Matters of Faith: Intelligent Design & Global Warming

The climate change movement, bereft of convincing scientific proof, has devolved into a religion. It has its own Orthodoxy Which Shall Not Be Questioned, lists of anathematized heretical scientists, and a green morality it uses to admonish the unwashed as it determines sinful and virtuous behavior.

Arguments over global warming, like those over religion, are exhausting and futile due to a lack of verifiable scientific data. What I've found interesting is the apparent (anecdotal) inverse relationship between belief in a creator and belief in climate change: The stronger one's belief in a creator the more skeptical one is of climate change; The stronger one's belief in climate change, the more skeptical one is about a creator.

Dr. Roy Spencer is a climatologist and former NASA scientist, and he has addressed both issues.

Although imminently qualified to refute Al Gore's climate nonsense (and he has in numerous articles and books) Dr. Spencer's recent blog post lists Gore's propaganda devices and gives examples of each one. Philosophers and students of logic will recognize these devices Mr. Gore employs, as they are the rhetorical rocks that a loser throws when he has expended his magazine of logic.

Here is the list. Dr. Spencer provides examples as well in his blog article:

Appeal to Authority
Bandwagon
Flag-waving
Ad Hominem Attacks
Appeal to Prejudice (using loaded words, appeals to a moral code)
Black and White Fallacy (False dilemma)
Euphoria (Movies and live events that make televangelists green with envy)
Falsifying Information
Stereotyping or Labeling

Even more interesting is Dr Spencer's defense of Intelligent Design. Here are some excerpts from his short, interesting defense of Intelligent Design. Note his adherence to scientific methods and lack of Gore-esque hot air rhetoric.

I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism.

True evolution, in the macro-sense, has never been observed, only inferred. A population of moths that changes from light to dark based upon environmental pressures is not evolution — they are still moths.

In the biological realm, natural selection (which is operating in these examples) is supposedly the mechanism by which evolution advances, and intelligent design theory certainly does not deny its existence. While natural selection can indeed preserve the stronger and more resilient members of a gene pool, intelligent design maintains that it cannot explain entirely new kinds of life — and that is what evolution is.

Common ancestry requires transitional forms of life to have existed through the millions of years of supposed biological evolution. Yet the fossil record, our only source of the history of life on Earth, is almost (if not totally) devoid of transitional forms of life that would connect the supposed evolution of amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds, etc.

One finally comes to the conclusion that, despite vigorous protests, belief in evolution and intelligent design are matters of faith. Even some evolutionists have admitted as much in their writings. Modern biology does not “fall apart” without evolution, as some will claim.

Intelligent design can be studied and taught without resorting to human creation traditions and beliefs... Just as someone can recognize and study some machine of unknown purpose built by another company, country (or alien intelligence?), one can also examine the natural world and ask the question: did this machine arise by semi-random natural physical processes, or could it have been designed by a higher power? Indeed, I was convinced of the intelligent design arguments based upon the science alone.

Religion and climate change: Two separate issues, but the arguments sure sound the same. When a climate change proponent finally in desperation employs Pascal's Wager (even though we can't prove we're destroying the planet, we've got to do something just in case!), the skeptic has won the argument.

Of course, the God-denier could say the same of the believer. The difference is this:

My belief in God doesn't require everyone to use only one square of toilet paper, drive expensive battery-powered crap-boxes, and economically castrate themselves upon the altar of Gaia.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/al-gores-propaganda/
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/roy-spencer-on-intelligent-design/

A Secular Jew in a Muslim Land

The foundation of Western Civilization is infested with termites, and the structure is sagging at the northeast corner...

Here's a sad commentary from a young British woman at the front lines of the East-West culture clash. The liberal bastion that was Europe is becoming quite illiberal thanks to its booming population of 8th century obscurantist, misogynist haters.

I am a secular, liberal, identifying British Jew. My parents would have taken great pleasure if my acting talents had landed me a starring role in the primary school nativity play; on Christmas Day, we gather at home eating smoked salmon bagels and mince pies. There is no conflict whatsoever between my religion and nationality.

In August 2001, I turned 21 and my parents gave me a Star of David necklace. Then a month later, the world changed and my mother, with remarkable foresight, began her campaign to rescind the gift, begging me to take it off because she was frightened it would make me a target in the wake of mounting evidence that fanatical Islamism was tightening its grip on the country. My argument was always the same - when I am no longer safe being identifiably Jewish on the tube, I don't want to live in England.

Now it's happening and I am devastated...(Read entire article)

Echos of 1938...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/11/gaza-britain-judaism-antisemitism

Bring The GWOT Home

I was stunned when I read the USA Today Headline:

Gangs Behind Up To 80% of US Crime

Think about that for a minute... 4 out of every 5 crimes are due to gang activity.

Criminal gangs in the USA have swelled to an estimated 1 million members responsible for up to 80% of crimes in communities across the nation, according to a gang threat assessment compiled by federal officials.

Last year, 58% of state and local law enforcement agencies reported that criminal gangs were active in their jurisdictions, up from 45% in 2004.

So 0.33% of the population (one of every 300 of us) holds the rest of us hostage. Safety and security are the most basic needs, the lack of which quickly leads to societal dysfunction. We see it on our streets and in our schools.

Blowing tax dollars on pie-in-the-sky community development and dubious education giveaways is futile if we don't eradicate the crime that undermines our safety and security. If you don't take care of the crime first, you're building a house on a rotten foundation.

Time to Bring the GWOT to North America.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-01-29-ms13_N.htm

Joke of the Day

Courtesy of my old buddy OD...

The Gynecologist Who Became A Mechanic

A gynecologist had become fed up with malpractice insurance and HMO paperwork and was burned out.

Hoping to try another career where skillful hands would be beneficial; he decided to become a mechanic. He went to the local technical college, signed up for evening classes, attended diligently, and learned all he could.

When the time of the practical exam approached, the gynecologist prepared carefully for weeks, and completed the exam with tremendous skill.

When the results came back, he was surprised to find that he had obtained a score of 150%.
Fearing an error, he called the instructor, saying, "I don't want to appear ungrateful for such an outstanding result, but I wonder if there is an error in the grade."

'The instructor said, "During the exam, you took the engine apart perfectly, which was worth 50% of the total mark. You put the engine back together again perfectly, which is also worth 50% of the mark.

