A brief history of modern global warming

1920's to 1950's: global warming: scientists begin to warn of global warming



1960s: global cooling: scientists notice temperatures have been cooling since the 1950's


1970's: global cooling, "looks like the overdue ice age is here"


1980: no hyped up climate propaganda, pollution (soot and gasses) causing ice caps at poles to melt, permanent snow cap loss


1990's: global warming, ozone depleting gasses causing hole in ozone, causing ice caps at poles to melt, permanent snow cap loss


Now: global warming, carbon doxide and other green house gasses causing ice caps at poles to melt, permanent snow cap loss


Is the UN committee on climate change working on a reason for the next decade? 2010 is less than three years away, the carbon dioxide carbon crew only has a few years to capitalize on this before people get bored and need a new catastrophe bandwagon to jump onto.

Memorial Day Meditation

"Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels -- men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, we may never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion."

Dwight Eisenhower

Whether you are planning on a picnic, barbecue, parade, enjoying a refreshing beverage, or just spending the Memorial Day weekend at home or work remember not just the sacrifices of those who paid the ultimate price for freedom, but also any one who has served - in war time or peace.

And I implore everyone to remember those often overlooked participants in war; the families of those who volunteered to serve their country. While not directly subjected to the horror of war, they live with the unsurity of war every day their loved one is deployed. Even the stress of separation of peace time deployment is a sacrifice the families endure for our freedom.

Bless those who serve or have served... and their families. their unselfish sacrifice is what made, and continues to make, our country great.

All the news that's fit to ignore

The most shocking and alarming part of this article is not that John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi and other congresspeople are vowing the war about Iraq is not over, ironically talking not about the war in Iraq, but rather the war in Washington over the US presence there.
Nor is the most shocking thing that we've actually elected morons to the House and senate who think they can repeal authorization granted by a previous congress... they can't! On those grounds alone they should be ousted from Washington since they are wasting our tax dollars even thinking about it.



Dems: Fight Over Iraq War Has Just Begun by Anne Flaherty, AP

No! The most astonishing part of this article is that it fails to address where the "extra" 25 billion dollars went.


The congress passed a 120 billion dollar spending bill. 95 billion is for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Where is the other 25 billion dollars? This is not an insignificant amount of money, it represents over 20% of the funding authorization but AP doesn't feel the need to explain about that.


The media took $10 million missing in Iraq and ran with it for weeks. What about this 25 BILLION that was hidden in a war appropriation spending bill.


The media is censoring the truth! AP is the largest syndicator of news in the US and this will be in papers and news feeds all over the country. And there will be outrage over the spending of $95,000,000,000 dollars on the wars, but what about the extra $25,000,000,000 added to the bill to entice people to vote for it.


The real story here is what AP chose to leave out!

The Colorado jackalope, the Tennessee barking spider, the liberal libertarian

I came across a 2006 article by Brink Lindsey of the CATO institute. He was talking about a liberal-libertarian coalition. The meat and potatoes of his argument are based upon the following stats.

"According to a Cato report, "The Libertarian Vote," libertarians went for Nixon over McGovern 75%-25%, Ford over Carter 66%-20%, Reagan over Carter 66%-18%, Bush over Dukakis 74%-26%, Dole over Clinton 58%-29%, Bush over Gore 72%-20%, and Bush over Kerry 59%-38%."
The study breaks down the stats by age and not surprisingly finds that the majority of libertarians who voted Kerry were 18 - 29. Lindsey draws the conclusion that this may represent a shift if libertarian voters stay loyal to the democrat party as they age.

The problem with this assumption is that Lindsey uses the questionable tactic of predicting a shift or change based upon a single exception to an established trend. The most likely reason the majority of young libertarians voted for Kerry had to do with two unpopular Bush policies. The war and the Patriot Act. Oh yes, and he grew the federal government and spent unprescedented amounts of money in domestic and foreign aid.

While the war was still publicly popular in 2004 libertarians were against it as they are against any use of military might that is not in defense of the country. Similarly they are against any laws, such as the Patriot Act that gives the government powers not provided in the constitution. I personally recognize that times have changed and the need for a Patriot Act is irrevocably upon us and is necessary. The constitution was intended to provide a framework for our government, not to serve as a suicide pact. There is always the fear of a police state taking liberties and claiming it is for the good of the country. But security is a paramount function of the government and using software that scans phone conversations for keywords is not infringing on anyones civil liberties... unless of course you are a terrorist.

