Tuesday, August 31, 2010
* Can you feel the ground starting to shake around you? The current political climate seems more unstable than ever before. People don't just sit still when the government tries to enslave us into heavy taxation and socialism. Especially when we have so little to show for it. The democrats dream of themselves as your master. They taste power and wealth, and they know that so many people in America will give up all their liberty if you just give them a few freebies. You can keep your handouts.. I want freedom. If I have to fail in the process, so be it!
Monday, August 30, 2010
THE world’s leading climate change body has been accused of losing credibility after a damning report into its research practices.
A high-level inquiry into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found there was “little evidence” for its claims about global warming.
It also said the panel had emphasised the negative impacts of climate change and made “substantive findings” based on little proof.
The review by the InterAcademy Council (IAC) was launched after the IPCC’s hugely embarrassing 2007 benchmark climate change report, which contained exaggerated and false claims that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.
The panel was forced to admit its key claim in support of global warming was lifted from a 1999 magazine article. The report was based on an interview with a little-known Indian scientist who has since said his views were “speculation” and not backed by research.
Independent climate scientist Peter Taylor said last night: “The IPCC’s credibility has been deeply dented and something has to be done. It can’t just be a matter of adjusting the practices. They have got to look at what are the consequences of having got it wrong in terms of what the public think is going on. Admitting that it needs to reform means something has gone wrong and they really do need to look at the science.”
Climate change sceptic David Holland, who challenged leading climate change scientists at the University of East Anglia to disclose their research, said: “The panel is definitely not fit for purpose. What the IAC has said is substantial changes need to be made.”
The IAC, which comprises the world’s top science academies including the UK’s Royal Society, made recommendations to the IPCC to “enhance its credibility and independence” after the Himalayan glaciers report, which severely damaged the reputation of climate science.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Whenever you make the accusation that someone hates something you need to show why. The proof that liberals and Muslims hate America is in the pudding.
Liberals have always despised 1950's style, Leave It To Beaver, Apple Pie America. They show it daily.
Right now we have a president who has made many disparaging remarks about our nation from his college days until present day. He studied Marxism and wrote positive things about it. He is implementing systematic socialism that is destroying our economy, and he bows mainly to our enemies.
He knows that what he is doing is destroying the economy yet he just keeps on pushing it. When I was in High School and I got an F on a math test, I didn't take the next test and give the same answers because they were already proven to be wrong. I studied where I went wrong and did a U-turn and did things the right way. Obama is using the same answers to the question of our economy and he is getting an F time and time again. His only answer is to blame Bush. But let's say Bush did do poorly in the economy in the last year of his Presidency. How does that give Obama free reign to continue down the same "bailout" path, and then blame Bush when it gives him the same result. Stupid.
And bowing to our enemies? We have come to a time when the liberals and the terrorists are saying the same thing. We used to hang people for that legally in this country.
As for the liberal congress, the liberal media, and "progressives" everywhere else? They are just as guilty.. They are attempting to change society, alter culture, and tear down foundational truth. The problem with that is you can't destroy morality by complaining it away. America has a moral foundation because the alternative is lawlessness and anarchy.
We value traditional marriage because when you allow people to perverse the institution itself then you chip away at the foundation. If you destroy the foundation what happens to the building?
There is no turning back, it is our path. The American empire WILL fall and fall hard, and the rest of the world will come crashing down around us. We are the greatest experiment in freedom in the history of existence and we squandered it. Now liberals think that morality is stifling. It is a burden that must be loosened. And loosen it they will. Mark my words. Even if conservatives win in the next 5 elections, liberalism will not go away and it will eventually destroy the American empire.
A lot of Christians seem to be holding out hope that America will rise from the ashes and become that "City on a Hill" that Reagan talked about. And at one time we had that potential. We were great. But Christians of all people should not be so foolish to believe it will stand. We know the world will burn like chaff, Do we actually believe that America will stand until the end?
What we can do is fight liberalism. Preach against it on our blogs, and in the streets. Speak of the ills that accompany liberalism. Talk about the millions that have died under "Progressive" regimes. Speak softly, respectfully, and lovingly, because a time will come the ability to speak softly and respectfully will pass.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Friday, August 27, 2010
Hear Dennis Miller's take. The last line of the video made me laugh out loud for real...
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Friday, August 20, 2010
Don't go on lightly
Don't leave me here
I wither quickly in winter's cold, but carry onward like I was told.
And I wait for a sign
Like blood in the tears of all my enemies (So they will see)
Knowing the pain the way they should
Like blood in the tears of all my enemies (Given to me)
Leaving a trail to where you stood
And when it's quiet
When you can hear
I beg you to take me away from here
Thursday, August 19, 2010
John McCain is an absolute war hero. He served this country with valor, integrity, and honor.
As a politician John McCain is a disaster.