After a pause, the instructor added, "I gave you an extra 50% because you did it all through the muffler, which I've never seen done in my entire career."

Obama Administration Ethics Rules

The Obama Administration is moving fast:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, in his first full day on the job, is announcing new rules to limit special-interest influence on the government's $700 billion financial rescue program.

The new rules are designed to crack down on lobbyist influence over the rescue program. The Obama administration says they go farther than the lobbying rules imposed by the Bush administration.

This new administration means business! They've only ignored the new rules three times this week.

Other Changes:

• Lobbyists must pledge that their companies will reduce financial rape and pillage by 50%; Congress doesn't like competition.
  
• Austerity measures include: Congress may not be bribed with multi-million dollar mansions, only smaller vacation homes.
• A sign of tightening conditions, congressmen will no longer provide reach arounds to their lobbyist partners. In a concession to Congressman Barny Frank, meetings may still be held in the Congressional locker room.
• No more hiring lobbyists! Unless they are Democratic ones.

The Who said it best: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D95VIBUO0&show_article=1

President Obama Scolds Wall Street Over "Shameful" Bonuses
Senator Dodd: Pay the Money Back!

Wall Street is learning the truth of an old Ronald Reagan quote:

Get in bed with the government and you'll get more than a good night's sleep.

Being scolded by the government about shameful behavior and wasteful spending is like receiving a lecture on morals from a crack whore.

A Liberal Mess

So I'm trying to get down the mountain last Friday after a great day of skiing in fresh powder, and stupid people are getting in the way by causing multiple multi-car pileups, closing the interstate in both directions.

These arrogant, idiot drivers were scrambling to get back to their liberal sanctuary city that put Obama over the top in this state. OK, maybe they weren't all Obamabots, but when it comes to elections, I believe in collective guilt.

The roads were extremely slick and I, along with the other sane drivers, was doing about 30 and maintaining a good distance between me and the car in front. Had everyone stuck to this plan, we'd have all made it down in about two hours. But no... The entitled progressives driving Land Rovers, Subarus, and various Lexi voted with their accelerators for suspending the laws of physics, imperiously zig zagging through traffic. So these dingbats rushing back to their liberal utopia bollixed it up for everybody by causing about 25,000 car wrecks in the span of 20 minutes.

It normally takes 1 hour (2 hours in bad weather) to get back to the Sodom and Gomorrah at the foot of the Rockies, where I turn off and head for God's country. Thanks to these impatient progressives who long ago became untethered from reality, it took over four hours as we waited for the authorities to clean up the mess they caused.

This reminded me of Michael Medved and Helen Thomas. You know Helen Thomas, the incredibly old and incredibly liberal White House reporter. Well, she was asked in an interview to explain her liberalism, and she replied that, "well, we're all born liberal."

Michael Medved had a wonderful riposte. I'm paraphrasing from memory, and probably embellishing, so my apologies to Mr. Medved:

Of course we’re all born liberal! As babies we expect someone to pick us up and suckle us when we cry. Eating, like every other pleasure, comes with no effort. Babies don't have to earn anything, they pay for nothing, but they deserve everything. Babies pee, poop, drool and spill wherever they want because someone else cleans up the mess. Puke down the front of your shirt, pee your pants, poop on the carpet; no responsibility, just gimme, gimme, gimme! It's a fantasy world of padded guard rails, warm swaddling, and adults sacrificing mightily for your comfort and safety. A liberal paradise.

Yes, liberals and babies have a lot in common, and all the adults can do is clean up the mess and move on, after a four hour delay.

Sign the Democrats' Rush Limbaugh Petition!

The Democrats, having nothing better to do, have started an on-line petition against Rush Limbaugh because he said he wanted President Obama to fail. In the Democrats' funhouse world, it's OK to wish for defeat in Iraq and trash President Bush at every turn, but speaking ill of their chosen one is beyond the pale. I went and signed it. Here's what I wrote:

It's called the first Amendment. Just like when I was wiring up radios in Iraq and Sen Reid declared all my efforts were in vain. Stupid? Yes. Irresponsible? Yes. Illegal? No

You politicians have real constitutional and budget problems. Instead of facing them, you waste time on trivialities like this...

You are irresponsible and should be ashamed.

Please go sign the petition! Sign early, sign often, and be sure to leave them a scalding message. Like everything the liberals do, this is a farce. So in the spirit of bipartisanship, join in and do your part to make it even more farcical!

The Fatal Flaw in the US Constitution

Overall, the US Constitution is a fairly decent legal document, providing legal protections to the citizens from the excesses of government. The predominant flaw in the document, stems not so much from the ideology of it's authors, but from the time in which it was written. I have determined through careful and thorough analysis and practical experience, that an essential human right was overlooked, what is missing from the Constitution is the following phrase:

A well-illuminated Kitchen being necessary to the preservation of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear incandescent lights, shall not be infringed.

That's right baby, kiss those light bulbs goodbye. Tucked away in the 822 page Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 is wording that essentially legislates the light bulb out of practical existence. Requiring 25% greater efficiency of light bulbs, phased in between 2012 and 2014, the humble light bulb is doomed. This is the equivalent of banning automobiles by legislating the requirement for a corporate average fuel economy of 120 mpg by 2014.

You might wonder why, I am blogging about this some two-years after the fact. Well, I finally broke down and decided to try the future of home lighting out. Recently the light over my kitchen sink burned out, while shopping for the replacement and tired of climbing first onto a chair and then onto the counter, I decided to check out the stores quite prominent display of compact florescent lamps (CFL). Having normally kept the over-the-sink fixture outfitted with a 60-watt incandescent, I purchased a reflector CFL. According to Energy-Star, my previous 60-watt bulb produced a minimum of 800 lumens, my new energy-star compliant equivalent of a 100-watt incandescent bulb produces a minimum of 1,600 lumens for only 23-30 watts. Given the scientific analysis WHY THE HELL CAN'T I SEE IN MY KITCHEN?

