Things You Can't Say About Obama

From the Rush Limbaugh Show:

With Obama we started out, we couldn't talk about his big ears 'cause that made him nervous. We've gone from that to this: Not only can we not mention his ears...

We can't talk about his mother.

We can't talk about his father.

We can't talk about his grandmother unless he does, brings her up as a "typical white person."

We can't talk about his wife, can't talk about his preacher, can't talk about his terrorist friends, can't talk about his voting record, can't talk about his religion.

We can't talk about appeasement.

We can't talk about color; we can't talk about lack of color.

We can't talk about race. We can't talk about bombers and mobsters who are his friends. We can't talk about schooling. We can't talk about his name, "Hussein."

We can't talk about his lack of experience. Can't talk about his income. Can't talk about his flag pin.

This started out we can't call him a liberal.

It started out we just couldn't talk about his ears.

Now we can't say anything about him.

Overheard...

I overheard a conversation (through Twitter) between a friend and 7-year-old. Had to share:

Discussing politics w/ 7-yr-old. Used to be she wanted "the girl" to be President, but now she wants McCain because "the girl is mean".

Laura Ingraham Blasts Keith Overbite

Love it! On the radio Thursday, Laura Ingraham went after Keith Olbermann with a vengeance. Olbermann's Special Komment, referencing Bush's "cold-blooded killers", was seen by Laura as a despicable attack on American troops in Iraq and around the world, and she let Olbermann have it with both barrels.

Tennessee Michelle Obama Ad

The Tennessee Republican Party welcomes Michelle Obama to Nashville

Gibson & Levin Tag-Team Smackdown of Keith Olbermann!

On the radio Thursday night, John Gibson and constitutional attorney Dr Mark Levin responded to Keith Olbermann's latest Special Education Komment. Hear them both in this special Olbermann Watch Tag-Team Combo Clip!

Olbermann Goes On Tirade

If Keith Overbite were actually a journalist and not a washed up baseball collector, then maybe he would actually have a clue what he was talking about. MSLSD, the home of liberal hacks, employs this man to deliver the news and what does he do? He goes off on a Daily Kos/MoveOn.org tirade on the president for over 12 minutes. If you can stomach the bile he spews watch...but I feel sorry that he's that clueless in some of the things he says. Hey Keith! We ARE liberators! We HAVE been winning! WE didn't put the terrorists in Iraq! Just admit you HATE the troops and this country and get out of it! This is MY country and I don't tolerate morons like you who have no desire to listen to the truth you nitwit! Keep up the great job you wannabe! No one watches Countdown to No Ratings!

McCain's "Climate Change" Tour Bypasses Cooler Heads

By Michelle Malkin • May 12, 2008 10:43 AM

John McCain kicks off his "climate change tour" in Portland today. The Associated Press regurgitates the McCain emphasis on how he will push "free-market principles" to reduce global warming, which he is convinced is real and primarily man-made.

Take this with a gi-normous grain of salt, my friends:

In remarks prepared for delivery Monday at a Portland, Ore., wind turbine manufacturer, the presidential contender says expanded nuclear power must be considered to reduce carbon-fuel emissions. He also sets a goal that by 2050, the country will reduce carbon emissions to a level 60 percent below that emitted in 1990.

"For all of the last century, the profit motive basically led in one direction - toward machines, methods and industries that used oil and gas," said McCain. "Enormous good came from that industrial growth, and we are all the beneficiaries of the national prosperity it built. But there were costs we weren’t counting, and often hardly noticed. And these terrible costs have added up now, in the atmosphere, in the oceans and all across the natural world."

The Arizona senator promised to challenge China and India, two economic rivals who are fueling their challenge to U.S. market supremacy with heavily polluting fuels such as coal, gas and oil.

"For all of its historical disregard of environmental standards, it cannot have escaped the attention of the Chinese regime that China’s skies are dangerously polluted, its beautiful rivers are dying, its grasslands vanishing, its coastlines receding and its own glaciers melting," said McCain.

He also took a swipe at President Bush, who balked at the beginning of its term at signing the Kyoto global warming protocols. McCain said he would return to the negotiating table.

"I will not shirk the mantle of leadership that the United States bears. I will not permit eight long years to pass without serious action on serious challenges. I will not accept the same dead-end of failed diplomacy that claimed Kyoto. The United States will lead and will lead with a different approach - an approach that speaks to the interests and obligations of every nation," he said.

A rational, free-market-based approach to environmentalism requires a commitment to scientific truth, accuracy, and honest cost-benefit analyses.

