Kerry's Sad Rant About Israeli Settlements

When I began listening to John Kerry's speech made in defense of Obama's no-vote, no-veto, allowing the U. N. Security Council to denounce the Israeli settlements, I heard a spoiled child whining because "he" didn't get what he wanted for Christmas. 

But, I also heard some very disturbing words.

Almost anti-Semitic, he said "Israel can either be Jewish or democratic -- not both."  Would he have said the same about the Muslim Palestinians?  No.  The implication is that Israelis must put their religion aside to bring peace.  While, the Palestinians are able to continue their hard-line Muslim beliefs including the belief that Israel has "no right to exist".

Then there was this statement "most right-wing coalition in Israeli history".   Of course, the implication is that the political right -- even in this country -- are all war mongers not interested in peace, and if the country was politically left,  peace would have been achieved.  Israel has been left-leaning in the past, yet peace has not prevailed for decades.  Like it or not, the "people" of Israel chose that right-wing "coalition" to run their country through democratic elections.  The reality, is that rocket and rock attacks, knifings, and mowing down Israelis with automobiles, trucks, and buses has pushed the country further right in a desire to more forcibly defend themselves.  Evidently, Kerry can't see that.

Kerry (and also Obama) need to get over it.  Peace was not achieved.  The desired "legacy" was more about him and Obama and less about the protection or the defense of our only true ally in the region.  That speech proved it.  The whole focus was only on what Israel should surrender, and not what Palestine should also give up. That was what that cry-baby, speech was all about.

References:

Kerry: Israel Can Either Be Jewish Or Democratic, It Cannot Be Both: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/12/28/kerry_israel_can_either_be_jewish_or_democratic_it_cannot_be_both.html

John Kerry in blistering attack on 'most rightwing coalition in Israeli history' http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/secretary-state-john-kerry-launches-9528455

Israel's right to exist - Wikipedia: https://www.google.com/search?q=israel+right+to+exist&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

How politics is redefining 'left' and 'right' in Israel: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/05/israel-right-left-camps-rule-of-law-minorities-rights-arabs.html

Kerry Takes Aim at Trump Over Climate Change

While in New Zealand, John Kerry said: "We will wait to see how the next administration addresses this, but I believe we're on the right track and this is a track that the American people are committed to." He then added: "The majority of the American people believe that climate change is in fact happening and want to see us address it."

Days later he said this about Trump: "No one has the right to make decisions that affect billions of people based solely on ideology or without proper input."  Additionally, ABC reported that "Kerry said the impacts of global warming are now evident across the world with record-breaking droughts, rising sea levels, unusual storms and millions of people displaced by weather events."
This is factually incorrect.  The American people, in poll after poll, do not rank climate change as a priority.  For example, here's the latest results from Polling Report.com on where America ranks the importance of climate change:

• CBS News/New York Times Poll. Oct. 28-Nov. 1, 2016.  Just 2% said the "environment" was a priority. Don't know if "environment" actually means climate change
• ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Sept. 5-8, 2016. No mention of climate change as a priority.
• NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by Hart Research Associates (D) and Public Opinion Strategies (R). May 15-19, 2016.  Just 8% mentioned climate change.
• CBS News Poll. April 8-12, 2016.  No mention of climate change.
• ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Nov. 16-19, 2015.  ABC didn't ask any of the respondents about climate change being a priority.
• Quinnipiac University. July 23-28, 2015. Only 6% gave a nod to climate change as an issue we should be focusing in on.

I could go on and on but the results would always be minimal.  Kerry should never use the words the "majority of American people" when talking about climate change.  It is a lie.  And, because it is a lie, I could easily say that Kerry is the one making decisions based "solely on ideology and without proper input" from the American people. 

But, the biggest problem I have with Kerry and other climate change alarmists is that they attempt to cement support for their movement based on "impacts" that can't be proven or are factually incorrect.  Hurricane impact on the U.S. has been unusually quiet.  Tornado activity has been below normal for the last five years.  NASA tells us the rising sea levels have slowed. Another study shows that sea levels in Manhattan have not risen in 20 years.  And, Remote Sensing Satellite (RSS) data has shown a dramatic fall in temperatures over the last 8 months.  This despite the claim that 2016 will be the hottest year on record.  This unexpected cooling has led to the conclusion by one Russian scientist that a "New Little Ice Age has Started".