The light produced by this modern scientific monstrosity is completely and utterly inadequate. It is not only too dim...it's....it's....it's..... BLUE. The light produced is insufficient to wash dishes by (I know...that's what the dishwasher if for... but I haven't seen her since the last I.C.E raid... okay, I'm kidding about the dishwasher!) and while not that great for working under, will probably be quite effective at lowering my cholesterol... as any cut of meat placed under it looks as if it is, how shall we put this? Rotting? I am beginning to wonder if perhaps there is something wrong with my eyes... as while this thing may emit 1600 lumens of illumination, I am considering the possibility that it is in some spectral frequency that, alas, I am unable to see. Hmmm, I wonder what the cats think.

If you think that's the end of my story (tirade), you're wrong. In addition to my woes regarding CFL bulbs, I at the same time in the hardware store, decided that I needed to do something about my wardrobe closet. You see, my bedroom closet didn't have a light in it, and I have been forced for quite some time to pull my apparel out of the closet to decide what's what. Always leaning forward on the forefront of technology, as I browsed through the variety of fixtures available I came across the technology which undoubtedly will replace CFLs. I purchased for my closet that latest darling of technology, an LED fixture.

I thought, as I gleefully took the thing home, that I had outsmarted everyone... the electric company, the light-bulb cartel, and would never, ever, reasonably expect to have to replace a thing since it advertised a 30,000 hour life expectancy. Installation was easy, no more difficult than installing a conventional fixture, and in a matter of minutes, I had a light in my wardrobe closet. I flicked the switch and experienced first hand the eureka moment undoubtedly experienced by Thomas Alva Edison many years before. My closet was bathed in the most intense and brilliant light I had ever seen, excepting possibly while arc-welding. As a man, I loved it... I had my own miniature thermonuclear fireball hanging quite comfortably from my closet ceiling.

It wasn't until the following morning that the euphoria wore off. Having had my morning cup of coffee and shower, I opened my closet door and hit the switch. Momentarily blinded by the intense flash, I paused waiting for my eyes to adjust. I squinted and blinked. A gut-wrenching horror oozed out of the closet and seeped into my very soul. I couldn't tell, to any practical extent, the difference between my suits! My legs trembled... I could no longer tell olive from brown. I could not discern the subtle variation in color and pattern from one charcoal suit to the other. I was feeling light headed... I stared into the closet at my three black suits.... wait a minute! I don't own three black suits. For a moment, I think I've gone color blind... pulling a suit out of the closet I discover, no, that's not it.

There in my closet hung my entire wardrobe... I could see every single suit quite distinctly, perfectly illuminated, bathed in a brilliant light, only thanks to the wonders of modern technology, I could no longer tell them apart. I have, in desperation, started digging the holes on my property in which I shall stockpile my future supply of light bulbs, the only problem is I keep digging up my ammunition along with occasional stashes of toilet paper from the 1973 crisis.

I am beginning to dread the future! Anyone know where I can get a decent tallow candle?

Cheers!


~Finntann~

American Revolution 2009

When in the Course of Human Events...

Economic Nullification is an intriguing concept explained by Locke Smith (gotta be a nom de plume). Washington's recent Bridge Loan to Nowhere is what pushed him over the edge:

The bailout of General Motors and Chrysler – appalling in its own right – is a sure sign that whatever feeble constitutional and political constraints that had kept the government in check are gradually disappearing. We know our rights as citizens are being trampled when the government can take resources from the productive sector of our economy and provide them to unproductive, money losing companies, organizations and individuals.

This got me thinking... There's gotta be some way short of armed rebellion or tax resistance to stop this out of control monster our experiment in democracy has turned into. Both parties have hijacked government and turned it into a trillion dollar Pez dispenser.

Then I read an article in Reason Magazine written by Brian Doherty containing depressing boilerplate about the decline and fall of the GOP. Near the end he noted the recent death of conservative intellectual Father Richard John Neuhaus:

My favorite Neuhaus moment involved a now mostly forgotten intra-right wing controversy that is worth remembering: In 1996 he ran a symposium in his magazine First Things which seriously raised the question (in the context, mostly, of judicial decisions about abortion) of whether the U.S. government had so exceeded both its legitimate mandate and any meaningful democratic controls that conscientious citizens should no longer owe it their allegiance.

Not so much in memory of Neuhaus, but in respect for its own soul, the GOP needs to ask itself whether a government that so exceeds its constitutional mandates is one the American people have any reason to respect—and to realize the extent to which it is complicit in the out-of-control, improvident, destructive beast the U.S. government is.

Those are strong words, but appropriate I think. So my question is, what can we do about it? Taking up arms is unwarranted and ineffective. Tax revolt will just land people in jail. So what's left short of these options?

Progressives instinctively understand: Destroy the system from within. You don't bring it all down with bombs, cannons and conflagration; you do it by millions of persistent little nibbles and snarks from furtive, scurrying pseudo-intellectual rats and amoral cockroaches. It's a shameful, inglorious revolution, with all that darting, crouching, and sneaking, but it is effective. Just look at Europe or American academia.

No. Slithering subversion won't do for Conservatives. We want a grand but legal revolution. Ronald Reagan represented the first wave, it is unclear who will lead the next, but I have a few inchoate ideas about how light the fuse. I hope this inspires others to come up with their own:

Idea #1. Ransack the Republican National Committee headquarters and publicly hang the country club leadership or behead them and mount their brainless heads on pike poles at the building entrance. If that's too harsh, we could simply chase them out with torches and pitchforks. But seriously, a major ideological insurrection needs to happen, a revolution of ideas, resulting in a takeover by youngsters under 30, constitutionalists without bow ties and libertarians who don't talk like robots from outer space.

Idea #2. Recruit a phalanx of small-government constitutional lawyers to launch a blunderbuss of lawsuits and injunctions against the federal government, tying it in knots trying to defend the unconstitutionality of its wildly out of control actions.

This would ultimately fail, but the modern day Boston Massacre could spark a debate in this country and actually get people reading the constitution and writings of the founding fathers. Reporters may actually wake up and start asking real questions and talking about substantive issues...

The GOP (indeed, all Americans) needs to ask itself whether a government that so exceeds its constitutional mandates is one the American people have any reason to respect—and to realize the extent to which it is complicit in the out-of-control, improvident, destructive beast the U.S. government is.

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/01/power_to_the_people_economic_n.html

http://reason.com/news/show/130999.html

ReadTheStimulus.org

President Obama has been hearing out Republican leadership on the pending stimulus bill. You can read it yourself here.

http://www.readthestimulus.org/

I really like the search feature. Here are some words to search on:

Community
Planning
Family Planning
Children
Insurance

I Swear! Again!

