations of Sensei Bob rendering attackers speechless. In this exclusive internet offer, we'll also include a free action-packed DVD!
But CONG-FU is more than aggressive disabling attack techniques. Much more! You'll also learn secret defensive countermoves that will let you maintain complete stealth and plausible deniability, while avoiding arrest -- like the Twisting Weasel modified half-apology, and the deadly meme-killing Yu Tu-Be takedown notice. There's even a complete section on concealed media weapons, including tools like Media-Ite, Wa-Po and Dik-Suk.
But don't take our word for it... listen to these testimonials from satisfied customers:
"Before CONG-FU the Tea Partiers had me cowering in fear. Thanks to Sensei Bob, the next time one of those violent bastards demands I explain a health care vote, he's getting filibustered... right in the wingnuts!" H.R., Capitol Hill
"The amazing CONG-FU system is the ultimate in stealth. Every eye-gouge and chokehold looks like a friendly hug! At least that's what I'm reporting." D.W., 15th Street
"I just received my copy of CONG-FU in the mail. Wow! I can't wait to start figuring out whose ass to kick!" B.O., Pennsylvania Avenue
So what are you waiting for? Order "CONG-FU today and start sweeping a leg on the opposition. The seat you save may be your own!
REPLY TO:
CONG-FU BOOK OFFER
c/o Sensei Bob's DC Dojo
1533 Longworth House Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20515
(Please include check or money order for $19.95 plus $6.95 S+H, plus $23.95 National Health Care Coverage Tax, $18.95 VAT, plus $6.95 National Recovery Stimulus Service Fee. Lobbyist Residents of DC please add 18% reelection gratuity. Offer not valid in Red States.)
Obama is out of control. He claims we have a debt to the next generation, but sees no problem with saddling them with huge deficits ... and then blaming Republicans for his out-of-control stimulus packages. He disdains acting with foresight while blaming everyone but himself for the nation's woes. Today, he blamed the GOP for making life harder, ignoring the insane deficit spending he has been shoving down America's throat.
This from FoxNews, that evil bastion of "biased" reporting (emphasis added):
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama on Saturday pinned blame on Republicans for making life harder for the unemployed and for those who could lose their jobs without new federal intervention. He did so even as he sought to distance himself from the "dreary and familiar politics" of Washington.
Capping a week in which the administration scored a victory -- a $20 billion fund to be paid by BP for the victims of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill -- Obama reserved his radio and Internet address to focus on the work that didn't get done.
His main concern was the rejection of a bill in the Senate that would have provided more money for the long-term unemployed, aid for strapped state governments and the renewal of popular tax breaks for businesses and individuals.
"If this obstruction continues, unemployed Americans will see their benefits stop," Obama said. "Teachers and firefighters will lose their jobs. Families will pay more for their first home. All we ask for is a simple up or down vote. That's what the American people deserve."[Wow, folks! Is that fear-mongering or what?!?]
The broad economic bill failed Thursday when Democrats could not muster the 60 votes needed to end debate. The 56-40 vote fell four shy of the total required to break the GOP filibuster. Republicans support many of the policies in the legislation but are demanding changes to shrink its toll on the deficit.
"Americans want us to show we're serious about lowering the debt, so the president and his allies in Congress have a choice to make: they can either vote to reduce the deficit, or they can lock arms and dig an even deeper hole of debt," said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
The standoff again revealed the gaps between the Democratic president and the Republican congressional leaders on how to solve the nation's problems.
Obama was at the same time branding the opposition party as obstructionist while seeking a higher level of debate from his own party and Republicans.
"We have an obligation to care for the next generation," Obama said. "So I hope that when Congress returns next week, they do so with a greater spirit of compromise and cooperation. America will be watching."
... And Obama also said Republicans are the ones at fault for preventing votes on his nominees to key positions in the government. Former President George W. Bush often had the same complaint about Democratic lawmakers ...
We're sick of Obama's blame game. He's playing craps in the back alley with his cronies, racking up trillions of debt, ignores real crises and snubs heads of state, and then has the nerve to blame the GOP.
Obama needs to man up and act like a real head of state.
Obama once again has shown his lack of experience and expertise, as well as that of his advisers, in his decision to ban offshore oil drilling for six months in the wake of the tragic BP oil spill. Too bad he didn't consult with someone with firsthand knowledge and experience in oil drilling, such as country music singer Trace Adkins who was recently interviewed by CNN's Anderson Cooper:
"an uninformed decision, just ridiculous"
"punishing American companies for what a British company did"
"shuttin' down the oil field is like kickin' a man when he's down"
Adkins mentions the service, supply and caterirng businesses that depend on the oil rigs for business. Did the Obama administration seriously consider the wide-reaching impact of such a moratorium, or was he and his cronies hell-bent on shutting down the oil industry -- innocent folks in the fray be damned?