For the last several years, McCain has been committed to none of those.

Climatologist Patrick Michaels had McCain pegged four years ago, when The Maaaveerrick convened ridiculously, eco-Chicken Little-stacked hearings:

Recent U.S. Senate hearings into alleged global warming, chaired by Arizona Republican John McCain, were among the "most biased" that a noted climatologist has ever seen - "much less balanced than anything I saw in the Clinton administration," he said.

Patrick J. Michaels is the author of a new book "Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media." He is an environmental sciences professor at the University of Virginia who believes that claims of human-caused "global warming" are scientifically unfounded.

Michaels spoke with CNSNews.com Thursday following a panel discussion sponsored by the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., where Michaels also serves as a senior fellow in environmental studies.

"John McCain, a Republican, has probably held the most biased hearing of all," Michaels said. McCain is a big proponent of limiting greenhouse gas emissions, which he believes are causing "global warming." The Arizona senator also "is trying to define himself as an environmental Republican, which he is going to use to differentiate himself from his rivals for the (presidential) nomination in 2008," according to Michaels.

You can bet McCain won’t be visiting with Michaels on his climate change tour anytime soon. The truth would get in the way of his crusade:

Citing a visit he had to the Arctic with several U.S. senators last summer, McCain made it clear that he believed human-caused “global warming” was a certainty.

"It was remarkable going up on a small ship next to this glacier and seeing where it had been just 10 short years ago and how quickly it’s receded," McCain told the New York Times...

...McCain also warned about what he saw as the rapid pace of Arctic warming, evidenced by the arrival of wildlife that had never previously been seen in the region. "The Inuit language for 10,000 years never had a word for robin and now there are robins all over their villages," he told the Times.

Michaels refuted McCain’s assertions about the North Pole, noting that the Arctic has actually been warmer in the past than it is now.

"It was warmer 4 to 7,000 years ago [in the Arctic.] Every climatologist knows that. I saw no mention of that in the Arctic report that was paraded in front of McCain," Michaels said. He added that the past warming of the Arctic couldn’t possibly be blamed on greenhouse gas emissions since it occurred long before the industrial era.

In 2003, Iain Murray debunked McCain’s anecdote about how he got interested in global warming:

He is on record as saying that the reason he became interested in global warming in the first place is because he recognized how much hotter it was getting at his home in Sedona, Ariz. Unfortunately, the data don’t back him up on this. If we look at the temperature records from the nearby Childs weather station, we can actually see a downward trend in temperature of slightly over 1° F. since 1986, when McCain was elected to the Senate. Another nearby station, Fort Valley, shows a very slight upwards trend. You can see these trends for yourself by looking at the official records available at the CO2science.org website. Certainly there are upward trends elsewhere in Arizona, but these are balanced by downward trends — Tucson has cooled while Tombstone has warmed. Arizona makes a poor poster boy for global-warming theory.

Like Barack Obama, McCain touts a "cap-and-trade" system as the free-market answer to reducing carbon emissions. Analysts who haven’t been bitten by the global warming alarmist bug beg to differ–and evidence from cap-and-trade systems already in operation back them up:

...the world has already witnessed many unpleasant surprises with Europe’s ongoing efforts to impose a cap and trade program under the Kyoto Protocol, the international climate treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In fact, European efforts have racked up significant costs while failing to reduce emissions. Nearly every European country participating has higher emissions today than when the treaty was first signed in 1997. Further, despite ongoing criticism of the United States from Kyoto parties for failing to ratify the treaty, emissions in many of these nations are actually rising faster than in the United States.

The European experience also shows the problem of cap and trade fraud.[6] None other than Enron’s Ken Lay was a strong supporter of carbon cap and trade when the idea was first floated in the 1990s, saying that it could "do more to promote Enron’s business than almost any other regulatory initiative." These carbon allowances that will be bought and sold have a value estimated at $50 billion to $300 billion annually, and the trade in them would be a huge new business. Enron may be gone, but others ready to take advantage of cap and trade–often at public expense–are not.

Is the solution to go back to 1910 and live like Haiti and Somalia? The Appeal-Democrat says no:

Here’s good news that may have escaped attention. The environment worldwide is getting better and better, largely because of economic growth, efficiency and innovation. So says the 2008 Index of Leading Environmental Indicators, an annual report on worldwide air and water quality and climate change by the Pacific Research Institute, a San Francisco free-market think tank.