I Swear! It's not a conspiracy. The flubbed presidential oath of office (can't we get anything right these days?) will spawn a thousand conspiracy theories, mark my words

WaPo tells us Chief Justice Roberts and President Obama redid the oath at the White House. Drudge adds conspiratorially that no Bible was used!

Okay, all you nuts on the left! Turn to the nut on your right and give him your tinfoil hat!

Dance, Little Doggie!

When the CEOs come begging, they'll dance to any tune, even a discordant, nonsensical one played by foolish jesters gone stupid by a decades-long, taxpayer-funded bacchanalia. It is shameful how far these once brave captains of industry and self-made businesspeople have fallen.

WASHINGTON (AP) -Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., opening the new Congress' first hearing on the threats from global warming, said inaction on the climate issue is causing uncertainties that make it more difficult to emerge from the recession.

To dramatize the business community's growing consensus that the climate issue must be confronted, Waxman invited to the first hearing 14 corporate executives and environmental leaders who have pressed for an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050.

Dealing with climate change "will not be cheap and not be easy," warned James Rogers, chairman of Duke Energy Corp. But he said coupling a short term stimulus package with a long-term climate plan, "we have the ability to stimulate greater confidence ...(and) put the recession in the rear view mirror."

This is why Congress will never eliminate "Corporate Welfare" and other taxpayer-funded incentives to businesses and individuals.

You can't get the doggie to dance on his hind legs if you don't have sausages to dangle in front of him.

Thank God our great nation was not cursed with such pusillanimous milquetoasts and craven bat-winged bloodsuckers at its founding.
The US would be confined to the city limits of New York City, if it survived at all.

Atlas has shrugged, folks.
He's a flaccid, shriveled little welfare queen now, begging at the foot of a degraded Mount Olympus and its idiocracy of fatuous, incontinent demi-gods.

The US Military is the only institution left in this country with any cojones.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D95NNE8O0&show_article=1

Congress Approves Tax Cheat To Run Treasury, IRS

Let that sink in as tax season is upon us... Also recall that Rep Charles Rangel, Democrat, NY, chief author of that infernal tangle of tax code, can't keep his own taxes straight.

Criminal Speech?

Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings.
- Heinrich Heine

A Dutch court has ordered prosecutors to put a politician on trial for making anti-Islamic statements. The statements in question stem from Geert Wilders film "Fitna", and on top of the film, statements likening the Quran to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf.

An article on the court ordered prosecution can be found here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7842344.stm

The film Fitna, which I must caution contains graphic imagery, may be found here:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020472.php

It is about 15 minutes long and while I simply intended to sample it, wound up watching it from beginning to end. It is a series of vignettes of Koranic verses, news imagery, and extremely radical Islamic preaching cut together in a brilliant propaganda piece to espouse a quite harsh message regarding Islamic encroachment on the west.

One might argue that the verses are taken out of context, but they are the verses nonetheless. The imagery seems to be predominately news footage, leaving only the question of the accuracy of the superimposed translations. That is easily ascertained, although unfortunately not by me.

Even the statement equating the Koran with Mein Kampf, however distasteful, is the expression of an opinion, it is a political equation highlighting the speakers belief that fundamentalist Islam poses a threat to the secular and libertarian traditions of his native country.

To me, as an American, these are all protected forms of speech, one is left wondering when the Dutch charges against Bill Maher for Religulous will be forthcoming.

The United States has perhaps a slightly more liberal view on free speech than our western counterparts, the Constitution's "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech,". Our courts have upheld that with few exceptions, being predominately the "incitement to immediate lawless action or violence", The key term being 'immediate', that the Freedom of Speech is virtually absolute.

Our European brethren have caveatted the Freedom of Speech, or 'Expression' as they term it, with restriction in both the International Convention of Civil and Political Rights, ICCPR Article 19. The restriction being "with respect for rights and reputations of others" and in the European Convention on Human Rights, which has virtually the same restriction. Fortunately for us, the United States while a signatory to the ICCPR has rendered it non-executable, much to the chagrin of our European allies. However, as an American...

I have no desire for a convention granting me more restricted rights than I already possess. European civil rights have been shaped more in response to the legacy of Nazi domination than towards guaranteeing the freedom of their populace, whereas the United States tends ideologically to err on the side of freedom, Europe tends to pragmatically err on the side of caution. From an American perspective this seems a rather 'head in the sand' approach, assuming that if racism and discrimination can not be voiced, it will go away.

It is under this legal concept that they charge Geert Wilders with 'hate crimes'. While under the American standard we have neo-nazi and Klan marches and the Westboro Baptist Church protesting at military funerals with signs such as "God hates Fags" and "Fag Troops". Which while I find such attitudes and behavior repugnant, it is not quite so repugnant as the act of silencing them.

"The Dutch appeals court has ordered the prosecution of member of parliament Geert Wilders for inciting hatred and discrimination, based on comments by him in various media on Muslims and their beliefs," the court said in a statement. "The court also considers appropriate criminal prosecution for insulting Muslim worshippers because of comparisons between Islam and Nazism made by Wilders."

So in pointing out the intolerant, hateful, violent, and ignorant speech of one group, one becomes considered "intolerant, hateful, violent, and ignorant".

I fear that the Dutch have gone, from the tale of Hans Brinker, the little Dutch boy with his finger stuck in a hole in the dike to the image of the Dutch judge with his nose stuck in another hole, unfortunately this hole is not in the dike.

Rush to Ignorance: Guns, Congress, & The 2nd Amendment

Should government require individual citizens to possess a license to practice free speech or religion (1st Amendment)? How about requiring a license that grants you freedom from cruel and unusual punishment (8th Amendment)? These are ridiculous, unconstitutional proposals; but when has that ever stopped a lawmaker, especially a liberal Democrat?

Representative Bobby Rush, Democrat of Chicago and a constitutionally ignorant man, proposes to license (infringe) the constitutional right of the people to keep and bear arms (2nd Amendment). He wants to outlaw possession of firearms by anyone not possessing a federal firearms license. I can think of no other constitutional right that is treated in this manner.