And as long as the Democrat party is married to their ideals of taxation, entitlements and policies counter to lassaiz faire business there is little reason to see the skew of young libertarian voters away from the GOP in 2004 as anything other than a reaction to Iraq and the Patriot Act.

In my personal experience the only people who are liberal and libertarians are those who are against drug laws (one of the more controversial of the libertarian candidates platforms and one of the least defensible.) In many local elections the same candidate will represent the Libertarian Party, the Marijuana Party, and sometimes other "third" parties. These vanity candidates do little to support the ideals or add credence to the party.

Libertarians are über-conservatives. While many paleo-libertarians strive to return the government to the scope and size of the constitution as it was originally written, more modern libertarians envision a realistic approach. Modern libertarians are happy (for now) to stop growth of government and government programs, and restoring to states many of the rights usurped by the federal government. if there is a reason for social control it should be determined on a local level with input and consent of the people, it should not be federal mandates

Libertarian and liberal ideals tend to be diametrically opposed to each other. While one favors freedom, the other favors control and entitlements. One support the pursuit of happiness, the other believes in "leveling the playing field". Libertarians are minarchist, while liberals support a massive government, all encompassing government.

Libertarianism has been referred to as classical liberalism. In this context "liberal" refers to liberties. Modern liberalism is not at all related to classical liberalism. Classic liberalism is a fusion of liberty, personal freedom and lassaiz faire economics. Modern liberals believe in a large central government that sets rules for businesses and creates laws that force social change as well as personal sacrifice for the "greater good."

So what do the Colorado jackalope, the Tennessee barking spider and liberal libertarians have in common? I'm not telling, go ask the tooth fairy.

We come to bury Jerry, not to praise him

By the time I started to get into politics Jerry Falwell had already become a foot note. As a matter of fact many of his obits correctly link his time of political power as during the Reagan administration. Although the revisionist liberals claim he got Reagan elected, the truth is Carter had a zero percent chance of being re-elected.

One area where Jerry succeeded was perfecting the liberal's tactic of boycotting. He organized his group of supporters, and took his case to the Christian churches, who rallied their members to write to manufacturers threatening boycotts of their products. This got the left's collective panties in a bunch. Thier primary method of harrassment and intimidation was usurped (and overshadowed) by the Moral Majority. Where a successful letter writing campaign for the left might generate a few thousand letters, Rev Falwell was able to mobilize a hundred thousand.


Fast forward to the 2004 election. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth came out and questioned John Kerry's accounts of his participation in the war. They were funded by various PACs and independent donors. The left was pissed again, creating groups to smear political opponents was their domain. The liberals decried the SBVT and their dirty tactics, despite the fact that the MoveOn was doing the same thing, but with much more money involved. I am not meaning to draw a correllation between Rev Falwell and the SBVT. But what I am saying is that the right copied the lefts tactics and outdid them in the 1980s and in 2004, more efficiently and with less money they beat the liberals at their game.


That is one of the reasons Jerry Falwell is hated by the left. He outplayed them at their own game. His time of political relavence was short, but he was feared and hated by the left. And that is why we saw such an overwhelming display or the hypocrites gloating and celebrating with glee over the news of Rev Falwell's passing. The media built him up to mythical proportions, trying to convince everyone that Christians are evil to try to marginalize the man. The media protrays the Christian Right as a source of evil, out of step with the modern USA, but truth be told 80% of the country identifies with the ideals of christianity and patriotism that Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority held dear.

But Jerry Falwell was not evil, but he did say a lot of controversial things. Things that "enlightened" people deemed intolerent. He preached conservative beliefs and Christianity. He was not a hypocrite, he said what he believed. He did not attack or judge others, except when they espoused views he found were anti-Christian. Politically, he supported those who held similar beliefs, similarly, he withheld support from people who ran Republican but who did not share his conservative beliefs.

He was not ashamed to be against open homosexuality as he saw it as being against his religious beliefs. Earlier in his career he was pro-segregation, as most white southern men were, but his ideas changed with the times, as it did for many other people.