As usual, by calling climate change a "hoax",  Trump may just be more in line with public opinion than Kerry or any of the other climate alarmists.

References:

Kerry tells Trump that Americans want climate action: https://www.yahoo.com/news/kerry-tells-trump-americans-want-climate-action-004745308.html


U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry made a stirring appeal Wednesday to all countries — including his own — to press ahead with the fight against climate change, saying a failure to do so would be a "betrayal of devastating consequences." http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/kerry-overwhelming-majority-us-back-paris-climate-deal-43574549

PollingReport.com: Problems and Priorities: http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm

NOAA: U.S. has gone 11 years without a major hurricane strike: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/10/26/noaa-u-s-has-gone-11-years-without-a-major-hurricane-strike/

NOAA Tornado data: 2016 ‘one of the quietest years since records began in 1954’ – Below average for 5th year in a row: http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/11/12/noaa-tornado-data-2016-one-of-the-quietest-years-since-records-began-in-1954-below-average-for-5th-year-in-a-row/

NASA, University Study Shows Rising Seas Slowed by Increasing Water on Land: https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-university-study-shows-rising-seas-slowed-by-increasing-water-on-land

No Sea Level Rise At Lower Manhattan For 20 Years: http://realclimatescience.com/2016/10/no-sea-level-rise-at-lower-manhattan-for-20-years/

Record Global Cooling Over The Last Eight Months: http://realclimatescience.com/2016/11/record-global-cooling-over-the-last-eight-months/

Russian Scientist: ‘The New Little Ice Age Has Started’: http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/10/28/russian-scientist-the-new-little-ice-age-has-started/

pb

 

The ISIS Name Game

Years ago, pop-singer Prince changed his name to a symbol which had no translation.  So, the media started to refer to him as the "Artist formerly known as Prince".  Well, when it comes to referring to the terrorist group formerly known as ISIS, confusion also reigns.  This is because the acronym doesn't translate well into English.

Most people, including the media, use the acronym ISIS thinking that it means the "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria".  But the last "S" really stands for al-Sham (a borderless area called "Greater Syria" which includes Syria).  ISIS itself, prefers to call themselves the Islamic State or "IS" as declared by their current religious leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.  In doing so, any concept of border limitations is removed.

Our President, and most of his minions, prefer the acronym "ISIL" or the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". But "Levant" is a variant of the Arabic "al-Sham" and much more restrictive of the geographical area that al-Sham implies.  Also, by taking the last "S" meaning Syria out of "ISIS", some believe the intention is to avoid focusing on the mess he created in Syria by not taking the lead to take down Assad.

John Kerry, on the other hand, is much more free swinging.  Sometimes he uses the term "ISIS".  Other times, when being a good Obama soldier, he sticks to "ISIL".  But, increasingly he refers to "ISIS" as "Daesh" which is actually a closer English interpretation of the original name "al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi al-Iraq wa al-Sham".  The trouble with "Daesh" is that it can also mean things that can be insulting.  Thus, al-Baghdadi has banned the use of the term throughout his so-called Islamic State.  To al-Baghdadi, its use it and lose your tongue.  So, when Kerry and French President Hollande use Daesh, they are intentionally (I hope) insulting ISIS.

Lastly, the Iraqi government has started to refer to ISIS as "dookh" which stands for "Dawlat Al Islamiya Al Khalifa".  However, this, too, is considered an insult because it is closely related to the Arabic word meaning "confused".  As if things weren't already confusing.

Anyway, we're at war with some acronym that rapes, kills, beheads, throws gays off buildings, destroys irreplaceable antiquities, takes down a Russian aircraft, attacks Paris, and threatens to attack Washington D.C..  I think that if the world wants to collectively defeat these bastards, it should at least come together on a single name for the enemy.