HR 45
1/6/2009--Introduced.
Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 - Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to prohibit a person from possessing a firearm unless that person has been issued a firearm license under this Act or a state system certified under this Act and such license has not been invalidated or revoked. Prescribes license application, issuance, and renewal requirements.

The complete text of this constitutional overreach, which is fit to be printed only on toilet paper, can be found here.

The licensing requirements this former Black Panther insists upon are burdensome. The section about safe storage as pertaining to children (those under 18 years old) makes it legally impossible to keep loaded weapons or to even separately store weapons and ammo in such a manner as you could quickly use them in defense of your home.

This bill infringes upon a constitutional right which comes from God. It criminalizes the previously legal act of owning a gun. I have a right to possess firearms, and can only lose that right through illegal activity. This proposed legislation turns a citizen into a supplicant, begging a bureaucrat for the privilege to own a gun. It makes it harder to legally defend your home and property, and will impede illegal weapons trafficking not at all.

Is this the Democratic agenda for America? Write your elected officials and tell them they can keep it, and suggest they read the US Constitution while they're at it.

Atheist Oedipus Complex

Why are atheist so unpleasant?

I hate arguing about religion and God. You can't decide the issue definitively, like you can a math equation or an engineering problem. I have trouble putting my thoughts into words in this arena because I did not arrive at my belief in God by dint of my own reason: I learned to love the Lord through personal experience, reading The Bible, and studying history.

I have referred to philosophers like Kant and Descartes to give me words and logic that explain my belief, but it's still only well constructed chunks of internally-consistent logic: Deny the premise and we're back to square one. Atheists have no success either. They face the same problem only worse: How do you prove a negative, that God does not exist?

A Question for Atheists: If God doesn't exist, why waste so much effort on the issue?

It all boils down to Primum Movens. First Cause. Believers believe God put things in motion. Atheists do not. Both beliefs require a leap of faith, but an atheist will never admit that.

What else besides a Divine Creator would explain that spark in each human being that Descartes and St Anselm refer to? Has there ever been a society that did not believe in some type of deity? Why does the idea of a god or gods occur in every society from the dawn of time if there's nothing to it? I guess a skeptic would argue it is man's feeble attempt to explain the unknown by projecting all scary, uncontrollable phenomena onto a big bad god in the sky. But still, why does everyone (well... almost everyone) come to the same broad conclusion: that there is a creator?

These thoughts are not airtight logical debating points that shut down a God-denying interlocutor, but they are just a few of the many markers that point to a Divine Creator.

My personal theory is that snide atheist anger (I've found very few pleasant atheists) stems from psychological tension caused by denial of the obvious. Their life is a constant battle to quench that God-given inner spark that causes humans to seek their creator. They think they've got their own flame quenched, but it flickers back to life, then rages out of control as arrogant anger against The Heavenly Father and his followers.

Atheists want to kill God and screw the believers: It's the ultimate Oedipus Complex.

You Know What's Going on? Really?

Robert Heinlein once said that every story you read in the paper is invariably true, except for that rare story in which you witnessed the event yourself.

While I was living in Los Angeles an old contracting officer explained to me how the official inflation numbers were thoroughly cooked. This fellow was no lightweight - when the government purchased a GPS satellite, he was the one who signed the check. It started me thinking and doing some research.

It doesn't end there with the CPI. Debt, terrorism, unemployment, the climate... the list goes on and on. I'll present some of the information here, and hopefully it will build some healthy scepticism in your mind about what you hear and see in the press.

The Real CPI

Debt

Unemployment

Terrorism and Suspicious Incidents

Climate

Consider that we have a surrogate foreign workforce in Asia numbering in the millions - who are looking shortly to be unemployed. In the 1930's they would have been included in the unemployment rate since most of our goods were domestically produced.

Time would fail me to discuss the methods by which these figures are massaged, twisted, or pulled out of thin air. The main point here is that most of the "statistics" that are being reported are off by a significant amount. Be sceptical.

- Hugh Farnham

Saturday Humor

Papa Silverfiddle sent me this...

Here is the Washington Post's Mensa Invitational which once again asked readers to take any word from the dictionary, alter it by adding, subtracting, or changing one letter, and supply a new definition.

Here are the winners:

1. Cashtration (n.): The act of buying a house, which renders the subject financially impotent for an indefinite period of time.

2. Ignoranus : A person who's both stupid and an a--hole

3. Intaxicaton : Euphoria at getting a tax refund, which lasts until you realize it was your money to start with.

4. Reintarnation : Coming back to life as a hillbilly.

5. Bozone ( n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down in the near future.

6. Foreploy : Any misrepresentation about yourself for the purpose of getting laid.

7. Giraffiti : Vandalism spray-painted very, very high

8. Sarchasm : The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.

9. Inoculatte : To take coffee intravenously when you are running late.

10. Osteopornosis : A degenerate disease. (This one got extra credit.)

11. Karmageddon : It's like, when everybody is sending off all these really bad vibes, right? And then, like, the Earth explodes and it's like, a serious bummer.

12. Decafalon (n.): The gruelling event of getting through the day consuming only things that are good for you.

13. Glibido : All talk and no action.

14. Dopeler Effect: The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.

15. Arachnoleptic Fit (n.): The frantic dance performed just after you've accidentally walked through a spider web.

16. Beelzebug (n.) : Satan in the form of a mosquito, that gets into your bedroom at three in the morning and cannot be cast out.

17. Caterpallor ( n.): The color you turn after finding half a worm in the fruit you're eating.

Carolyn Kennedy failed in her bid to become Kennedy # 5,237,000,432 to infest some level of government in the US. Is this any way to treat royalty?

ALBANY — Problems involving taxes and a household employee surfaced during the vetting of Caroline Kennedy and derailed her candidacy for the Senate, a person close to Gov. David A. Paterson said on Thursday, in an account at odds with Ms. Kennedy’s own description of her reasons for withdrawing.

Translation: She's a millionaire tax cheat who hires illegal aliens. She would have fit in perfectly in the federal government.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/nyregion/23caroline.html

Hyperpower and Hypocrites

Christian Science Monitor reports that it's put up or shut up time for the Euro-weenies who have been clamoring for us to shut down Guantanamo. The prospect of having to actually follow up their lofty and sanctimonious words with actual actions has thrown the continent into a diplomatic dither.