While government regulation plays a "central role" in improving the environment, PRI says, it would be ineffective if it were not for affluence and technological advances. That may be why PRI also warns that imposing drastic measures to curb manmade greenhouse gas emissions could roll back the very economic and technological gains essential to improving the environment.

For example, to reach the global warming alarmists' goal — an 80-percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 — the United States would have to revert to a per-capita emission rate last seen in 1910. Considering the nation’s population will increase to 420 million by 2050, the per-capita rate would have to roll back even more, to a level "not seen in the nation since 1875."

For perspective, "unless there is a genuine breakthrough in carbon-free electricity," PRI concludes, "households will not be able to use enough electricity to run a hot-water heater without exceeding" the per-capita emission limit.

The only countries with greenhouse gas emissions that low "are desperately poor nations, such as Haiti and Somalia," wrote PRI’s senior fellow of environmental studies Steven F. Hayward. "Automobile fuel consumption will have to fall by more than 80 percent."

..."The 80 percent reduction target is unrealistic at any price," PRI concludes. Given the option of continued innovation and technological advances inherent in economic growth versus the economy-retarding Draconian limits on greenhouse gas emissions, it seems clear to us which one is preferable. Swedish environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg has made the same case for years.

In arriving at the "Copenhagen Consensus" in 2006, Lomborg asked 24 U.N. ambassadors from nations including China, India and the U.S. to set priorities for solutions to the world’s greatest challenges. "They looked at what spending money to combat climate change and other major problems could achieve," Mr. Lomborg wrote in the Wall Street Journal. "They found that the world should prioritize the need for better health, nutrition, water, sanitation and education, long before we turn our attention to the costly mitigation of global warning."

...

Whether one believes greenhouse gases pose an environmental threat, the greater point is that the United States is capable of such a reduction because of its economic, technological and innovative advances. But blindly imposing government mandates without regard to their effect on the economy, technology and innovation will do little except inhibit prosperity and move the nation closer to the model of Haiti and Somalia.

As Lomborg has written: "We all want a better world. But we must not let ourselves be swept up in making a bad investment, simply because we have been scared by sensationalist headlines."

A true "free-market" approach to environmentalism means protecting the free market, not destroying it in the name of supposedly "cost-free solutions" to a supposed crisis that rests on skewed science.

Girl, 15, Visits Artic/MSLSD Uses Penguins In Video

MS-NBC had to go around the world to get its story on global warming yesterday. In fact, they had to substitute the North Pole for the South Pole. At the 45-second mark in this story about the disappearing ice at the top of the world, take a look at the critters they show on an ice floe:



Those, folks, are penguins — which live at the bottom of the earth, as Nigel points out. The “expanses of water that weren’t there before” were actually never there at the North Pole. All 17 species of penguins live in the southern hemisphere.

Why would penguins make the long and rather warm journey across the equator to appear in an MSNBC story about global warming?

• Escaping the expanding ice cap at the South Pole
• Conducting their own investigation into polar-bear migration
• MSNBC’s editors don’t know one pole from another
  

Something got exposed in this broadcast — scientific illiteracy at MSNBC.

::UPDATE:: I wasn't surprised to see MSLSD remove this video because of their blunder, so I have a screen cap of that image. They actually re-edited the video and removed the penguins from the video. Nothing better than technology to capture a still image of their blunder. If you missed the video, it was quite telling of the poor research they did. Better is they have probably never even been to the Arctic.

Bush Finally Gets Mad At Ignorant Media

Finally, Bush gets mad at a reporter asking stupid questions. This liberal of the MSM asks the same question 3 or 4 times and Bush lets her have it. The war isn't over, but we are winning. It may never completely end...so we have to be tough and keep fighting. Get over yourself lady.

Fred Thompson on McCain's VP & Obama

Red State Update: Hillary Wins Pennsylvania

Gore Used Fictional Video to Illustrate ‘Inconvenient Truth’

Gore Used Fictional Video to Illustrate ‘Inconvenient Truth’
By Noel Sheppard | April 22, 2008 - 09:53 ET
{See the video by clicking the title link}

It goes without saying that climate realists around the world believe Nobel Laureate Al Gore used false information throughout his schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" in order to generate global warming hysteria.

On Friday, it was revealed by ABC News that one of the famous shots of supposed Antarctic ice shelves in the film was actually a computer-generated image from the 2004 science fiction blockbuster "The Day After Tomorrow." [audio available here]

Adding delicious insult to injury, this was presented by one of ABC's foremost global warming alarmists Sam Champion during Friday's "20/20":

SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS): (Voiceover) Al Gore's 2006 documentary, 'An Inconvenient Truth," makes the same point with actual video of ice shelves calving. Which shots have more impact?

