Czech President Vaclav Klaus, a global warming sceptic, is ready and willing to debate Al Gore one on one on the issue of the global warming scam. Al Gore will not respond to this challenge. It is nothing out of the ordinary for Al Gore to debate the “facts” of climate change, he has been challenged before and refuses to do so.
Surely a politician cannot be afraid of debating. Unless he knows that he is full of shit and 
is afraid to expose himself. After all we have recently learned that he used fictional scenes from the movie “The Day After Tomorrow” in his documentary and claimed they were further signs of man-made global warming. Perhaps this is why he is unwilling to debate.
Klaus is promoting his own book entitled “Blue Planet in Green Shackles – What Is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?” What a great title, and it underscores the exact point that I have been making here for over a year. That point is, I am going to write it again, I am sorry for the repetition, that global warming is a scam designed to take our money and our freedoms in the guise of saving the planet. And it just so happens to make Al Gore, the father of the movement, rich as well. What a coincidence, huh?
Vaclav Klaus makes no bones about what he thinks the answer to the question in his book title is when he says, “My answer is it is our freedom and, I might add, and our prosperity.” Isn’t that the truth?
He goes on to compare the global warming movement to communism, something he knows a little about:
Klaus, an economist, said he opposed the “climate alarmism” perpetuated by environmentalism trying to impose their ideals, comparing it to the decades of communist rule he experienced growing up in Soviet-dominated Czechoslovakia.
He goes on:
“Like their (communist) predecessors, they will be certain that they have the right to sacrifice man and his freedom to make their idea reality,” he said.
“In the past, it was in the name of the Marxists or of the proletariat – this time, in the name of the planet,” he added.
These are some of the most scathing remarks that I have seen in this debate, (even if Al Gore refuses to debate), and it feels good to finally hear somebody stand up and make some of the same accusations that I have been writing about.
He goes on to make another of my points, and that is the fact that the scientists, environmentalists, and the meteorologists who tout this issue all have a financial stake in promoting it.
“It could be even true that we are now at a stage where mere facts, reason and truths are powerless in the face of the global warming propaganda,” he said.
Klaus alleged that the global warming was being championed by scientists and other environmentalists whose careers and funding requires selling the public on global warming.
“It is in the hands of climatologists and other related scientists who are highly motivated to look in one direction only,” Klaus said.
Klaus is out there challenging Al Gore, yet Al Gore remains silent. If Al Gore really wanted to champion his “cause” shouldn’t he take the stage and make his case to the whole world? I think so, but he is afraid because he knows the truth, he knows he will be exposed as a fraud and he is unwilling to stand up for what he wants us to believe in.
Cross posted on Grizzly Groundswell
This is the type of story that infuriates me. A veteran in Florida is facing a lawsuit because he refuses to take down his American flag from his front yard. I understand that he belongs to a subdivided community and as such he had to agree to certain rules, but when the rules forbid you to fly the American flag in your yard the line has been crossed. To use Barack Obama’s words, hold on there a minute sweetie.
Jimmie Watkins has no plan to back down.
“Our people are serving today to give us freedom to do as we like here within the law of America,” Watkins said. “It is my right to fly my flag from my pole and until a court of law tells me to haul that down, I will not haul it down. I think about all of the people who have served our nation and all of the lives that it’s cost and all of the friends that I’ve lost.”
This man fought for the freedoms that we enjoy. He fought for the American flag. And now he is being told that he can’t even fly the flag he fought for in his own yard. I hope he keeps fighting for the flag. The flag that he simply wants to display proudly. I think he has earned the right.
Cross posted on Grizzly Groundswell
Below is a video of Barack Obama talking about his uncle’s role in liberating the Nazi concentration camp in Auschwitz.
There is one small problem with his account of the story however. Auschwitz was liberated by the Soviets, not the Americans. OUCH! His campaign’s response was to say that he, and here is that word again, “misspoke”. Obama apparently meant that his uncle helped to liberate a different camp.
That is where one other little problem comes to light. Barack Obama’s mother was an only child, so Obama didn’t even have any American uncles. His campaign has had to further clarify what Barack Obama meant to say. According to the latest release by his campaign, Obama meant to say his great uncle liberated some other concentration camp not in Auschwitz.
I find it hard to believe that Obama just slipped up during his comments. He had no clue who liberated Auschwitz, but he did know that he didn’t have an American uncle. He told the story anyway. This is purely a case of a politician saying whatever he thinks he should to get elected.
Barack Obama is supposed to be the candidate who is above politics. He is supposed to be the candidate of change. He is the candidate who will go to Washington and change the way business is done. However, much like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama apparently is just another politician whose ultimate goal is to get elected no matter what it takes.