It sounds like Europe's dream scenario. Yet European states are not rushing to take detainees, a step considered essential to closing the camps.

Rather, on the eve of a Jan. 26 meeting of foreign ministers in Brussels that takes up the question, there's more temporizing than unity – and a possibility that some states that say they will take inmates considered wrongly detained may hide behind bureaucratic moves to tie such help to a collective EU agreement. Such agreement may be difficult.

Lets see what perfidious maneuvers and diplomatic arabesques Olde Europe employs to keep from repatriating some of the tanned and well-rested terrorists that their societies have spawned.

Will men with strong British names like Mohammad and Farook ever play darts on the old sod again? A certain Herr Al-Jihadi, of the old and venerable Hamburg Jihadis, fears he may never again cast his murderous, bushy-browed gaze upon the land of Beer and Bratwurst.

Think I'm being too hard on our cowardly continental cousins?

Try this on for size. Remember rendition? You know, secret CIA flights (probably in black planes with meat hooks hanging from the ceiling) that carried to their doom poor innocent men who accidentally stumbled onto the battle field with grenade launchers in their hands? Remember talk about how the US had turned the world into our own global Gulag Archipelago? Why aren’t we hearing about that anymore?

Here’s your answer: Old Europe was complicit all along.

A new EU assessment of how the guidelines are being applied acknowledges that some governments have accused the Union of double standards because some of its member states have been implicated in the so-called extraordinary rendition scheme operated by the Central Intelligence Agency of the U.S.

David Miliband, the British foreign secretary, confessed in February that two CIA planes used in the kidnapping and torture programme had landed in Diego Garcia, a British-controlled island in the Indian Ocean, in 2002. This was a reversal of previous denials by the London government that CIA flights had landed on British territory.

Several other EU governments, including Germany, Sweden, Portugal, Ireland and Italy have been accused of allowing their countries be used by the CIA for covert operations. Poland and Romania have both been criticised by the European Commission for their reluctance to provide information about claims that the CIA ran secret detention centres on their soil.

Here's another tidbit: Italy's intelligence service cooperated willingly with the nefarious Bush-Cheney global torture plan carried out illegally by the US Gestapo, also known as the CIA:

MILAN, Italy (AP) - An Italian judge has suspended a kidnapping trial linked to the CIA's extraordinary rendition program after the government said testimony could be a threat to Italy's national security.

The Milan trial involves 26 Americans and five Italian intelligence agents charged in the 2003 kidnapping of an Egyptian cleric. Most of the Americans are CIA agents.

The judge on Wednesday suspended the trial until March 18 in the expectation that Italy's Constitutional Court would have resolved the national security issue by then. A ruling from the high court is due March 10.

Both Premier Silvio Berlusconi and his predecessor Romano Prodi have warned testimony in the case could compromise operations between Italian spy services and the CIA.

So what do we do with this human debris we've scooped up from GWOT battlefields?

I think we should turn them over to the men and women in powdered wigs at the Hague. They could then make a shambles of international justice like Slobadon Milosevic did with long-winded angry tirades. Remember that? The Euros stood around looking helplessly at one another and flapping their arms futilely in response.

Anyway, I think the Hague is the perfect place to wrap this whole debacle up. Wasn’t it Karl Marx who said something about history repeating itself, first as tragedy, secondly as farce?

Links:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0123/p05s01-woeu.html
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/202927,nine-prisoners-released-from-guantanamo.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/16/AR2006101601339.html
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=42218
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D94R7LI00&show_article=1&

I Flamed that Euroweenie Good!

If you want to see a classic blog flame, go here. I love Russ Wilcox, but he gets some strange visitors.

A Lesson in Civility

The Obama inauguration can teach us a valuable lesson in civility; it was unmarred by right-wing protests. With the exception of that notorious group from Kansas, the transfer of power was graceful and more importantly civil, at least from the right. Of course people in the crowd booed when Bush's image was flashed on jumbo-trons and one contingent near the Capitol sang "Na-na-na-na, hey, hey, goodbye" in a jeering farewell. President George W. Bush was booed lustily by the crowd in front of the platform. Fortunately, they at least appeared to be a minority.

Is this the way your mother taught you to behave? Would she be proud of you? If there is anything worse than a sore loser, it is a sore winner; it speaks volumes when you can’t even win graciously. A brief glance over an assortment of Dick Cheney wheelchair stories reveals such a plethora of vitriolic comments that it sickens me to read. Ranging from “Doctor Strangelove” to “Well maybe we’ll get lucky and he’ll roll off the stage” and those are some of the more decent ones. Listen to your President:

“We come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics,” he declared.

Perhaps he wasn’t just talking about the Republicans; perhaps our new President is just better and more decent than some of those of his party he was elected to represent. Heed the words of our first President:

“Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."

~George Washington~

I, a Conservative, Republican, American, wish our (my) new President well; for after all, our fates are intertwined, are they not? To wish the President well is to wish America well. To the nasty, gleeful, jeering children that taunt and scoff at our outgoing President, I urge you... Grow Up! To the petulant and bitter who claim he is not "My President"... Leave. For in your bitterness you deny the basic democratic principles upon which our great nation is founded. If he's not your President... then you must not be an American... for, like it or not,Barrack Hussein Obama is President of the United States of America.

Undoubtedly there will be issues upon which we disagree, and just as undoubtedly there will issues we will agree upon. I will, when in disagreement, oppose in defense of my principles, but rationally, civilly, and with respect. When in agreement, I will be man enough to admit it and not oppose simply out of spite, and will give credit where credit is due. When defeated I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and give your policies a chance to work, when victorious, I will not gloat. For those of my party and political persuasion who find fault with the opposition, lead by example. Partisanship must end!

I call to those members of all parties who believe that rational, civil, and intellectual discourse is the foundation of democracy to shun those who resort to childish behavior, rebuke them, do not allow them to be 'the voice' of your party. It demeans the parties, the principles, the positions, and this great nation.

Long Live the Republic and the President of these great United States of America.

~Finntann~

Time to Set Aside Childish (and Racist) Prayers

Reverend Joseph Lowery gave an uplifting inauguration benediction that was marred by a racist snipe at white people:

Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get back, when brown can stick around -- (laughter) -- when yellow will be mellow -- (laughter) -- when the red man can get ahead, man -- (laughter) -- and when white will embrace what is right.