AL GORE (FORMER UNITED STATES VICE PRESIDENT): And if you were flying over it in a helicopter, you'd see it's 700 feet tall. They are so majestic.

SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS): (Voiceover) Wait a minute, that shot looks just like the one in the opening credits of "The Day After Tomorrow."

KAREN GOULEKAS (VISUAL EFFECTS SUPERVISOR): Yeah, that's, that's our shot. That's a fully computer generated shot. There's nothing real in there.

SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS): (Voiceover) Audiences expect Hollywood to twist fact into fiction. But Gore's documentary does the opposite, using a fake shot to make a real point, that ice shelves are disappearing, and vanishing ice means global warming.

Apparently, ABC tried to get a comment from Gore concerning the matter, but none was forthcoming:

SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS): (Off-camera) And it raises another question for you to consider. Is it wrong for a documentary to use a fabricated Hollywood shot to make a point, even if there's science behind it? Well, we tried to ask Al Gore and the movie studio, but neither responded to our calls.

I wonder why.

Yet, another mystery here is that ABC posted a video of this segment at its website. However, for some reason, the clip ends BEFORE the discussion of Gore's film.

I wonder why.

What follows is a full transcript of this segment.

SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS): (Off-camera) It seems like there's nothing like a natural disaster to get Hollywood's imagination going. But do movies like the 'Poseidon Adventure" reflect real life or distort it?

GRAPHICS: "CATEGORY 6"

SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS): (Voiceover) Nothing matches Mother Nature gone wild in those weather disaster movies. The special effects can blow an audience right out of their seats, and you'll definitely think twice about going on a cruise after seeing 'Poseidon..."

GRAPHICS: "POSEIDON"

SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS): (Voiceover) ...An enormous ocean wave bigger than anything ever recorded capsizes a cruise ship, and only a few passengers survive.

CLIP FROM "WATERWORLD"

SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS): (Voiceover) In another maritime movie, global warming causes water to cover the Earth. The science is so shaky in 'Waterworld" that Kevin Costner even grows webbed feet, and take a look behind his ears.

ACTOR (MALE): Gills.

CLIP FROM VARIOUS MOVIES

SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS): (Voiceover) Is good science a myth in these movies? It's hard to tell when convincing visuals give light to fictitious weather catastrophes, from inland hurricanes to an imaginary icing.

DAVID KIRBY (AUTHOR): I mean, cinema makes good science and bad science equally realistic.

SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS): (Voiceover) Author David Kirby attended a recent National Science Foundation meeting of scientists and entertainment producers.

DAVID KIRBY (AUTHOR): You should worry about the small details.

SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS): (Voiceover) Their topic, legitimate science in TV and film. Kirby says audiences can be naive, some worrying about lava in their own backyards, for example, after seeing 'Volcano."

CLIP FROM "VOLCANO"

SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS): (Voiceover) In that movie, Tommy Lee Jones has good instincts when he first discovers a problem beneath Los Angeles.

TOMMY LEE JONES (ACTOR): Find me a scientist, somebody tell me what the hell is going on.

JAKE LOWENSTERN (GEOLOGIST): You have to have the right scientist.

SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS): (Voiceover) That would be Jake Lowenstern, the geologist in charge of the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory. So how realistic is a lava flow down Wilshire Boulevard?

JAKE LOWENSTERN (GEOLOGIST): Los Angeles is not one of the more likely places to have a volcanic eruption anytime soon. That one was a little bit outrageous.

CLIP FROM "DANTE'S PEAK"

SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS): (Voiceover) Lowenstern says movies need a scientific base, case in point, another volcano movie, 'Dante's Peak."

PIERCE BROSNAN (ACTOR): This mountain's a ticking bomb.

SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS): (Voiceover) Pierce Brosnan, the scientist, predicts the eruption. It's an explosion of ash and gases of obliterating buildings, toppling trees, and spreading destruction for miles.

KEVIN FURLONG (PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY): That's one of the scenes that probably is the most scientifically accurate. We know from when Mountain Saint Helens erupted, it blow outwards and it, it laid all the trees down in one direction.

SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS): (Voiceover) Kevin Furlong and Chuck Ammon used clips from a dozen movies to supplement a course at Penn State University on natural disasters.

DOCTOR CHUCK AMMON (PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY): Every clip is another exercise in critical thinking. Was that real? It was not fake. Is that realistic or is that completely unrealistic?

SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS): (Voiceover) The professors find the worse the movie, the better the teaching tool. One of their favorites, 'Twister."

CLIP FROM "TWISTER"

HELEN HUNT (ACTRESS): Cow.

SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS): (Off-camera) Cows are flying through the air. You can hear them moo.

DOCTOR CHUCK AMMON (PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY): It's like the 'Wizard of Oz."

SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS): (Off-camera) I mean, am I right? When these thing's gonna go by you so quickly, you don't even know it's a cow.

KEVIN FURLONG (PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY): Oh, sure, because you know that it's going at, what, 200 miles per hour or faster?

DOCTOR CHUCK AMMON (PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY): It's moving at bullet speeds.

SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS): (Off-camera) Some people got very angry about this in the weather profession because it makes it look like you don't need to get out of the way of a tornado.

KEVIN FURLONG (PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY): Well, I think there's always that risk with any of these natural disaster movies that you are making it appear that people can survive them.

DOCTOR CHUCK AMMON (PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY): Here's a, a shot of Hurricane Katrina. There's the eye of the storm.

SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS): (Voiceover) The class arms these students with the knowledge of real weather catastrophes.

DOCTOR CHUCK AMMON (PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY): Katrina's storm surges were on the order of 15 feet and - in a couple of places up to 30 feet.

CLIP FROM "THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW"

SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS): (Voiceover) But the storm surge in "The Day After Tomorrow" nearly covers the Statue of Liberty, a whopping 300 feet. That's 10 times the size of Hurricane Katrina's storm surge.

DENNIS QUAID (ACTOR): I think we're on the verge of a major climate shift.

SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS): (Voiceover) In this 2004 blockbuster, global warming triggers a change in ocean patterns, setting off hailstorms in Tokyo, tornadoes in Los Angeles...

ACTOR (MALE): This tornado just came and erased the Hollywood sign.

SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS): (Voiceover) ...and the enormous tidal surge engulfs Manhattan. The movie's visual effects supervisor was Karen Goulekas.

KAREN GOULEKAS (VISUAL EFFECTS SUPERVISOR): You started all of these and you say, okay, it's a 30-foot storm tide, a wall of water. But then you look in the shot and in some shots, 30 feet looks too wimpy. And so you just scale it up. What are you gonna do, show the water going up to the ankles of the Statue of Liberty? I mean, you know, it's obviously, if the Statue of Liberty's getting covered over, it's like, uh-oh, we're in big trouble.

JAKE GYLLENHAAL (ACTOR): Let's go.

SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS): (Voiceover) The biggest trouble, an ice age that flash freezes most of the world. These clearly made up weather events in "The Day After Tomorrow" still resonated with the audience. In one study, a Yale professor found that after watching the movie, viewers were encouraged 'to engage in personal, political and social action to address climate change."

GRAPHICS: EXCERPT FROM ENVIRONMENT ARTICLE

SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS): (Voiceover) "The Day After Tomorrow" dramatizes global warming with scenes like this.

ACTOR (MALE): The whole damn shelf is breaking off.

AL GORE (FORMER UNITED STATES VICE PRESIDENT): These glaciers are so beautiful.
CLIP FROM "AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH"

SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS): (Voiceover) Al Gore's 2006 documentary, 'An Inconvenient Truth," makes the same point with actual video of ice shelves calving. Which shots have more impact?

AL GORE (FORMER UNITED STATES VICE PRESIDENT): And if you were flying over it in a helicopter, you'd see it's 700 feet tall. They are so majestic.

SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS): (Voiceover) Wait a minute, that shot looks just like the one in the opening credits of 'The Day After Tomorrow."

KAREN GOULEKAS (VISUAL EFFECTS SUPERVISOR: Yeah, that's, that's our shot. That's a fully computer generated shot. There's nothing real in there.

SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS): (Voiceover) Audiences expect Hollywood to twist fact into fiction. But Gore's documentary does the opposite, using a fake shot to make a real point, that ice shelves are disappearing, and vanishing ice means global warming.

KAREN GOULEKAS (VISUAL EFFECTS SUPERVISOR): That was one hell of a shot. I think it's great that he used it.

SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS): (Voiceover) It seems the decision for now is left to the audience. Can the same created image educate and entertain us about our planet in change?

SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS): (Off-camera) And it raises another question for you to consider. Is it wrong for a documentary to use a fabricated Hollywood shot to make a point, even if there's science behind it? Well, we tried to ask Al Gore and the movie studio, but neither responded to our calls. John Stossel will back right after this.