He is not a candidate of change, if anything he has been changed. He is just your average run of the mill politician. He is not above the fray, he is in it.
Bill Clinton is claiming that his poor, helpless wife is the victim of a mean old bully:
“I can’t believe it. It is just frantic the way they are trying to push and pressure and bully all these superdelegates to come out,”
There you have it, super delegates are being bullied into voting for Barack Obama. Why else would they vote for Obama over the Democrat’s royal family? The answer has to be that they are victims of bullies. The arrogance, or possible insanity, of Bill Clinton is astounding. He is so full of himself that he honestly believes that his wife deserves the presidency, and if she doesn’t achieve it there must be some grand plan in place to deny her of her birthright.
He goes on to blame a vast left wing conspiracy that is trying to cover up her popularity:
“’Oh, this is so terrible: The people they want her. Oh, this is so terrible: She is winning the general election, and he is not. Oh my goodness, we have to cover this up.'”
He even went on to say the following:
“You would know it wouldn’t you? It wouldn’t be a little secret. And there is another Electoral College poll that I saw yesterday had her over 300 electoral votes…. She will win the general election if you nominate her. They’re just trying to make sure you don’t.”
So we are to believe that these bullies would rather lose the election by nominating Barack Obama than win the election with Hillary Clinton? Bill Clinton has lost his mind. Or has he?
Nothing bad that ever happens to the Clinton’s is their fault. Whenever the media reports bad Clinton news it is part of the vast right wing conspiracy, or in this case the vast left wing conspiracy. The fact that they have been involved in so many shady deals, and have lied repeatedly to the American public is of no consequence to the couple that deserves no criticism, at least in their own inflated minds.
In the Clinton’s minds the only possible reason that the American people would not vote for her would be because they are bullied. Surely America realizes how brilliant she is, so there must be other forces at work. Deep, dark, evil forces at work. Barack Obama at work.
Read more here.
Videos: Memorial Day Tribute 2008
It is Memorial day 2008 and I can’t even begin to put into words the depth of my gratitude, the amount of respect I have, my total appreciation for, and my admiration for all of those who have served in the military, those who are serving in the military, and those that payed the ultimate sacrifice so that I can sit behind this keyboard and express my freedom of speech without consequence.
So instead I give you these three videos that I found on youtube along with my heartfelt thank you.
Below is an editorial reprinted in it’s entirety from the New Hampshire Union Leader, it sums up our pathetic tax, borrow, and spend governor perfectly.
GOV. JOHN LYNCH was supposed to be a kinder, gentler Craig Benson. He’d be the millionaire former business executive who balanced the state budget without raising taxes, but also without angering state employees by slashing jobs or upsetting the apple cart too much.
Oops.
During four years in office, Gov. Lynch has shown that he has no interest in cutting taxes, but lots of interest in raising them to pay for increased state spending.
The governor cannot hide behind the excuse that he had to raise taxes because the economy is bad. He raised taxes his first year in office — when the state budget was in surplus. In 2005, he proposed and got a 28-cents per pack cigarette tax increase. Last year, he got another 28-cents increase. This year he proposed a 25-cents per pack hike. That’s three cigarette tax hikes in four years.
Last year the governor proposed — and got — tax increases totaling more than $100 million. They helped pay for the largest general fund budget increase in 20 years — 17.5 percent.
Unfortunately, they didn’t pay for all of it. The hole in the state budget exceeds $200 million and is growing. To fill it, the governor is raising taxes again. He’s pushed a new tax on charity poker, another cigarette tax hike, and raising the discount offered to wine dealers through the state liquor stores.
His enthusiasm for tax hikes has encouraged the Democrat-controlled Legislature to go for even more. In fact, the very first bill passed in the House after the governor’s State of the State address in January was a new tax on animal vaccines.
This new revenue is not enough to cover the massive spending increases approved last year. So the governor has recommended borrowing money to pay for $80 million in school construction aid that always had been paid with cash from the general fund.
Tax and spend? Gov. Lynch says, “OK!” Borrow and spend? “OK to that, too!”
This is not what the people of New Hampshire expected from the former furniture company CEO who famously made tough decisions to turn around a failing business.
The people expected the governor to make the same type of hard-nosed decisions he made then. Instead, he sold out to the Democratic Party’s host of special interest groups that directly benefit from increased government spending. And as a direct result we’ve seen our state budget and taxes grow at irresponsible and unaffordable rates. What a disappointment.
