An Inconvenient Idiot

The four major agencies tracking Earth’s temperature, including NASA’s Goddard Institute, report that the Earth cooled 0.7 degree Celsius in 2007, the fastest decline in the age of instrumentation, putting us back to where the Earth was in 1930. (Betcha this won't make CNN headlines tonight).

'Global warming' hysterics are complete idiots, and their leader - Lord of the Idiots - is Al Gore.

The Earth's temperature is mostly about the SUN, not us ... duh!

Where the No-Credit Rubber Meets the Road

Sonic Corporation, a drive-in restaurant chain based in Oklahoma, learned on Thursday that one of its lenders, GE Capital, had stopped extending new loans to the chain's franchisees. That will block plans to rebuild restaurants, add equipment and open new locations.

When small businesses like Sonic franchisees can't borrow, contractors don't get the remodeling work, equipment-makers lose sales, and restaurants go out of business. It hurts the entire community

Orwell Was Off by 24 Years

Kathryn Lopez, editor of National Review Online, wrote in The Corner today ...
"We Do Not Have a Crisis at Freddie Mac ... " [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

This must haunt congressional Democrats.

09/29 09:00 AM


I would contend that NOTHING haunts Democrats, because they are 'revisionists', and because the media does not hold them accountable. It's Orwellian.

The biggest lynchpin of our Constitution is Free Speech, and the biggest protector of Free Speech is a Free Press. But the assumption that our Founding Fathers made was the the Press would have integrity, would look for the facts, and present those facts to the People, so that the People could judge clearly what had merit and what didn't.

Sadly, this foundational assumption no longer holds true. The press no longer operates from a base of integrity or a quest for the Truth. They are openly partisan, withholding facts or refusing to investigate into areas they don't want made public. The result is that the People cannot clearly judge the facts, and so our system fails.

Mark my words, none of these Democrats will be held accountable (for example, everyone but everyone knows that Franklin Raines cooked the books to snag $millions in bonuses at Fannie, but nothing! has been done about it). And worse than that - the NRO guys judge that McCain won the first debate, but after the talking TV heads got through with their spin, the public thinks Obama won it. Not even Ronald Reagan (God Bless His Soul) could win an election with this kind of a deck stacked against him.

We - the United States we've known - is in dire trouble.

Proof that the Press is betraying Americans

How is it possible that the following video isn't on all the major networks 24/7? Because the perps are all Democrats. If they were Republicans, the TV coverage would be as thick as molasses.

See it here

Dive Dive Dive

In the 80's, during the S&L bailout, George Will (I think it was George) wrote an article that talked about his dad owning a small retail store in downtown NY City (hardware, or paint, or something like that). George remembers his dad making the comment after the market crash of 1929 "About time those big shots got what they deserved."

Six months later his dad's store was out of business.

In my opinion, people who are against the bailout pkg just don't understand how dependent our whole economy is on 'credit' and big businesses borrowing money, or the cascading ramifications as a result of credit lock. The headlines will soon be thick with layoff announcements by big companies. Even worse will be all the people who lose their jobs at small companies, and will get no press at all.

Maybe this bill isn't a good bill - I don't know that. But I do know that they better get a 'good' bill pulled together quick. Bernanke said last week that his training is in economics, but that a big part of the 'fix' needed now was psychological.

New York Times, aka MAD Magazine

The New York Times continued hack jobs on Governor Palin are becoming hysterical (and not hysterical 'haha'). Still billing itself as providing 'all the news that's fit to print', it's run more front page articles on Sarah Palin's daughter's pregnancy than it has on Obama's relationship with William Ayers. I'm starting to look for it at the grocery store checkout line next to the Enquirer.

The most quietly funny (haha) thing about the NYT is that they still think they're relevant. Alas, poor NYT, I knew him well.

A (very) Brief Biblical Lesson for the Left

Obama supporters are currently circulating via email "Jesus was a community organizer, Pontias Pilate was a governer."