References:

Why is John Kerry referring to ISIS as "Daesh"?: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-is-john-kerry-referring-to-isis-as-daesh/

John Kerry defends Syria strategy ahead of peace talks: http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/12/politics/john-kerry-syria-strategy-peace-talks/

Words matter in ‘ISIS’ war, so use ‘Daesh’: https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/10/09/words-matter-isis-war-use-daesh/V85GYEuasEEJgrUun0dMUP/story.html

Militants in Iraq and Syria are trying to re-create a nation that never existed: http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/06/17/there-is-no-al-sham/

Obama's Use Of ISIL, Not ISIS, Tells Another Story: http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/08/24/obamas-use-isil-not-isis-tells-another-story

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant

Like It or Not, Obama's Nuke Deal Will Give Iran the Bomb and Worse..

In order to have an effective nuclear weapons program there needs to be three elements.

First, the program must be capable of producing 90% uranium isotope U-235 in large enough quantities to build a bomb by using gas centrifuges.  Or, be capable of producing the platinum isotope PU-239 by operating a heavy water nuclear reactor.

Second, the program must include the development of a detonation device that is compact enough and limited in its weight to be put atop a ballistic missile. 

Third, the program must create a viable delivery system such as a ballistic missile.

In the case of Iran's nuke program, we know they can enrich uranium to 20% U-235 because they have already done so.  Many experts believe that given the current number of centrifuges, they could breakout to weapons grade U-235 in just two to three months if left to continue producing large quantities of 20% U-235.  Also, they are building a heavy water reactor in Arak that is quite capable of producing weapons grade PU-239.  Additionally, Iran has an active ballistic missile program.  Whether or not any of those currently developed missiles are capable of carrying a nuclear warhead is anyone's guess since that program is highly secretive.  Some, who have looked at satellite images of the launch site, believe the missiles are too lightweight to actually carry a bomb.  But, what is known, is that their latest missile has a long enough range to hit Europe.

That brings us to the detonation device.  It has long been suspected that Iran has already built and tested a nuclear detonation device at its Parchin military complex.  This is probably true since, to date, they refuse to allow UN weapons inspectors any access to the Parchin site.

Throughout the negotiation process, the sole focus has been on Iran's enrichment program; leaving them  free to keep developing improved missile delivery systems and detonation devices.  In terms of enrichment, the currently known "deal" would allow them to continue to enrich uranium to the 5% level. Existing 20% material would have to be either chemically neutralized or exported to an existing nuclear country.  Of course, if that is Russia, there's no guarantee that Russia, sometime in the future, couldn't just ship that material right back to Iran without the world knowing.  Especially, if trading sanctions are lifted.  Also, the neutralization of the 20% U-235 is reversible.  There may also be down-scaling of the Arak reactor site to slow the production of PU-239.

The bottom line is that the final agreement will only slow Iran's bomb making program; and, only that part of it that is related to enrichment.  No way will it dismantle it.  The Obama Administration has already admitted that the intent of the agreement is to extend the 2 to 3 month breakout time for enrichment to weapons grade material to a one year time frame. So, essentially, the President is saying that Iran can have its bomb in the future.  It just might take a little longer. A fact that won't sit well with either Israel or their neighbors in the region that see Iran as a threat, such as Saudi Arabia.  This, then, may leave them and others with no other choice but to build themselves a bomb as a deterrent to Iran's possible threats.

If a nuclear arms race develops in the Middle East, it will definitely sour Obama's legacy of having achieved a deal with Iran.  Think about it.  A nuclear arms race in the most unstable and war-prone part of the world.  That will be President Obama's real legacy.