[H/T to Mark Levin Fan]
There’s a reason some of John McCain’s conservative supporters avoid discussing his record. They want to talk about his personal story, his position on the surge, his supposed electability. But whenever the rest of his career comes up, the knee-jerk reply is to characterize the inquiries as attacks.
The McCain domestic record is a disaster. To say he fought spending, most particularly earmarks, is to nibble around the edges and miss the heart of the matter. For starters, consider:
McCain-Feingold — the most brazen frontal assault on political speech since Buckley v. Valeo.
McCain-Kennedy — the most far-reaching amnesty program in American history.
McCain-Lieberman — the most onerous and intrusive attack on American industry — through reporting, regulating, and taxing authority of greenhouse gases — in American history.
McCain-Kennedy-Edwards — the biggest boon to the trial bar since the tobacco settlement, under the rubric of a patients’ bill of rights.
McCain-Reimportantion of Drugs — a significant blow to pharmaceutical research and development, not to mention consumer safety (hey Rudy, pay attention, see link).
And McCain’s stated opposition to the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts was largely based on socialist, class-warfare rhetoric — tax cuts for the rich, not for the middle class. The public record is full of these statements. Today, he recalls only his insistence on accompanying spending cuts.
As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, McCain was consistently hostile to American enterprise, from media and pharmaceutical companies to technology and energy companies.
McCain also led the Gang of 14, which prevented the Republican leadership in the Senate from mounting a rule change that would have ended the systematic use (actual and threatened) of the filibuster to prevent majority approval of judicial nominees.
And then there’s the McCain defense record.
His supporters point to essentially one policy strength, McCain’s early support for a surge and counterinsurgency. It has now evolved into McCain taking credit for forcing the president to adopt General David Petreaus’s strategy. Where’s the evidence to support such a claim?
Moreover, Iraq is an important battle in our war against the Islamo-fascist threat. But the war is a global war, and it most certainly includes the continental United States, which, after all, was struck on 9/11. How does McCain fare in that regard?
McCain-ACLU — the unprecedented granting of due-process rights to unlawful enemy combatants (terrorists).
McCain has repeatedly called for the immediate closing of Guantanamo Bay and the introduction of al-Qaeda terrorists into our own prisons — despite the legal rights they would immediately gain and the burdens of managing such a dangerous population.
So if you live in AZ.. Please next week Vote J.D. Hayworth. Tell John McCain and the rest of the country that RINOs have no place in Washington DC.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Monday, August 16, 2010
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
* There is nothing more sad than misspelling a word so badly that spell checker doesn't even show the word you were trying to spell in the list of possibilities.
* When you hear a band say "We really reinvented our sound on this new album", that's just another way of saying "yeah, this new album totally sucks."
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Monday, August 09, 2010
Friday, August 06, 2010
by Ann Coulter
August 4, 2010
Democrats act as if the right to run across the border when you're 8 1/2 months pregnant, give birth in a U.S. hospital and then immediately start collecting welfare was exactly what our forebears had in mind, a sacred constitutional right, as old as the 14th Amendment itself.
The louder liberals talk about some ancient constitutional right, the surer you should be that it was invented in the last few decades.
In fact, this alleged right derives only from a footnote slyly slipped into a Supreme Court opinion by Justice Brennan in 1982. You might say it snuck in when no one was looking, and now we have to let it stay.
The 14th Amendment was added after the Civil War in order to overrule the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision, which had held that black slaves were not citizens of the United States. The precise purpose of the amendment was to stop sleazy Southern states from denying citizenship rights to newly freed slaves -- many of whom had roots in this country longer than a lot of white people.
The amendment guaranteed that freed slaves would have all the privileges of citizenship by providing: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
The drafters of the 14th amendment had no intention of conferring citizenship on the children of aliens who happened to be born in the U.S. (For my younger readers, back in those days, people cleaned their own houses and raised their own kids.)
Inasmuch as America was not the massive welfare state operating as a magnet for malingerers, frauds and cheats that it is today, it's amazing the drafters even considered the amendment's effect on the children of aliens.
But they did.
The very author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said: "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."
In the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians -- because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction.
For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to legal permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.)
And then, out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful." (Other than the part about one being lawful and the other not.)
Brennan's authority for this lunatic statement was that it appeared in a 1912 book written by Clement L. Bouve. (Yes, the Clement L. Bouve -- the one you've heard so much about over the years.) Bouve was not a senator, not an elected official, certainly not a judge -- just some guy who wrote a book.
So on one hand we have the history, the objective, the author's intent and 100 years of history of the 14th Amendment, which says that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on children born to illegal immigrants. CONTINUE READING At ANNCOULTER.COM
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
Monday, August 02, 2010
* Show and Tell day was the most awesome day in elementary school. I was just convinced the other kids were stunned and riveted as I dramatically told them about the Canadian penny I found and brought to school.
* I remember candidates for Student Council President in middle school in their speeches would promise to try to get longer recess, or more pizza in the cafeteria. Not one of them ever delivered on their campaign promises. Pathetic.