Their intended message is absurd, of course. It is also grounded in a woeful misunderstanding of the reality of these two men (well, one man and one Son of God in the flesh), which is not surprising given that after Rev. Wright and his ilk has finished their weekly rant against whitey, jews, the middle class of the United States of America, etc, there's precious little time left over to actually teach what's in the Bible.

Pontias Pilate - was a go-along politician interested in appeasing the bulk of his constituents so as to not make waves, and not risk having disharmony in his province reach the ears of his superiors. "Pandering to the crowd", alas, wasn't invented by the Democratic Party, only perfected by it.

Jesus - please listen carefully - was not a community organizer. He was:

- a carpenter by training and trade, therefore had marketable job skills and experience in the private sector (and by the way, carpentry tools 2,000 years ago were rough, crude, heavy instruments. Carpenters were, if not by birth, then certainly by virture of their repetitive endeavors with such tools, very rough, very strong men. The Middle Ages depiction, by ascetic monks, of Christ as an effete, wispy, long haired (long hair was not the style of the day - look at any painting from that period and you'll see short hair, and of course long hair is also denounced by Paul in the New Testament) man on the Cross is completely inaccurate by the powers of deduction)

- a reformer in his church. Jesus became angry at the corruption of the Temple and threw out the money changers ... he physically threw them out in a fit of angry and righteous indignation. Another indication of a physically powerful man, yes, but also the picture of a reformer and defender of God and God's commandments.

- a believer in being a good citizen. Jesus said "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's". He preached adherence to the Laws of Divine Establishment - obey the law, be good citizens, and concentrate on learning more of the Mind of Christ (New Testament) so that those lessons may become your norms and standards.

He was a producer and a worker who believed in being a good citizen and fighting corruption (oh yeah, and died for our sins so that we could be saved and spend Eternity with God, but that's another story).

Thus endeth the lesson.
-

Batman is a Texan!

Thrilling post by Andrew Klavan over at his place, here .

The difference between victory and defeat is usually a close thing. In Jack London's To Build a Fire, the protagonist has fallen through the ice on a river, in 50 below temperatures, and is now soaked and freezing, trying to build a fire with which to dry his clothes so he will not die. He manages to start a tiny tiny flame with his last match, and begins to feed, at first, tiny leaves and twigs, slowly, trying to nurse the flame to grow and build on itself, little by little. I see the metaphor of his struggle to build his fire with the tiny, fragile twigs of courage and clarity from artists like Andrew Klavan and David Mamet, and politicians like Sarah Palin!, that are feeding the forgotten kindling of absolute moral truths that live forgotten in the breast of the great silent majority of Americans. Things didn't turn out so well for the wet firebuilder - but with more people like Mr. Klavan, I'm hopeful we'll have a happier ending for our kids to inherit.

McChange is on the right track

Charles Krauthammer is one of my favorite analysts. But he's wrong in his most recent column, here , on two counts.

1) Choosing Palin does not invalidate the readiness argument. The choice is: "Obama isn't ready, McCain is ready". The choice is not: "Obama isn't ready, but McCain is ready but what if (although I have to say his 96 year old mom looked pretty good to me in the audience ... lack of longevity doesn't look like a looming cloud to me) his health suddenly fails in the first months of his presidency?!!" And besides, who the hell ever didn't vote for a presidential candidate because the candidate was ready but the vice president wasn't? That doesn't make any real sense. I don't think people didn't vote for Kerry because Edwards wasn't ready - they didn't vote for Kerry because Kerry wasn't and won't ever be ready. What they felt about Edwards was a kind of instinctive unease, a notion that has been completely validated over the last couple of years. Which leads me to my second bone ...