And now what about other countries that could move in and rent the idle rigs for their own profits?
* Deep water rigs in tight supply around the world
RIO DE JANEIRO, June 11 (Reuters) - Brazil could benefit from the BP Gulf of Mexico spill as a U.S. moratorium on
offshore drilling boosts available rigs for the country's deep
water oil exploration program.
Even as an ecological catastrophe makes the future of U.S. offshore drilling less certain, Brazil is plowing ahead with a
$220 billion five-year plan to tap oil fields even deeper than
BP's (BP.L) ill-fated Gulf well, which is still leaking crude.
With an estimated 35 rigs idled in the Gulf of Mexico, Brazil is already receiving inquiries from companies looking to
move their rigs here, where vast discoveries in recent years
may soon turn the country into a major crude exporter.
"What is bad for some may be good for others," said Fernando Martins, Latin America Vice President for GE Oil and
Gas, which provides services to drillers in Brazil.
"Since operators are shutting down at least temporarily in the U.S. Gulf, some companies are planning to move their rigs
to Brazil now," he said, without offering details.
The spill has temporarily halted new drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska, and has spurred Norway, which 40 years
ago pioneered offshore drilling, to halt new licensing for now.
Brazil's state oil company Petrobras (PETR4.SA) (PBR.N),
which already produces around a quarter of the world's deep
water oil, could be an obvious candidate to take newly
available rigs.
Petrobras declined to comment on the issue.
But Mauricio Tolmasquim, a top Brazilian government energy advisor, said this week that he expected the Gulf spill to
benefit Petrobras by making more deep water rigs available -- adding that cost savings could be offset by higher insurance premiums for drilling operations.
Brazilian officials, including government leaders and Petrobras executives, have said Brazil has no intention of
slowing its offshore development as a result of the spill.
Analysts say oil companies operating in the Gulf of Mexico -- most notably BP and Chevron (CVX.N) -- may have to decide between paying standby fees while the rigs are idle, moving
them to other projects, or canceling the contracts.
The U.S. moratorium may last longer than six months because of U.S. sentiment against offshore drilling and plans for an
overhaul of safety standards.
This could provide further incentives to move rigs to Brazil or West Africa, which together with the Gulf of Mexico have over the last five years been the principal areas of deep water exploration...
This rapid deep water growth may leave oil majors unwilling
to cancel rig contracts, despite the expense of keeping them
idle, for fear of losing rigs they need down the road.
"If I'm Chevron, I know I've got Petrobras looking over my shoulder, and if I cancel that rig I'm taking the chance that I
might not get it back," said Kurt Hallead, an analyst with RBC Capital Markets, who covers oil services ...
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer expressed outrage Thursday over Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's comments that the Obama administration will sue over Arizona's controversial immigration law -- and Brewer said she's ready for a fight.
Clinton said in an interview with a TV station in Ecuador that the Obama administration "will be bringing" suit against Arizona for its immigration law, though the Justice Department for weeks has said that the issue is still under review.
"What a disappointment," Brewer told Fox News' Greta Van Susteren on Thursday, saying she was shocked the administration would make such an announcement on foreign TV without giving Arizona officials the news first. Her office hadn't heard from the administration as of Thursday evening.
"We are not going to back away from this issue," Brewer said. "We are going to pursue it, we're going to be very aggressive," Brewer said. "We'll meet them in court ... And we will win."
She added: "The population of America agrees with Arizona."
Lately having been so busy with the ending of the school year, I have been doing a slow boil about the Arizona law and the ongoing onslaught of illegal aliens in our country. Working in Liberal La-La-Land and having conversations with neighbors, all of whom promptly spit out the Liberal talking points about immigration, I've gotten my belly full of the usual B.S. you hear in the MSM: the Arizona law is racist. This just makes me want to scream!!!!
OK, put on your seatbelts! This is gonna be a bumpy ride!
Here are my thoughts, for what little they're worth. But, let me first preface my thoughts by saying I have lived for a while in Mexico. I am well acquainted with and deeply love Mexico's people and culture, so for any loons out there that want to point the finger of shame at me and scream "RACIST!", take a hike!