COMMERCIAL BREAK

JOHN STOSSEL (ABC NEWS): And that's our program for tonight. Our thanks to Sam Champion for clearing up those myths about weather. And if you have myths you'd like to share about weather or anything, log on to my webpage at ABCNEWS.com. If you give us some original and surprising ones, we'll put them on '20/20" and in our next myth book. I'm John Stossel. For Elizabeth Vargas and all of us at ABC News and '20/20," we're in touch, so you be in touch.

3 Stooges

This is what the Presidential race reminds me of right now.

Obama Is A Snob

God Bless Dorothy English

Dorothy English fought to use her land her way
Posted by The Oregonian April 11, 2008 14:47PM

From The Oregonian's opinion pages of Saturday, Feb. 22, 2003 -- In my opinion: My property has been stolen from me
By Dorothy English

I'm 90 years old, and my husband died fighting for what was stolen from us, but I'll tell you one thing: Eben Fodor and his "friends" picked a fight with the wrong little old lady.

I refer to the commentary piece by Eben Fodor, a founder of Friends of Eugene ("Oregon Property Rights 101: a crash course," Feb. 10), which attempted to minimize the impacts of Oregon's land-use restrictions on average citizens. Well, I'm here to tell you that Oregon's land-use system has destroyed my retirement. And I know I'm not alone.

My late husband and I bought 40 acres in Portland's West Hills in 1953. We scrimped and saved to build a house on our property. We wanted to live on a portion of it and divide the rest for homesites to provide us with retirement income. We also wanted to create lots for our grandchildren to live on.

We surveyed our property and had plans drawn to divide it. But before we could finish, the Land Conservation and Development Commission and Multnomah County changed the land-use laws.

Overnight, we lost our right to divide our property.

The LCDC's reason? They said our property was forestland. That's a joke. Our land is surrounded by homes. It's on a steep slope, and it doesn't have the right soils to grow trees. In fact, we've had professional foresters tell us we could never harvest the few trees that are on the property.

And it's less than a mile from the Portland city limits.

The same laws that resulted in our land being zoned as "forestland" now prohibit us from getting that zoning changed. And what happens when someone tries to change those laws? Groups such as Fodor's oppose the changes and scream that allowing people like me to use our property would destroy Oregon.

In the meantime, my property has been stolen from me. And since my land can't be used for anything, the community doesn't generate any added tax revenue to pay for schools, parks and other services. My land has become worthless to everyone except those zealots who think Oregon should shut its borders (unless they are illegal aliens --Mike) and stop all growth.

Randi Rhodes Is G-O-N-E!

Geez, it's been a while since I last posted...and so much has been happening in the news.

No time to catch up, so I will just start with today's news. Randi "14 Bloody Marys" Rhodes is gone from Air America! YAY! Her Shrillness is gone. Of course, she's the only one I really enjoyed laughing at as she opined on the air with her unmerited drivel about the state of the world affairs. She was at least interesting.

Rhodes Out At Air America, Back In San Fran
By Mike Stern

According to John Scott, PD of Clear Channel talk KKGN/San Francisco, suspended talker Randi Rhodes (pictured) and Air America network have parted company as of Wednesday (April 9). In a posting on the station Web site Scott says that on Monday (April 14), "it will be our pleasure to announce the return of Randi Rhodes to the Green 960 family."

Rhodes was suspended indefinitely last week by Air America following remarks she made at an appearance for KKGN where she called both Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro "f---cking bitches."

An official announcement is expected from Air America about Rhodes' departure on Thursday (April 10).

Finally, vindication that there is no double standard even for liberals. But why did they wait until she cursed? She has lied so many times, her pant wardrobe is completely singed (wasn't she attacked on the street? Oh wait, turns out she is the clumsiest person on earth and lied about that). Not to mention the things she has called our President...

Does it surprise anyone that she is going to San Fransisco? The bad news is MSNBC is probably hiring...or looking for guests to sub for Keith Overbite. I think this also shows how deep the Clinton Crime Family is and who they own...

HillaryCare, Already Insolvent

Politico reports:

Among the debts reported this month by Hillary Clinton’s struggling presidential campaign, the $292,000 in unpaid health insurance premiums for her campaign staff stands out.

Al Franken was reported to have the same problem a few weeks back. No wonder Democrats want the government to cover health care. They don’t want to do it themselves. Or could it be they’re just hypocrites? No way!

Will Winter Soldier II Testifiers Sign Affidavits?

YAF/HotAir correspondent Jason Mattera asks Winter Soldier II testifiers if they would sign affidavits.