2) "Change" is exactly the correct tack for McCain to take, BECAUSE IT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF CITIZENS (R's, D's, AND I's) ARE SCREAMING OUT FROM THEIR SOULS! Everyone has had it 'up to here!' with these do-nothing, me me me, line my own pockets congressman on both sides of the aisle. I mean, WE HAVE FLAT OUT HAD IT! We want someone to go up there and kick some butt, shake some heads, bring down the thunder - clean house and get some stuff done! There is serious work to be done, and we can't waste anymore time not doin' it.
And so, just like that instinctual notion that Edwards was smarmy and Gollam-like on the inside, we - the people - have an instinctual notion that Sarah Palin is the 'real deal'. She has the brain and the heart and the spine we need to represent our interests in Washington. And we know McCain has the spine and the heart and the spunk to get things moving, too.

The American people are smart, and McCain was right in his speech - many Republicans in Congress betrayed our (the vast majority of middle Americans) trust and broke our hearts, and we want someone to go up there and change the status quo. We want heads to roll. We want someone to make it right, and our instincts tell us that McCain and Palin can be trusted to do just that.

McCain spoke from the heart, and he spoke to the heart. And we heard him.

"And they broke me"

McCain's line in his acceptance speech, talking about the physical abuse by his North Vietnamese captors "and they broke me" .... has anyone ever seen a politician be more humble and honest? Wow. And it bespoke to me a kind of maturity that would serve America well.

Obama - O'Reilly Part 1

Iraq:
He refused to admit he was wrong about the Surge, and was stingy in giving credit to those who got it right, instead giving a grudging generic "it has succeed in ways no one anticipated".

Iran:
Obama is going to sit on his hands and let Iran attain nuclear warheads - he talks about "pursuing more diplomacy with Iran", meanwhile they've currently got 4,000 centrifuges spinning 24/7 as we speak. He talked of pursuing more diplomacy with Pakistan, and when pressed "and if that doesn't work?" he had no answer at all. He says in the theoretical that he wouldn't take military options off the table, but in the practical "it's never quite the right time ... we just haven't tried quite enough diplomacy yet" ... ever the arrogant attorney who thinks he's going to 'wordsmith' the evil megalomaniacs of the world into being 'reasonable'.
See, and then when they actually have nukes, then he's say "well, now we'll just have to learn to live with them, we certainly can't press them at this point, are you crazy?!.... they have nukes!"

He's the iconic lawyer - always endlessly parsing everything, never ever admitting "I was wrong" (aka his stance on The Surge) ... his technique on everything that he doesn't want to do, but doesn't want to pin himself down at the same time, is to say "well, if and when 'there is credible evidence that is persuasive' then I will certainly 'look at it' .... and of course he and he alone will decide if something is 'credible' ... that's an adolescent's argument ...this is the technique he's used on the subjects of drilling for oil and on nuclear power.

Terrorism:
says we're at war with Al Queda, and other terror networks. Stopped short of admiting that Iran was part and parcel of those networks. BTW, he would have been a tad more credible on this point if he had bothered to mention terrorism just once in 4 days last week.

Open Letter to Sacha Zimmerman

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/09/03/why-so-down-on-the-community.aspx


Since when is a "community organizer" such a big bad thing to the Republicans? I mean, aren't delegates essentially--nay, actually--community organizers? And shouldn't Republicans, along with all Americans, encourage all citizens to be community organizers? Say community organizing isn't enough of a qualification if you must, Ms. Palin, but mocking this noble form of leadership in front of people who will presumably be doing the kind of community organizing you'll soon rely on--getting out the vote, manning the polls, and registering non-voters--just seems wrong.

--Sacha Zimmerman

Posted: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 11:13 PM with 7 comment(s)

Dear Sacha,

You're missing the point, which is as big as, well, Alaska. The point is that Gov. Palin was responding (as in, 'she didn't start it') to the Democrats belittling her former experience as the mayor of a small town. She was painting the picture of someone 4' tall who was making fun of her for only being 5' tall. She was painting the picture of someone whose heaviest lift is 100 lbs, but starts disparaging her for 'only' lifting 200 lbs. Her point was not that being a community organizer wasn't a good thing. Her point was that being the mayor of a small town is a hell of a lot more responsibility than being a community organizer, and where the hell did the Obama campaign get off - from their perch of their candidate's 'former community organizer' resume - making fun of her and the other 100,000 mayors of similar-sized towns across the country.