References:

Fact Sheet: Iran's Nuclear and Ballistic Missile Programs: http://armscontrolcenter.org/publications/factsheets/fact_sheet_irans_nuclear_and_ballistic_missile_programs/

AP Exclusive: Draft agreement cuts Iran's nuclear hardware [extends breakout time to one year]: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/4c7ad2158ed944579dc1e7ed6c550899/ap-exclusive-iran-limited-6k-centrifuges-draft-accord

Iran signs agreement with IAEA to allow broader inspections of nuclear sites [but not Parchin and other sensitive military sites]: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/irans-signs-agreement-with-iaea-to-allow-broader-inspections-of-nuclear-sites/2013/11/11/fef81002-4ad5-11e3-ac54-aa84301ced81_story.html

Prince Hints Saudi Arabia May Join Nuclear Arms Race: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-may-seek-nuclear-weapons-prince-says.html

Bolton: Middle East Nuclear Arms Race Is Already Underway: http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/03/17/bolton-middle-east-nuclear-arms-race-already-underway

John Kerry's Very Own Climate Gate

In 2009, the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University was figuratively caught with its pants down wuth something that, today, is known as ClimateGate.  Several hacked emails showed there was a scientific conspiracy using falsified data in order to push the ideas of climate change and global warming.

And, ClimateGate continues today with our own head of the State Department John Kerry.

A few months ago, he said this to an audience regarding climate change and the California drought:

“This isn’t something around the corner. This is happening now...where millions of people are now experiencing the 13th month of the worst drought the state has seen in 500 years.” 

The only problem with that statement is that the current California drought has yet to even match the droughts that peaked in 1923 and 1976.  Let alone 500 years ago.

Then, Kerry is also blaming the recent flooding in California on climate change.  On December 13, he said this:

“This morning, I woke up in Washington to the television news of a super-storm rainfall in California and Washington state –-torrential, record-breaking rain in record-breaking short time. It’s become commonplace now to hear of record-breaking climate events...and we’re still on a course leading to tragedy.”

Besides the fact that Kerry is, once again, flip-flopping by claiming that both droughts and rains are a result of climate change, his facts are flat wrong.

Were there record rains in Washington State and California just recently? Yes. But, many were for that particular date and not necessarily records in the history of either of those two states.  Take Los Angeles for example.  On December 2nd (the day that Kerry was referring to) a record 1.5 inches fell.  However, it was a record that broke the previous obe of 53 years ago in 1961.  Not proof that records are falling daily because of climate change.  In fact, the worst flooding in L.A. history occurred in February 1938 when, in just two days, 4.4 inches of rain fell.

It is sad when our own Secretary of State's climate claims are refuted by facts.  It is also sad that he has been contradicted by the Obama Administration's own National Oceanic and Atmospherics Agency (NOAA) which is clearly on record as saying the California drought cannot be connected to climate change.

One of the primary reasons why I and others don't believe in climate change is because of all the lying and exaggeration that takes place.  Those like Kerry are only damaging their cause by presenting false and misleading data.


References:

 Wikipedia: ClimateGate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

John Kerry’s Phony Climate War: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/371637/john-kerrys-phony-climate-war-rich-lowry

California Drought – Almost As Dry as 1923 and 1976:  http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2014/10/04/california-drought-almost-as-dry-as-1923-and-1976/

Kerry's Top Ten Flip-Flops - CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kerrys-top-ten-flip-flops/

John Kerry: California rain is climate change: http://junkscience.com/2014/12/13/california-rain-is-climate-change/comment-page-1/

Major storm soaks Southern California: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-storm-season-mudslides-socal-20141202-story.html

Los Angeles flood of 1938: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_flood_of_1938

NOAA: Climate Change Did Not Cause Calif. Drought: http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/noaa-climate-change-did-not-cause-calif-drought-141209.htm

John Kerry Is Dispatched To Egypt To Secure Cease-Fire In Gaza

Reference:

U.S. pushes for 'immediate' end to Gaza fighting as deaths mount: Secretary of State John Kerry, who was headed to Egypt, to push for an immediate cessation of hostilities: http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/21/world/meast/mideast-crisis/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

In Frustration, Climate Change Proponents Resort To Childish Tactics

From early on, children learn that they can use name-calling and bullying to diminish an opponent.  So, the smart boy in the class -- the one who may not do well in sports -- is belittled by some dumb bully calling him a "girlie guy" or some other name he perceives as insulting.