John Kerry, who started it, is confronted by Jason Mattera. Kerry runs away and hides.

Come Sign The Petition For New Ballot Measure

***** PROTEST - Day Labor Site in Cornelius *****

Signature gathering for our Initiative

When? Saturday, March 29th from 8 am - 1 pm

Where? Cornelius, Main road. Centro Cultural bldg. @ 10th Street. [1110 N. Adair, Cornelius, Oregon 97113]

Sponsored by Oregonians For Immigration Reform

Hillary: The Movie

Hillary: The Movie
NOW, MORE THAN EVER, YOU NEED TO KNOW THE FACTS ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON:

• What is her program? What would she do as President?
• How did she avoid indictment for her past scandals?
• What did her brothers get in return for Bill’s pardons?
• What did she really do to make $100,000 in the futures market?
• How did she use campaign finance fraud to win election to the Senate?
• What has she really done as Senator?
  

HILLARY CLINTON WANTS TO KEEP THIS MOVIE OUT OF THE THEATERS. THE FEDERAL ELECTIONS COMMISSION HAS BANNED SHOWING IT OR ADVERTISING FOR IT ON TELEVISION. THE ONLY WAY TO GET THE MESSAGE OUT IS TO BUY THE DVD AND SHARE IT WITH YOUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS.

Movie trailer for the much anticipated Hillary Clinton film produced by Citizens United. The film will be released in mid January and features more than 40
in-depth interviews with experts, opinion makers, and many of the people who personally locked horns with the Clintons, this is the film you need! If you want to be fully educated about Hillary and Co., stay tuned!

www.hillarythemovie.com





Purchase the movie today! HERE

Hillary's List Of Lies

Hillary's List Of Lies
By Dick Morris

Published on TheHill.com on March 25, 2008.

The USA Today/Gallup survey clearly explains why Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) is losing. Asked whether the candidates were “honest and trustworthy,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) won with 67 percent, with Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) right behind him at 63. Hillary scored only 44 percent, the lowest rating for any candidate for any attribute in the poll.

Hillary simply cannot tell the truth. Here’s her scorecard:

Admitted Lies

• Chelsea was jogging around the Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. (She was in bed watching it on TV.)
• Hillary was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. (She admitted she was wrong. He wasn't famous for climbing Mt. Everest until five years after her birth.)
• She was under sniper fire in Bosnia. (A girl presented her with flowers at the foot of the ramp.)
• She learned in The Wall Street Journal how to make a killing in the futures market. (It didn’t cover the market back then.)
  

Whoppers She Won’t Confess To

• She didn’t know about the FALN pardons.
• She didn’t know that her brothers were being paid to get pardons that Clinton granted.
• Taking the White House gifts was a clerical error.
• She didn’t know that her staff would fire the travel office staff after she told them to do so.
• She didn’t know that the Peter Paul fundraiser in Hollywood in 2000 cost $700,000 more than she reported it had.
• She opposed NAFTA at the time.
• She was instrumental in the Irish peace process.
• She urged Bill to intervene in Rwanda.
• She played a role in the ’90s economic recovery.
• The billing records showed up on their own.
• She thought Bill was innocent when the Monica scandal broke.
• She was always a Yankees fan.
• She had nothing to do with the New Square Hasidic pardons (after they voted for her 1,400-12 and she attended a meeting at the White House about the pardons).
• She negotiated for the release of refugees in Macedonia (who were released the day before she got there).
  

With a record like that, is it any wonder that we suspect her of being less than honest and straightforward?

Why has McCain jumped out to a nine-point lead over Obama and a seven-point lead over Hillary in the latest Rasmussen poll? OK, Obama has had the Rev. Wright mess on his hands. And Hillary has come in for her share of negatives, like the Richardson endorsement of Obama and the denouement of her latest lie — that she endured sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia. But why has McCain gained so much in so short a period of time? Most polls had the general election tied two weeks ago.

McCain’s virtues require a contrast in order to stand out. His strength, integrity, solidity and dependability all are essentially passive virtues, which shine only by contrast with others. Now that Obama and Hillary are offering images that are much weaker, less honest, and less solid and dependable, good old John McCain looks that much better as he tours Iraq and Israel while the Democrats rip one another apart.

It took Nixon for us to appreciate Jimmy Carter’s simple honesty. It took Clinton and Monica for us to value George W. Bush’s personal character. And it takes the unseemly battle among the Democrats for us to give John McCain his due.