Get it?

Best Regards,
lks

Moveon.org's talking points, and my rebutts

an email and response - you make the call ...


M,

this isn't "another viewpoint from a disinterested, objective person" ...all you need to know about the investment this person has in the race is to notice from whence is comes ... "From: "Ilyse Hogue, MoveOn.org Political Action" which is a hugely liberal (it doesn't get any more liberal than these guys) far left group that is funded by tens of millions of dollars by George Soros. Their agenda is aggressively anti-conservative and anti-traditional historical American values and practices. That they are opposed to Sarah Palin is akin to Iran, Russia and other enemies of America being opposed to her selection as a VP candidate. She opposes their interests. I'd be worried if they weren't opposed to her.

What follows (in light italics) are my answers to these mostly inaccurate 'points' by moveon.org. B, I hope you don't take offense at my answers to moveon.org's talking points, but I have a different point of view than do they, and hope I have the same freedom to express it. A vigorous on-point debate is a good way to dig for the clearest view of the truth, isn't it?

lks

At 08:41 AM 9/2/2008, you wrote:
B is one who sends me an occasional e-mail that I've viewed as
> conservative - certainly not far left liberal.
> I thought you might be interested to hear other viewpoints...
> M
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> I have been reading lots of articles about her and agree with everthing
> cited below. The only question Americans should ask about the vp candidates
> is, "Is this person qualified and prepared to step in as Pres if necessary?"


note from LKS - Actually, what American's should be asking, primarily, is "of the Presidential candidates, which one is better qualified and prepared to be President, as IS necessary?"


> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
> ________________________________
>
> From: "Ilyse Hogue, MoveOn.org Political Action"
>
> Subject: McCain's dangerous choice
> Dear MoveOn member,
> Yesterday was John McCain's 72nd birthday. If elected, he'd be the oldest
> president ever inaugurated. And after months of slamming Barack Obama for
> "inexperience," here's who John McCain has chosen to be one heartbeat away
> from the presidency: a right-wing religious conservative with no foreign
> policy experience, who until recently was mayor of a town of 9,000 people.
> Huh?
> Who is Sarah Palin? Here's some basic background:
>
> * She was elected Alaska 's governor a little over a year and a half ago. Her previous office was mayor of Wasilla, a small town outside Anchorage. She has no foreign policy experience.1

her state borders two countries - Canada and Russia. She's commander of the Alaska National Guard, who has primary first-response responsibility over the missile batteries that guard against Russian attack, so she's privy to a lot more foreign policies and realities than Obama. She's been in the governor's office, running the state's business as an executive, more days than Obama has been on the Senate floor (I'm sure Betsy wouldn't mind me referring to Obama as "a former community organizer" before his run for President). And besides, she's the #2 on the Republican ticket - McCain is the #1, remember? He's got a wealth of foreign policy experience (unlike Obama, the Dem #1). He's got a history of reaching across the aisle to make compromises and actually get stuff done and get things moving (unlike Obama). He's got a history of having the courage of his convictions and breaking with his own party (unlike Obama) when his calculus concludes a different judgement. He's got a lifetime of military experience (unlike Obama) that assists his judgement of changing battlefield conditions and helps him see which strategy is the 'winning strategy - like the Surge in Spring '07 (unlike Obama, Biden, and every other liberal on the planet).
And of the things she'll need to gain experience and insight on, regarding foreign policy - her oldest son is in the US Army and is leaving for Iraq this month ... can you think of anyone who will be more motivated to quickly and thoroughly be up to speed on our foreign policy issues as they develop and how it affects all Americans and also our military personnel?

* Palin is strongly anti-choice, opposing abortion even in the case of rape or incest.2

So what? She has her belief (along with millions of others), and she walks the walk on it. She should rightly be respected for walking her walk, instead of villified for having an opinion on an issue that cannot be proven or settled one way or the other.