So the "white" have not yet embraced "right"? This is racist and divisive, and worse, it was met with laughter and official embrace, not the opprobrium it deserved.

Reverend Lowery has been jailed, shot at, fire hosed and dog-bitten, among other things, all in the noble pursuit of civil rights (human rights!).

This great, brave man, basking in that glorious day on a dais of pomp and glory, with the whole world watching, crouched down and stuck chewing gum under the seat of American consciousness.

He obviously paid no heed to the new president's words:

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

Beautiful words, but difficult to accomplish when citizens are aiming racist jibes at one another. No one should understand that better than Reverend Lowery, and the president who laughed at his words.

Time to set aside childish things. Yeah...

Goodbye, Mr. President

If you love President Bush, as I do, please go read this article. Bush and the Bush Haters by J.R. Dunn is a fitting coda to the man's presidency.

Yes, he was not a "true conservative," he and congress joined forces to spend us into oblivion, and his inability, or disinclination, to advocate for his policies or even defend himself was maddening. He damaged the conservative cause, but I believe him to be a good and honorable man, as politicians go.

Here's an excerpt from the article. I agree with every word of it:

It can be stated without fear of serious argument that no previous president has been treated as brutally, viciously, and unfairly as George W. Bush.

Bush 43 endured a deliberate and planned assault on everything he stood for, everything he was involved in, everything he tried to accomplish. Those who worked with him suffered nearly as much (and some even more -- at least one, Scooter Libby, was convicted on utterly specious charges in what amounts to a show trial).

His detractors were willing to risk the country's safety, its economic health, and the very balance of the democratic system of government in order to get at him. They were out to bring him down at all costs, or at the very least destroy his personal and presidential reputation. At this they have been half successful, at a high price for the country and its government.

Although everyone insists on doing so, it is impossible to judge Bush, his achievements, or his failings, without taking these attacks into account. Before any serious analysis of the Bush presidency can be made, some attempt to encompass the campaign against him must be carried out. I hope no one is holding his breath.

Dunn sums it all up nicely in this paragraph. Be sure to follow the links he provides concerning President Bush's rehabilitation. It's too bad it took his leaving the White House to see some positive commentary.

And as for the "worst president in history" himself, George W. Bush has exhibited nothing but his accustomed serenity. Despite the worst his enemies could throw at him, his rehabilitation has already begun (as can be seen here, here, here, and here). He will be viewed at last as a man who picked up the worst hand of cards dealt to any president since Roosevelt and who played it out better than anyone had a right to expect.

Farewell, President Bush.

Militant Atheism is Un-American

Believers and unbelievers of all stripes have equal standing under the law. We have no national religion, thank God. President Obama, like all presidents before him will include "So help me God" in his oath of office and will engage in prayer during the inauguration ceremony. This is free exercise of religion, and it compels no one to do anything against their belief system. Opposing this is Un-American and historically ignorant.

The Religion Clause of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

It's a simple phrase: The federal government can neither establish a religion nor prohibit people from exercising their religious beliefs. The founders' writings show that they believed faith in God to be essential to the survival of the Republic. Indeed, public prayer and acts of fasting were common in those days, practiced by these great men, but never mandated by government.

Consider this quote by the father of our country, George Washington, first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.

Thomas Jefferson saw no role whatsoever for the federal government in deciding religious issues:

"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority."
--Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428

Supreme Court Associate Justice Joseph Story, anti-slavery judicial pioneer and constitutional scholar summarized the founders' intentions, as explained at Findlaw.com.

''Probably,'' Story also wrote, ''at the time of the adoption of the constitution and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.''

8 The object, then, of the religion clauses in this view was not to prevent general governmental encouragement of religion, of Christianity, but to prevent religious persecution and to prevent a national establishment. 9

But then the lawyers entered in, and the justices twisted this simple concept beyond all recognition.

This interpretation has long since been abandoned by the Court, beginning, at least, with Everson v. Board of Education, 10 in which the Court, without dissent on this point, declared that the Establishment Clause forbids not only practices that ''aid one religion'' or ''prefer one religion over another,'' but as well those that ''aid all religions.''

We went from "Congress shall make no law" to prohibiting small town school boards from starting their meetings with a prayer. Now comes a man wishing to shut down public inauguration prayers and the use of the phrase "So help me God." Monte Kuligowski reports in The American Thinker:

With the approach of the presidential inauguration, America's most notorious atheist, Michael Newdow, is back in the headlines. Once again, he and an assortment of other plaintiffs are challenging the long-standing addendum, "So help me God," to the presidential oath of office. The lawsuit, filed by the American Humanist Association on Dec. 30, also challenges as unconstitutional, the pending invocation and benediction prayers to be offered respectively by Pastor Rick Warren and Rev. Joseph E. Lowery at the swearing-in ceremony of President-select Barack Obama on Jan. 20.

Kuligowski does an outstanding job explaining this constitutional travesty in layman's terms. If you care about the 1st Amendment and what has happened to it, I highly recommend this short article.

Atheist crusades such as these are a direct contradiction of the founding principles laid out by Jefferson, Madison and the other brilliant men who founded this country. While our founders would argue for the rights of atheists, they would vehemently disagree with those who seek to expunge all traces of God from society.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/inauguration_2009_so_help_me_g.html
http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/djclpp/index.php?action=showitem&id=38#F148
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/

Redneck Inaugural Commentary

An old (and I do mean old) friend of mine wrote this and sent it to me. I'm sure he voices the goodwill towards our new president that many who did not vote for him nonetheless feel. Will Obama anger us conservatives? You can bet on it! Guns, abortion, size of government... There will be plenty of opportunities to clash with President Obama and his minions, but today let's start with goodwill in our hearts for the 44th President of the United States.

In honor of the inauguration of our first president of color, I present you the thoughts of a self-avowed redneck:

I was watching a talk show and black democratic female commentator referred to Obama as a Son Africa. She tapped danced a little bit but I think it does reflect the black community mentality. Is this wrong? No!! It wasn’t exclusively the black community vote that got Mr. Obama elected, but the voting did reflect rural and urban differences.

Mr. Obama does reflect the American can do culture!! Black father, white mother and was raised by his white mother and Kansas grandparents. He took those rural values with some bumps along the way, educated himself and rose. That is what America is about.