Hopefully, as adults, we learn that this is no longer effective when someone else questions your work; such as a scientific paper, a business proposal, or some new legislation.  Your retort must be, instead, logical and convincing. Yet, the climate change proponents of today have decided to revert to these childish defenses in order to diminish the opponents by calling them "Climate Deniers"; itself a form of name calling.

Recently, Secretary of State John Kerry compared "climate deniers" to members of the new "Flat Earth Society." Prince Charles said deniers where a "headless chicken brigade."  Not to be outdone, Al Gore compared them to racists, homophobes, smokers, and drunks; and one only wonders why he stopped there.

Then, there are the bullies.  The President's own Organizing for Action (OFA) group has a website where every member of Congress who is a known "climate denier" is listed.  In Britain, the Green Party is proposing they should lose their government jobs. Then, there's climate scientist Michael Mann who was at the heart of the so-called ClimageGate scandal.  He's suing people like Mark Steyn for  publicly questioning his scientific work.  Of course, if he wins, this will make any denier think twice about making statements that would question any scientific climate change findings.  But, the ultimate in bullying is being floated by a professor with the Rochester Institute of Technology by the name of Lawrence Torcello who is proposing that deniers be silenced through imprisonment because they are threatening public safety. 

Quite simply, all this shows is that the climate change movement is losing in the court of public opinion.  All their wild predictions are simply not happening. In terms of priorities, fighting climate change is either at the bottom or close to the bottom of what Americans believe we, as a country, should be spending our time on.  Thus, the only defense tactics left are the childish ones.

References:

Secretary of State Kerry lashes out at climate change skeptics: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/16/secretary-state-kerry-lashes-out-at-climate-change-skeptics/

Prince Charles: climate change deniers are 'headless chickens': http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-charles/10610108/Prince-Charles-climate-change-deniers-are-headless-chickens.html

Al Gore Compares Climate Change Deniers To Racists And Drunks: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/08/22/al-gore-climate-change_n_3795247.html

Call Out the Climate Change Deniers: http://ofa.barackobama.com/climate-deniers/#/

Greens call for clear-out of 'climate change deniers': http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-26187711

Mann vs. Steyn: The Trial of the Century: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/02/12/mann_vs_steyn_the_trial_of_the_century__121528.html
Professor Calls For Climate Change ‘Deniers’ To Be Imprisoned: http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/03/professor-calls-for-climate-change.html

Gallup: Climate Change Not a Top Worry in U.S.: http://www.gallup.com/poll/167843/climate-change-not-top-worry.aspx

A Tea Party Downgrade? Not Hardly!

Once again, this President and his groupies have decided to use the S&P downgrade as a political tool for the 2012 elections instead of accepting what has happened and, then, stepping up into a leadership role to regain our triple "A" credit rating.

All weekend, the likes of David Axelrod, John Kerry, MoveOn.org, and a variety of other Democrat bloggers have all "parroted" the current Democrat "theme" of "It was a Tea Party Downgrade". As usual, the Dems want you and I to believe that they were completely blameless in the downgrade.

Here's the facts:

S&P warned of a downgrade if a $4 trillion reduction in the national debt was not achieved as a result of the debt ceiling negotiations. The final debt ceiling deal fell well short of that goal. We had been well warned and the downgrade should never have come as a surprise. Actually, it was the Tea Party who proposed "Cut, Cap, and Balance" which would have achieved that $4 trillion goal. But, Harry Reid wouldn't even allow the Senate to vote on it; instead, he "tabled" it.

Meanwhile, there was never any on-paper proposals from either Harry Reid or any other Democrats or from this President to achieve a $4 trillion debt reduction. Instead, we just got a bunch of "conceptual" and "political" speeches. In fact, back in mid-April, the House Democrats submitted legislation that was intended to meet the President's goal of a "clean" debt ceiling increase with zero cuts in spending or any increases in taxes. If that legislation would have passed, my guess is that it wouldn't have just been S&P who downgraded our credit worthiness.