1) The nation's laws should apply equally to all -- toALL! My grandparents had to obey the laws when they immigrated here. I believe what we have here is special treatment for a particular group of people. The laws are not being enforced for one particular race/ethnic group. Would that not be bias?
2) Illegal immigration has essentially resulted in "human trafficking" -- which is modern-day parlance for SLAVERY! Read what appeared a few weeks ago in Newsweek -- journalist Eve Conant, who sympathizes with the illegals, struggles with the realities of a half million illegal immigrants in Arizona and the detrimental effects the situation has caused over the past decade (from original article "Mexican Standoff" -- emphasis added):
It’s terrifying to live next door to homes filled with human traffickers, drug smugglers, AK-47s, pit bulls, and desperate laborers stuffed 30 to a room, shoes removed to hinder escape. During a month’s reporting with police and other law-enforcement agents in Arizona last year, I met many scared people. One man who lived next to a “drop house” for Mexican workers slept with two guns under his bed, his children not allowed to play in the backyard. The sound of gunshots was not uncommon. “Four years ago this neighborhood was poodles and old ladies,” he said, too frightened to give his name. “Now it’s absolutely insane.” That morning, authorities had raided the drop house. When the neighbor told me how his kids had been evacuated behind riot shields, he began to cry. Others, too, were unhappy: the undocumented workers taken from the house were exhausted, sweaty, and dead quiet as they sat on a curb with their hands cuffed, waiting to be taken away.
Within 24 hours I witnessed another bust, this one prompted by a tip from Tennessee authorities. They reported a threat to kill a kidnap victim, and a ransom demand for $3,500. Sheriff’s deputies went to a pleasant house with a two-car garage. Inside, they found dozens of immigrants crammed into unfurnished bedrooms, the windows boarded from the inside, shoes and belts piled up in the closet. The search also turned up a Taser-like device, a sawed-off shotgun, and two pistols. Another day, I watched the Phoenix police break up a “stash house” filled with guns and hundreds of pounds of marijuana. An hour later they raided a McMansion adorned with hunting trophies and Scarface posters; a white SUV jammed with 300 pounds of marijuana was parked out front. (Sixty percent of all the marijuana that reaches the U.S. transits Arizona.) Again, the house was in a high-end development, nowhere near the border.
Windows boarded up with shoes taken away ... so the workers can't escape! And, day laborers are not the only types of workers supplied. Illegal immigration has been linked to prostitution. (See here, here and here for examples.) You wonder how many of the prostitutes might have been forced into prostitution.
3) My theory is that it's racist NOT to stop the human trafficking, because if the illegals were blue-eyed, fair-skinned people, their work and living conditions would not be tolerated.
4) Arizona's law is not in violation of federal immigration law. First, click on this link to get a copy of the law for yourself.
Now, check out Megyn Kelly's analysis of the law (yeah, I know -- she's one of those evil FoxNews people ... but, she has a law degree AND actually took the time to read the legisation):
Kelly's comparisons: Federal law: officers don't need reasonable suspicion to ask for immigration status. Under AZ law, they do. (AZ law has a tougher standard for the cops.) You could be "harassed" by federal customs agents more easily. AZ cannot consider race when making a determination of reasonable suspicion.
Brett Baier interviewed one of the law's authors who stated that the Arizona law mirrors federal law:
It seems that President Obama, Mr. Constitutional Law Professor, should have a beef with the federal law and not just Arizona's.
5) Mexico's immigration policies are far more stringent that U.S. regulations:
Mexico repeatedly has been cited by human rights groups for abusing or turning a blind eye to the abuse of migrants from Central America. Until recently, Mexican law made illegal immigration a criminal offense -- anyone arrested for the violation could be fined, imprisoned for up to two years and deported. Mexican lawmakers changed that in 2008 to make illegal immigration a civil violation like it is in the United States, but their law still reads an awful lot like Arizona's.
The Mexican law also states that law enforcement officials are "required to demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in the country before attending to any issues." [source]
To have legal status in Mexico, you better be aware of the following ...
• Have the means to sustain themselves economically; • Not destined to be burdens on society; • Of economic and social benefit to society; • Of good character and have no criminal records; and • Contributors to the general well being of the nation. • Authorities have a record of each foreign visitor; • Foreign visitors do not violate their visa status; • Foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics; • Foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported; • Foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported; • Those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.” [source]
So, President Felipe Calderón can stick that in his pipe and smoke it!
6) Oh, and while Calderón is puffing away, let's look at some Mexico's shenanigans his country has been up to lately. In January 2005, Michelle Malkin reported on a "comic book" that the Mexican government was distributing to immigrants with tips for safe passage:
Looks to me like tacit approval to break the U.S.'s immigration laws.