Governor Lynch is nothing but a fraud. He overspent New Hampshire’s means and to justify it he had his economists purposely inflate the incoming revenue projections. When these false projections were not met he blamed the president for the downturn in the national economy, rather than his own deceptive economic projections. The governor KNEW that New Hampshire couldn’t meet the financial expectations he projected, but he decided that he could pull the wool over the good people of New Hampshire. And he did. The truth is that incoming revenue to New Hampshire is up exponentially, but still not enough to meet the governor’s spending. The downturn in the national economy is not the problem with New Hampshire’s budget, as the record income proves. The problem is that the governor increased spending by an unsustainable 17.5%. Governor Lynch’s spending is to blame for the budget deficit, not the national economy. Be a man for once governor Lynch and admit you fucked up big time. You will feel better. Trust me.
Cross posted on Grizzly Groundswell
Sorry, I am a couple of days late on this one. During last week’s congressional hearing with oil executives Maxine Waters threatened to socialize the oil companies. Here is the video:
Well, she obviously realized that she slipped up by showing where she really stands politically by using the word “socialize.” She said the magic word, bit the poison pill and it was bitter. Did you see how quickly she tried to move away from that word? She then could not find the word that she really intended to use, and that word is “nationalize.” Not that nationalize is any better of a word than socialize, they both mean the same thing. What they mean is exactly what Maxine Waters went on to say, that she wanted the government to take over and run their companies for them.
She has admitted what many of us already know, that Democrats are socialists at heart. She was then compared to, and rightfully so, Hugo Chavez and Venezuela. Of course I am sure she considered that a compliment, being compared to one of her heroes and all.
The best part of the video is watching the two people behind her as she stumbles her way through her ridiculous statement. As soon as she says the words “take over” watch the guy behind her start to smile and then hide behind her, this is followed by a woman who then enters the picture and covers her smile with her hand. They are laughing at her. Maxine Waters made a fool out of herself, but at the same time she showed us her true feelings.
What really set her off was the oil executives laying the blame of high gas prices at the foot of congress for not letting them actually drill for more oil. Oil that is plentiful on our own land. China is drilling off of the coast of Florida and we are not allowed to because of the environmentalists. And her answer is A GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER!
The Patriot Act is encroaching on the rights and privacy of the American people. Bush is trampling the constitution. Bush is spying on the American people. Bush is listening to everybody’s private conversations. Bush is a terrorist who engineered the 9/11 attacks so he could reign in the freedoms of the American people. Bush lied us into war. Bush lied, people died.
BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH, and on and on the list goes. We have heard all of the above from the far left over the last eight years. We have even heard some of the above by Democrats in congress over the last eight years.
So what have the Democrats done to right this supposed wrong, nothing! As a matter of fact they approved extending the Patriot Act when they had the chance to kill it. Why? Because in spite of all the rhetoric they thought is was the right thing to do. They talk about ending the war, yet continue to vote to fund the war. Why? Because in spite of what they say, it is the right thing to do. They talk a good game to appease the far left moonbats, but they vote differently when the chips are on the table.
With all of the talk about how President Bush has trampled over the constitution with the foreign surveillance program and the Patriot Act by the left you can imagine my surprise when I read this story.
Chris Dodd engineered a compromise with former Democrat turned Republican Richard Shelby that would create a federal registry of fingerprints that is totally unrelated to national security. In fact it was added to the housing bill and targets law abiding home mortgage lenders.
a measure creating a federal fingerprint registry totally unrelated to national security passed a U.S. Senate committee almost without notice. The legislation would require thousands of individuals working even tangentially in the mortgage and real estate industries — and not suspected of anything — to send their prints to the feds. The database and fingerprint mandates were tucked into housing and foreclosure assistance bills that on Tuesday passed the Senate Banking Committee by a vote of 19-2.
The measure the committee passed states that “an individual may not engage in the business of a loan originator without first … obtaining a unique identifier.” To obtain this “identifier,” an individual is required to “furnish” to the newly created Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry “information concerning the applicant’s identity, including fingerprints for submission” to the FBI and other government agencies.
I find this astounding coming from the party that has accused President Bush of restricting the rights and freedoms of the American people. A national fingerprint registry for law abiding citizens who just happen to be in the mortgage industry? Will it stop there? Or will the Democrats expand their attack on the right to privacy to other citizens? I think we all know it will not stop here.
The same party that opposes voter identification laws now wants to create a national fingerprint registry. According to the Democrats, you do not have to prove you are who you say you are when you vote because it is infringing on the rights of the people. Evidently requiring a person to show a photo ID when they vote is racist and hurts the poor, don’t ask me how, but that’s what they claim. However, they don’t have a problem with a person who is in the mortgage industry from having to provide fingerprints so that they can be tracked. Does anybody else see the hypocrisy here?
Infringement is in the eye of the beholder, evidently. We are to believe that Democrats are looking out for us while Republicans are merely looking at us.
Who do these fuckers think they are?