The truth is that we can thank the Tea Party's persistence in finally getting this government to make some spending cuts. If it weren't for the Tea Party, the Democrats and this President would have let the Bush tax cuts expire last December and they would have automatically raised the debt ceiling without a single spending decrease. If that were true, I believe that we certainly would now be in the throws of a double-dip recession and, most likely, would have been downgraded by all the ratings agencies.

The Redistribution Of Wealth?

Many liberals in this country believe in using local, state, and federal government programs aimed at the poor and in conjunction with very high tax rates on the wealthy to redistribute wealth in America. However, in most cases these kinds of programs only redistribute the wealth "out" of our major cities; or, out of our states; or, worst yet, completely out of the country.

With all of the so-called wealth distribution programs in existence in America, one would think that the poor would be better off today than they were 50 years ago. But, instead of bettering the lives of the poor, the disparity between the two classes is greater than it has ever been.

Liberals like to point to the Bush Tax Cuts as the cause. But, it wasn't Bush who was in office during the last 50 years of decline in our cities and states. In almost every case where you have stagnant growth in America, you have the Blue State politics of the left with hefty government programs aimed at the poor, and high taxes aimed at the rich. Cities like Detroit are in near ruin with the City Managers electing to tear down houses in an effort to more centralize services in the most densely populated areas. The states in the rust belt continue to rust away and major city, inner-city crime in America is choking our jails.

What the liberals have never learned is that high taxes on the rich drive the rich elsewhere; leaving most of the middle and lower classes to foot the bill for all of their government programs. They just don't seem to understand that the wealthy are highly mobile and rarely tied to some 9-to-5 job in any particular city. In our effort to be more like Europe, we are creating the same problems it has with its wealthy moving out of Europe.

In the last month, two stories came out with regard to two high profile rich persons in this country that can prove my point. Recently, Rush Limbaugh sold his New York City condo for more than double what he paid for it. But, the real story about the Rush condo sale was that, with that sale, he would no longer have to pay income taxes to the City and State of New York for any wages that he would have accumulated during the time he lived in that condo. Instead, his earnings would be fully safeguarded in his permanent home in the no-income-tax State of Florida. Rush warned he would do this when the City and State governments in New York raised their taxes on the rich. So, who won in this case. Rush or the governments?

Then, there's the story of U.S. Senator John Kerry from the state of Massachusetts. Recently, we learned that Kerry and his wife's decided to buy a new, $7 million New Zealand-made sailing yacht. Instead of ordering this New Zealand-built ship through a Massachusets boat dealer, the Kerry's purchased the boat in Rhode Island and subsequently moored it there; thus avoiding hefty sales taxes and the yearly excise taxes that would have been applied if the boat was purchased and moored in Mass. So, in doing so, the state of Massachusetts was doubly screwed in getting any taxes from the Kerry's. Further, American yacht builders and workers were left out in the cold when the Kerry's, in the midst of a recession, decided to buy a ship that was made by workers in New Zealand.

These kinds of stories go on day-after-day in America. And, in each case, the story is driven by high taxes. Over the years America has lost most of it's manufacturing base because of regulation and taxes. Now, many of our rich are moving, too. The result of this "redistribution of wealth" will be further economic deterioration in our cities and states in this once-great country.

Not For A Political Agenda?

(see note below on this video's usage)

Please excuse me while I try to stop laughing!

On ABC's This Week (Click to See Full Story and the complete video of John Kerry's appearance on ABC's This Week), John Kerry seems to believe that Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to pursue the "investigation and trial" of CIA interrogators is being done for the rule of law and "not" political reasons. First, career people in the justice department have already reviewed the interrogation techniques and an have already come to the conclusion that what they did was not illegal. Simply, Eric Holder (and this President) are doing this because the far left of their party wants a pound of flesh from the Bush-led CIA; a group they have always hated and have always attempted to emasculate.

What is really laughable the Kerry comment about Holder's adherence to the law and not to politics.