Then, last month as tensions ran tight between Arizona and Mexico, the tourism board for the state of Sonora printed a rather threatening ad:
An Arizona sheriff is calling on Mexican officials to apologize for what he says is a "threatening" advertisement. The ad shows a man wearing camouflage looking through binoculars with the words: "In Sonora we are looking for people from Arizona."
The advertisement, which ran Friday in the Arizona Republic, caught the eye of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who posted the VisitMexico.com/GoToSonora.com spot on his Twitter page and asked citizens to call Mexican Tourism Board offices for clarification.
...
Javier Tapia, coordinator of the Tourism Promotion Commission of Sonora, said the second version of the advertisement, which ran on Saturday, features the words "who want to have a great time" following the initial line "In Sonora we are looking for people from Arizona." A scene of beachgoers also can be seen in the reflection of the binocular lenses, an element that did not appear in the original "teaser" advertisement.
Tapia insisted neither the first nor second versions of the ad were intended as a threat.
"We want to be very aggressive in our push, but we're not trying to scare anybody," he told FoxNews.com. "We're looking for the opposite -- we want everyone to feel very welcome here in Sonora."
Feel welcome. Yeah, sure.
And, if that tourism ad doesn't leave you feeling warm and fuzzy, let's look at two items related to the "entertainment industry." First, there's a variation on Dora the Explorer that's been making the rounds:
Several doctored pictures of Dora are circulating widely in the aftermath of Arizona's controversial new immigration law.
They may seem harmless or even tasteless. But experts say the pictures and the rhetoric surrounding them reveal some Americans' attitudes about race, immigrants and where the immigration reform debate may be headed.
Many of the Dora images assume the Latina character is an illegal immigrant from Mexico. But representatives from Nickelodeon have declined to comment on Dora's background, and her place of birth or citizenship have never been clear. [source]
And then there's the coming film "Machete":
An online trailer for the film "Machete," released on Cinco de Mayo (and embedded below the fold), begins with the title character saying he has a "special message...to Arizona!" That special message, as the New York Post writes, seems to be "They just f---ed with the wrong Mexican." [source]
Now, I haven't seen an update on this, but last month Lachlan Markay of Newsbusters.org was reporting that taxpayers might be chipping in some funds for this feel-good film.
Why not? Taxpayers are footing a lot of the immigration bill already.
Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh! (a cleansing breath there) ... Now I feel better having gotten that off my chest!
This blog is a newborn -- DOB is April 19, 2007! It was born from a discussion (argument?) at work regarding Hummers and their owners. My colleagues said that Humvee owners were basically the scum of the earth. I thought how unfair to judge someone you don't know by what car he or she drives! I've also heard and witnessed similar hate-filled reactions to cigarette smokers.Are Hummers and smokers the scapegoats of today's society? Why?And why on earth do people focus so much energy on such non-issues and disregard the real problems that exist in our society? Is it because such 'distractions' are easier to confront than the real problems? Let's explore the double-standards and hypocrisies of our society, shall we? (For more of the original, founding post, click here.)
"Busted: Exposing Popular Myths about Christianity" by Fred von Kamecke
"Beyond Opinion: Living The Faith We Defend" by Ravi Zacharias
"Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It" by Juan Williams
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades" by Robert Spencer
"Power To The People" by Laura Ingraham
"Do As I Say (Not As I Do) Profiles in Liberal Hyposcrisy" by Peter Schweizer
"State of Fear" by Michael Crichton
"Crazies to the Left of Me, Wimps to the Right: How One Side Lost Its Mind and the Other Lost Its Nerve" by Bernard Goldberg
"Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity -- Get Out The Shovel -- Why Everything You Know is Wrong" by John Stossel of 20/20
After watching shows on TV and doing some reading, I do believe that the supposed climate change (and, despite what Greenies try to tell me, the earth has been hotter) is more likely due to the sun's activity than anything else. We humans have a miniscule impact compared to the sun. I also believe that a lot of this nonsense is politically driven. Plus, how better for scientists to scare up research money than by creating a big harem scarem? Predicting 'catastrophies' and alarming people is far sexier and will get you a lot more research dollars. [See my commentary from 4/22/07: "Say It Loud and Proud: I'm A Heretic!"]
Posts
![President Suit, Savior of the World](<a href="http://patrioticmobster.wordpress.com"><img src="http://patrioticmobster.wordpress.com/files/2009/10/suit-banner-01.jpg"></a>){kind=small}