* She supported right-wing extremist Pat Buchanan for president in 2000. 3

So what? Barack Obama sat under the authority of Jeremiah Wright for 20 years (at least Pat Buchanan isn't an America-hater). And can you hear the flaming on this point (who she supported in 2000) if it had been Bush instead of Buchanan? In a symmetrical world, Betsy should be patting Palin on the back for not supporting Bush in 2000!


* Palin thinks creationism should be taught in public schools.4

That's not what she said. She said that if the theory or subject of creationism came up in school in the course of a lecture or discussion on origins of the planet and creatures, that it should certainly be addressed and discussed - it shouldn't be a 'forbidden' topic of discussion. She did not say it 'should be taught in public schools'. That's untrue.


> * She's doesn't think humans are the cause of climate change.5

That's also an untrue characterization. Her accurately portrayed position is that she's unconvinced (along with millions of other people, including many leading scientists) that climate change (warmer or cooler) is primarily the result of people activities, and suggests caution as opposed to rushing to judgement and economic overburden in a panic 'fix' mentality. And as an aside, why hasn't the climate temps increases over the last 10 years? Have people all gone to the space station for the last decade? To think that larger forces (like the Sun, for example?) than people scurrying around aren't primary factors in the ebbs and flows of the planetary climate is a little hysterical (in my opinion).


* She's solidly in line with John McCain's "Big Oil first" energy policy. She's pushed hard for more oil drilling and says renewables won't be ready for years. She also sued the Bush administration for listing polar bears as an endangered species—she was worried it would interfere with more oil drilling in Alaska.6

She forced the big oil companies in Alaska to rebate an average of $1,200 per household in Alaska as a result of the big spike in oil prices, helping those families defray increased energy expenses.
Uh, renewables WON'T be ready for years - many years. Even proven technologies like nuclear power will take years to expand its share of shouldering the nation's energy load - thanks for the decades of opposition to nuclear power, Democrats and environmentalists. Your 'worries' about the 'security' of Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste disposal site is curious, given the current reality of nuclear waste being stored above ground in 129 different facilities in 36 states, next to approx. 160 millions people living within 50 miles of them. The phrase 'disingenuous objection' comes to mind.

Yes, she's pushed hard for more oil drilling (as any reasonable person who understands Econ 101 would). ANWR in comparison to Alaska is like a postage stamp on a football field, and has billions of barrels of oil that belongs to the American people, not the caribou (who will be procreating like rabbits next to the oil equipment, just like they do next to and under the Alaskan oil pipeline (that Joe Biden voted against in the 70's, by the way). Here's a pic of the ANWR coastal plain where drilling would occur - it isn't the green mountains that you see on Alaska cruise brochures - it's barren plain.



the pic to the right is a drilling platform at Prudhoe Bay - just ruining the pristine beautiful environment, isn't it?








This second pic is the coastal plain of ANWR where drilling would occur .... Pristine wilderness, teaming with wildlife and scenery to make future generations of the human spirit soar ... Yeah, Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight!







How closely did John McCain vet this choice? He met Sarah Palin once at a meeting. They spoke a second time, last Sunday, when he called her about being vice-president. Then he offered her the position.7

He was wearing tassle'd loafers at the time! ..... so what? Obama sat in church for 20 years and was 'shocked, shocked' at Rev. Wright's viewpoints, and he served on the same board as William Ayers (admitted unrepentent terrorist) for 3 years, kicked off his Senate campaign at a party held at Ayers' house, but now refers to him as 'just a guy in the neighborhood. My point is that good judgement of qualifications are not guaranteed by nor require long walks on the beach.