Eric Holder is the same person who advised the then-President, Bill Clinton, to give a pardon to Marc Rich because of his campaign contributions and because of his wife's Democratic party activities. Marc Rich was a fugitive who completely avoided going to trial. Normally, pardons are given to people who have been brought to justice, have been found gilty, and, typically, served some jail time. But, not in this case. Instead, Marc Rich is Scott-free without even having to face trial for his offenses. All for politics and not-hardly for the rule of law. (Click to See Wikipedia Story on Marc Rich)

With stupidity like this, it is obvious why Kerry didn't win the Presidency; and, that's despite George W. Bush being so unpopular in the polls!

Note: This video is being presented on the basis that it can be used without permission because it meets the Fair Use conditions of our Copyright Laws regarding opinion and education. As required, the source of this video is clearly stated in the main paragraph of this blog entry. Additionally,this blog is a non-commercial entity.

Pelosi: The New Catholic Theologian?

I think Nancy Pelosi's appearance on Meet the Press just shows to what extent pro-abortion Catholics like Pelosi (and Joe Biden and John Kerry) will go to deny their own faith in the protection of Barack Obama's misstep at the Saddleback Forum and in support of Roe v. Wade (See Video).

No matter what Nancy Pelosi says, the Catholic Church is "not" in some kind of quandary over abortion. They are clearly against it. In fact, abortion aside, they have even been against birth control. That belief is as old as the Old Testament reference to it being a sin if you "spill your seed on the ground." The Catholic Church has, as long as I have lived, believed that human life begins at conception. There have been those within the Catholic Church who have argued that a human life is not a human life until the "soul" actually occupies the body. But, the Catholic Church has never been in some kind of "crap-shoot" mode as to when that might actually occur. Instead, without any clear proof as to when a human becomes a "human with a soul", the "Church" has always taken the safe route and have said "at conception".

I can't believe that the Catholic Church hasn't spoken out against what Pelosi said on Sunday's "Meet the Press". To me, this is an attempt to rewrite the beliefs of the Catholic Church and to literally create a Catholic Church according to Nancy Pelosi (for the benefit of a political platform). She did this publicly on a nationally televised show and it totally distorts the truth. What ever happened to the Church's supposed stand against those Catholic politician's who promote or practice abortion? If they would "excommunicate" people like Pelosi, as they have threatened to do in the past, this kind of religious B.S. from a so-called practicing Catholic wouldn't ever happen again. Apparently, having rich Catholics and their donations (like Pelosi, the Kennedy family, and John Kerry) is more important than protecting the teachings and precepts of the "Catholic Church"!

Image of Pope by Agencia Brasil with Creative Commons Licensing remix/adapt/modify permission (Click For more Information). Specifically modified by Cranky George for this blog entry.

Image of Nancy Pelosi is Public Image of the United States Government with public domain authority (Click for more Information). Specifically modified by Cranky George for this blog entry.

The Fairness Doctrine: Unintended Consequences

It might just be a totally false belief by the Democrats that the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine (See definition) will benefit them by getting a nemesis like Rush Limbaugh off the air. Take note of these comments by an FCC Commissioner (See Full Story). It just might be the popular Huffington Post and the Daily KOS who gets whacked under that law, too.

Another couple of fat targets for the Fairness Doctrine will be the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR). For years, these taxpayer supported radio and television networks have had unimpeded left-wing slants to their broadcasting. These bastions of liberal voice might just have to become a lot more conservative in their programming. You've got to know that every conservative watchdog group in America will be itemizing every time a liberal like Bill Moyers gets airtime and there isn't any offsetting conservative programming. PBS and NPR will ultimately be forced, by the courts, to provide conservative alternatives. Can you picture Nancy Pelosi's face when someone like Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter is forced to get their own show on PBS or NPR! There won't be enough porcelain receptacles on Capital Hill to handle all the nausea and vomiting from the Democratic lawmakers. TUMS will be in short supply for all the heartburn.

ABC, CBS, and NBC will have to watch it, too. There just might have to be a "This Week with Rush Limbaugh" to offset that Clinton guy, George Stephanopoulos. Then, let's not forget about the Chris Matthews Show on NBC. How about an NBC show titled: "The Laura Ingram Show". "60 Minutes" might have to dedicate a few more minutes to conservative viewpoints to offset their liberal pablum. Maybe they will have to call it "90 Minutes" to be fair. Maybe a separate show called "60 Minutes Too!"