Jan 20 will be an historical moment as the First Black President gets sworn in and will have a Catholic Vice-President. Then the politics will begin. I hope my New President does succeed because I'm one of those guys that needs him to succeed. I would be saying the same thing if McCain had been elected president. I will support my president on the issues I agree with and won't on the ones I don’t. Go get them Mr. Obama.

Redneck Ron

Progressive Frowns and Circus Clowns

Do you agree with this recent statement regarding President Bush's victories in the 2000 presidential election (Florida) and the 2004 presidential election (Ohio)?

He stole the election? Prove it or shut up.
The recount shows that he won... The lying liars who say otherwise have no evidence of cheating.

I agree wholeheartedly. President Bush disappointed me on occasion, but I think he is an honest, honorable man, as politicians go. I grew sick long ago of the yapping dogs on the left refusing to let it go. A particularly harsh back and forth at the Washington Post with a rabid pack of deranged leftists finally pushed me over the edge and caused me to start blogging.

I've often used just that line of reasoning with them: Put up or shut up. You have no proof.

It is a logical riposte to those slinging scurrilous charges around. The burden of proof is with the person making the allegation.

However, the above statement was not written by a conservative, and it's not about President Bush. So, who wrote that statement and what is it about? A slobbering, Bush-hating leftist named Joe Consason wrote the quote about Al Franken's Senate campaign in a liberal net-rag called Saloon:

Al Franken stole the election? Prove it or shut up.
The recount shows that he won the Minnesota Senate race. The lying liars who say otherwise have no evidence of cheating.

Liberals are outraged! Incensed! And scandalously appalled that Republicans, conservatives and other anti-liberal bourgeois subversives have the temerity to accuse Al Franken of stealing the Minnesota Senate election. The very idea!

Is Conason serious? Is he stupid? Or is he so blindly partisan that he sees no similarities between the Franken and Bush accusations. He didn't even acknowledge the comparison in his article. Can the libs really be so blind to their own raw hypocrisy and, well... their logical blind spots? The next four years could be entertaining if we play our cards right.

Frisbeetarianism , n.
The belief that, after death, the soul flies up onto the roof and gets stuck there.

Stop! Or We'll Say Stop Again

Another impotent, worthless organization weighs in on the Gaza Situation:

Prague - The European Union Thursday repeated its call for an immediate ceasefire in the Middle East after a UN driver bringing aid to Gaza was killed in Israeli fire.

"This is another gruesome incident after a UN-administered school was hit," Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg, whose country chairs the EU until June 30, said in a statement.

"We are repeating our call: it is impossible to delay a ceasefire," he said. The United Nations said that a driver bringing humanitarian supplies from the northern crossing point of the Gaza Strip into the territory was killed when Israeli forces fired upon his convoy.

We've got Big Balls

"Well I'm ever upper-class high society, God's gift to ballroom notoriety, And I always fill my ballroom, The event is never small, The social pages say I've got, The biggest balls of all" AC/DC

My what a difference four years makes! At Bush's inauguration there was major grumbling from the left over the cost ($40 Million). Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-NY said "Precedent suggests that inaugural festivities should be muted — if not canceled — in wartime,”. Eight Congressional Democrats wrote a letter to Bush decrying the "Unfair financial burden being imposed on Washington DC". Eric Boehlert, Salon.com, called it "Bush's overblown celebration", the Center for American Progress called it "lifestyles of the rich and heartless".

The London Guardian called the Bush inauguration "an unashamed celebration of red America's victory over blue America". Now the Guardian is estimating the cost of the Obama inauguration at $150 million , although this time they just stick to the facts and leave the blithering to others.

Carole Florman, spokeswoman for the congressional committee on inauguration ceremonies told the NY Daily News (which estimates the cost at $160 million) that " We're always very budget conscious. But we're sending a message to the entire world about our peaceful transition of power, and you don't want it to look like a schlock affair." My guess is that schlock is Yiddish for Republican... since $40 million was good enough for Bush.

You know, honestly, I don't begrudge Obama a $160 million dollar inauguration (might be a tad over the top), but I won't complain about the costs, hell! spend $200 million. I will complain at the obvious double standard of the celebrating party and liberal media. What? Didn't think these words would come back to haunt you?

Change you can believe in!... the only change I'm seeing is who's doing the whining.

To paraphrase: "Let them eat shoe"

Cheers!

~Finntann~

How To Contact Your Elected Officials

The 111th Congress has been sworn in, and the nation will soon have a new president. With liberals controlling the White House and Congress, we conservatives will have plenty to howl about as the Democrats attempt to fix every ill in their chymeric quest to build a perfect society.

Being outraged does no good unless you do something about it. Otherwise, it’s just blind rage, and we already have enough of that. Here’s my simple three step plan to make yourself heard:

Find out who your elected representatives are
Go to http://www.congress.org and enter your zip code. Entering Zip+4 is even better, since that will get you down to your state representatives as well. This site has mucho information on bills before congress. It also has links to your representatives’ official websites where you can contact them.

Research
Just how liberal or conservative is your senator or congresswoman?http://www.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/ has the unbiased, non-partisan answer. For a conservative perspective, you can go to http://www.acuratings.org. I don’t have a good authoritative source for progressives, but if you’re sophisticated enough to know you are a progressive, you’re probably already plugged in. http://www.congress.org is also an excellent research site.

Write
No stamps, no envelopes. Use the link from Congress.org or go directly to the House or Senate website. Each congressman and senator has his own website with an area where you can send her a message. It’s as easy as surfing the web.

OTHER TIPS
- Do your homework. Get the facts, not rumor. Avoid extreme left and extreme right sources. These sites are often identified by screaming headlines, garish fonts and outrageous claims.

- Know where your elected official stands. Party is not always a predictor of position on an issue

- Type and edit your message in a text editor, then cut and paste

- Be brief and be logical. Rambling, incoherent messages are not effective

- Be courteous. You’ll be more effective. Would you be willing to listen to someone calling you names?

- Write to encourage and thank, not just complain. This includes writing officials from other districts and states to thank them for taking a courageous stand. Politicians love praise.

Write early, write often. Add your voice to the debate. You may think it does no good, you’re just one person. But, just as every vote counts, so does every message.