And let's be clear....
- She has more foreign policy experience than Obama (the Dem's #1 guy),
- she has more executive branch experience than Obama (the Dem's #1 & #2 guy),
- she's an energy expert at a time when a cohesive, clear national energy plan is desperately needed,
- she comes from a working class background, normal schools, her husband is a productive, hard working union member (so she 'gets' the middle class viewpoint and scenario);
- she's a worker, loves the outdoors and the environment (hunters and fishermen are the most active supporters of the environment in deeds than all of the 'greens' put together.
- she's an accomplished woman who will appeal to (aside from the liberal idealogues) younger women as a role model; to independents and Reagan democrats (read: a lot of Hillary union supporters) as someone who's lived like them, worked like them, has walked the walk of her beliefs;
- she's smart and tough
- she's fiscally conservative (meaning that, unlike Obama, part of her calculus is always "how are we gonna pay for that?", and "yes, there are limits to how far in the American taxpayer's pocket we can dig before we become immoral agents of government")
- she's always been proud of her country (not like Michelle)
- she's not a plagiarizer (like papa Joe)

She's a good role model for all young American women - no one except, again, the deaf dumb and blind idealogues, will disagree with that. She's the one who really is living the 'Yes We Can' mantra.

The Dems are freaking out because she's a strong addition to McCain's campaign (that's my opinion) who brings energy and excitement in the conservative base (that's a fact), and is an attractive candidate for Independents, too (my opinion). The liberals are right to be worried, not about Palin's capabilities, but about their chances in November (my opinion and soon to be fact).

note from LKS - What follows is the trailer on the moveon.org 'action email' to its members ...


> This is information the American people need to see. Please take a moment to
> forward this email to your friends and family.
> We also asked Alaska MoveOn members what the rest of us should know about
> their governor. The response was striking. Here's a sample:
> She is really just a mayor from a small town outside Anchorage who has been
> a governor for only 1.5 years, and has ZERO national and international
> experience. I shudder to think that she could be the person taking that 3AM
> call on the White House hotline, and the one who could potentially be
> charged with leading the US in the volatile international scene that exists
> today. —Rose M., Fairbanks, AK
> She is VERY, VERY conservative, and far from perfect. She's a hunter and
> fisherwoman, but votes against the environment again and again. She ran on
> ethics reform, but is currently under investigation for several charges
> involving hiring and firing of state officials. She has NO experience beyond
> Alaska. —Christine B., Denali Park, AK
> As an Alaskan and a feminist, I am beyond words at this announcement. Palin
> is not a feminist, and she is not the reformer she claims to be. —Karen L.,
> Anchorage, AK
> Alaskans, collectively, are just as stunned as the rest of the nation. She
> is doing well running our State, but is totally inexperienced on the
> national level, and very much unequipped to run the nation, if it came to
> that. She is as far right as one can get, which has already been
> communicated on the news. In our office of thirty employees (dems,
> republicans, and nonpartisans), not one person feels she is ready for the
> V.P. position.—Sherry C., Anchorage, AK
> She's vehemently anti-choice and doesn't care about protecting our natural
> resources, even though she has worked as a fisherman. McCain chose her to
> pick up the Hillary voters, but Palin is no Hillary. —Marina L., Juneau, AK
> I think she's far too inexperienced to be in this position. I'm all for a
> woman in the White House, but not one who hasn't done anything to deserve
> it. There are far many other women who have worked their way up and have
> much more experience that would have been better choices. This is a
> patronizing decision on John McCain's part- and insulting to females
> everywhere that he would assume he'll get our vote by putting "A Woman" in
> that position.—Jennifer M., Anchorage, AK
> So Governor Palin is a staunch anti-choice religious conservative. She's a
> global warming denier who shares John McCain's commitment to Big Oil. And
> she's dramatically inexperienced.
> In picking Sarah Palin, John McCain has made the religious right very happy.
> And he's made a very dangerous decision for our country.
> In the next few days, many Americans will be wondering what McCain's
> vice-presidential choice means. Please pass this information along to your
> friends and family.
> Thanks for all you do.
> ­Ilyse, Noah, Justin, Karin and the rest of the team