I just think the left of the left like Senators Durbin, Kerry, Boxer, and Feinstein and our dear Speaker of the House, little miss Pelosi, haven't really thought through the consequences of reimplementing the Fairness Doctrine. But, "thinking things through" has never been a Democrat's or, for that matter, any politician's long suit. That's why history is littered with so many bad laws that had to be repealed. They are being so blinded by the hatred for Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talk radio personalities that they don't realize that they might be shooting themselves in the foot.

My guess is that, if a Barack Obama is elected, we will the see the ugly face of the Fairness Doctrine. It will become another law that sees too much time in the courts; both in defending it and using it for some biased advantage. Ultimately, it will be rescinded. As for Rush Limbaugh. He will probably keep hammering the Democrats for many years to come and will be untouched by the Fairness Doctrine. Others like Sean Hannity or Laura Ingram might not fare as well but will eventually return to talk radio when the "Doctrine" dies another death. That's just my viewpoint.


Image by Joe Gratz's photostream on Flickr with Creative Commons Licensing. All rights retained. (Click to View Other Works).

Will The Youth-Vote Propel Obama Into Office?

If you listen to the Democratic pundits, it's the youth-vote, a vote McCain just doesn't have, that will give Obama the Presidency. Well, if history does repeat itself, that is probably not the case.

Take a brief jump back to the 2004 election and you will see that the pollster, Zogby, was saying the same thing about John Kerry as late as October 2004; just days before the November elections (See Full Story). As you can see from that news release, Bush was being "trounced" on the youth-vote by a double-digit lead for Kerry: 55% to 40%. Of course, we all know, now, that the only way that John Kerry gets into the White House, since then, is by "invitation - only" or by taking one of the public White House tours.

The youth-vote is totally unpredictable. History has always proven them to have an extremely low voter turnout rate. And, I would think that will be the case this year, too!

Remember the following when you think about the youth-vote: Politics doesn't play well in an iPod; you can't find it in a 6-pack; you can't smoke it and get high; it makes a horrible "first-person-shoot-em' up " video game; and, except for a tiny percentage of fat old white guys in Washington D.C., it doesn't satisfy any sexual urges.

Image by mrfontwacko's photostream on Flickr with Creative Commons Licensing (Click to View Other Works).

"What is important..."

The latest distortion of facts against John McCain by Barack Obama, the Obama campaign and the king of flip-flops, John Kerry (who "flopped" last election)is, once again, how long we will be in Iraq. This morning on the Today Show, John McCain was asked about the reduced casualty rates and does that, now, give him some idea when we could begin to remove troops from Iraq. McCain responded by saying "That's not important!" So, immediately, the "snippet" team at camp Obama clipped that comment out of full context and began saying McCain was insensitive to our military deaths in Iraq by saying that he was "confused and heartless." The medal-tossing and believer that all American troops are killers of woman and children and rapists, John Kerry, had to chime in even further (See Full Story)

The boldfaced lie in this is that McCain when on to say "What is important is the casualties in Iraq..." He then talked about being in a variety of countries for years; ie. South Korea, Japan, Germany, etc. He went on to talk about the importance low casualties and the importance of winning (See A full YOUTUBE video of McCain's Comments).

The Barack Obama and the Obama team are real good at distorting facts by taking things out of context. Then, when things aren't taken out of context, like those anti-American comments by Jeremiah Wright, he and his team claims that those are "out of context" and just "snippets" of a whole speech and a lifetime of speeches. Obama is good at deflecting the truth about himself and dishonestly magnifying a lie about his competitor. He did that over and over with Hillary Clinton during the lead-up to his win. He's an old fashioned machine-type politician with all the old tricks in the his playbook. Unfortunately, the people that are so much in "love" with this "concept" of this guy that they just can't see it. Most of those fools couldn't tell you his position on anything other than getting out of Iraq. They, also, have no idea of anything (which is nothing) that he has truly accomplished. If he's elected, it won't take long for them to really find out about Barack Obama. And, they might not like what they see!