To tell you the truth I wasn’t even planning to write about this. I thought the whole idea of Hillary Clinton hinting that Barack Obama may be assassinated was absurd. To me it seemed as if the Barack Obama campaign was just looking for any excuse to bash the Clinton campaign, but as I started to think about it, and read more about it I decided that I also had to write about it. Could it be possible that Hillary Clinton was either trying to play to a fear that Barack Obama could be assassinated if he was nominated? Could it be possible that Hillary Clinton was saying that she should stay in the race because you never know, Barack Obama could be assassinated? And if he was, she would be there to pick up the party?
Let’s look at what she said when asked if she was fracturing the party by staying in the race so long:
“my husband didn’t wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June.”
“We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California,” she continued. “You know i just dont understand it.”
At first I found the comment to be benevolent, but I started thinking that it really was an odd way to answer the question. Why would she bring up the assassination of Robert Kennedy? First of all, during his presidential bid it was Bobby who was accused of fracturing the party by not dropping out. He was being urged to drop for the good of the party. So really, in today’s race Hillary is playing the RobertKennedy character. Despite the historical parallels that are more closely tied to Hillary, what point was Hillary trying to make with such a point that seems irrelevant to the question?
Was she simply trying to use the example of Robert Kennedy’s assassination in June just to illustrate that Bobby was still running in June or was there more to it than that? Was she just siting examples of long running campaigns to justify hers?
After reading her comments, and articles about her comments over and over again, I have come to the conclusion that she was simply referencing historical Democrat primaries to show that they have gone through June before and was not implying that Barack Obama may be assassinated.
BUT, there will always be that twinge of doubt because we are dealing with the Clinton’s here. I wouldn’t put anything past her when it came to regaining the white house. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if this statement was uttered because they knew there was a way out of it. And that could be what the spin we are now hearing is, planned spin from the beginning because they knew how some would take the comment. Maybe they were counting on people taking this comment to hint at a Barack Obama assassination because they knew they could weasel out of it.
I don’t think that is the case, but with the Clinton’s, you never know.
Former New Hampshire Governor Jeanne Shaheen, who is now running for the United States senate against Republican John Sununu, and whose husband was forced to resign from Hillary Clinton’s campagn for suggesting that Obama was a drug dealer, has unleashed her first ad of the campaign. According to all the polls John Sununu is in real trouble. National Democrats consider his seat one of the most vulnerable, and I think they are probably right.
Jeanne Shaheen makes several claims that distort her record as governor, but thankfully the New Hampshire GOPwebsite has set the record straight. Here is their rebuttal in its entirety as seen on the NHGOP website:
CONCORD – New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Fergus Cullen released the following statement on Jeanne Shaheen’s new campaign ad:
“Jeanne Shaheen’s ad rewrites history and masks her six years of failed leadership with campaign rhetoric. Shaheen’s real record was long on blue ribbon commissions but short on leadership. Her legacy includes record spending, advocacy for a 2.5 percent sales tax and the statewide property tax, and failure to solve the education funding crisis that began on her watch.
“This kind of fluffy ad early in the campaign is typical Shaheen politics. The next step will come when Sen. Chuck Schumer and the Washington Democrats flood New Hampshire airwaves with hundreds of thousands of dollars in negative ads over the coming months.”
TRUTH CHECK: SHAHEEN’S MISLEADING AD
Shaheen claims “and for the first time for many communities she made public kindergarten a reality.”
TRUTH:
But, during Shaheen’s time as Governor, she vetoed bi-partisan school accountability legislation, failed to solve the education funding crisis that began on her watch, blocked efforts to improve teacher quality, and the state’s high school dropout rate climbed to more than twenty-five percent. Simply put, Jeanne Shaheen failed New Hampshire’s students.
Shaheen claims she would “cut taxes for the middle class not big oil.”
TRUTH:
But, as Governor, Jeanne Shaheen signed the first-ever statewide property tax, vetoed a repeal of the death tax and also proposed a sales tax for the state.
Shaheen claims “66,000 new jobs while she was Governor.”
TRUTH:
But, while Shaheen was Governor, New Hampshire lost more than 16,000 manufacturing jobs. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in December 1996, the month before Shaheen took office, New Hampshire had 99,400 manufacturing jobs. And according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in December 2002, Shaheen’s last month in office, New Hampshire had 82,900 manufacturing jobs.
Shaheen claims she would “work to bring our troops home from Iraq.”
TRUTH:
But, when Shaheen ran for the U.S. Senate in 2002, she said she supported President Bush’s goal for regime change in Iraq, including the use of military force. Shaheen even bragged that she “came out very early in support of the President on Iraq.” As late as September 2007, Shaheen said she did not regret her position, but when deciding to run for the U.S. Senate, Shaheen flip-flopped and said she regretted that position and now opposes the war in Iraq.