When Obama faces McCain in the general election (not if but when) the legacy of the Wright scandal will not be to question Obama’s patriotism or love of America. It will be to ask if he has the right stuff (pardon the pun).

The largest gap between McCain and Obama in the most recent USA Today/Gallup Poll was on the trait of leadership. Asked if each man was a “strong, decisive leader,” 69 percent felt that the description fit McCain while only 56 percent thought it would apply to Obama. (61 percent said it of Hillary.) Obama has looked weak handling the Rev. Wright controversy. His labored explanation of why he attacks the sin but loves the sinner comes across as elegant but, at the same time, feeble. Obama’s reluctance to trade punches with his opponents makes us wonder if he could trade them with bin Laden or Ahmadinejad. We have no doubt that McCain would gladly come to blows and would represent us well, but about Obama we are not so sure.

The Realities of Cap-And-Trade & Kyoto

Some Information on Cap-And-Trade drawing from some books I have read:

Congress would pass laws that ration energy use--which is exactly what a cap-and-trade scheme does. Under cap-and-trade, in order to legally emit CO2 for industrial (and someday soon, personal) uses, you would need to have your hands on CO2 "credits." As with gasoline or other ration coupons in wartime, Uncle Sam would hand out these credits (but of course Al Gore wants us to buy them so he gets richer) to power plants, factories, etc. When you emit CO2, you "pay for it" with your credits, while paying for the fuel itself with actual money. If someone had more credits than he needed, he could sell his surplus to someone who needs more.

In the end, this means you have to pay for the CO2 you emit, on top of paying for the energy (gas, electricity) itself, and the capital equipment required to turn it into a useful form (your car, your furnace, appliances, and so on). This raises the cost of making power or running a factory. This in turn raises the cost of the goods made at the factory, but more importantly it makes energy more expensive. When energy is more expensive, we all know, everything else gets more expensive. Also, when energy gets more expensive, alternate places to use it--say, Mexico--become more attractive. The popular term is "outsourcing," which, as we will see, is what Europe is already doing with its energy-intensive industry as a result of its "first step" Kyoto promise, which it nonetheless is spectacularly violating.

An alternative to buying CO2 credits, or relocating, would be investing in low-CO2 sources of energy, such as (certain) ethanol fuels, or intermittent solar or wind power (which aren't as low-CO2 as advertised because, given their intermittent nature, fossil-fuel generation needs to be kept running idly as backup at inefficient, below-peak levels). Low-CO2 fuels, except for nuclear power, are less efficient and more costly. If you power company uses windmills instead of coal, your costs will go up. If you run your car on ethanol instead of gasoline, your costs go up. (However, some of the added costs will be shifted to taxpayers who subsidize these technologies to the hilt--adding even more costs to regular people).

This cap-and-trade scheme wins praise as a "market-based solution." That is, government creates a market for something which generally doesn't exist, by artificially creating scarcity through a cap on something or a ban on another thing. In practice this really means: "Someone gets rich off it" (probably DuPont, Archer Daniels Midland, and some Wall Street traders) and a "cleverly hidden tax."

For consumers, cap-and-trade feels just like a tax--it imposes higher costs. It is just a more expensive tax. In fact, a straight-up tax on energy would be far less costly (and therefore less harmful to the economy) than cap-and-trade schemes. The Congressional Budget Office is on record acknowledging "similarities between carbon taxes and cap-and-trade programs for carbon emissions. For example, both policies would raise the cost of carbon emissions, lead to higher prices for fossil fuels, and impose costs on energy users and suppliers of carbon-intensive energy." The environmentalist group Resources for the Future counted that cap-and-trade is actually about four times as expensive to the economy as an energy tax designed to achieve the same outcome.

Of course, passing a tax is also far more politically difficult. In 1993, B.J. Clinton tried this more honest approach (an odd juxtaposition of words, I admit) proposing a "BTU Tax"--or a tax on fuel assessed according to the heat content, measured in British Thermal Units (BTU). Clinton was embarrassed, with his own party torpedoing the idea.

Kyotophiles have learned that the cap-and-trade quota system is easier for people to swallow. But a cap-and-trade scheme would cost the economy more than a CO2 tax to accomplish the same reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. One cause of this inefficiency is that we would all be paying companies to do things that have no value--such as building windmills and burning coal and gasoline to turn corn into fuel. (We're already doing this, thanks to subsidies and mandates, but under CO2 constraints, we would be paying more of them to do it more).

It's Been Tried Before
Europe has tried "cap-and-trade" schemes on greenhouse gases, allocating quotas to certain industries. The result is massive energy cost increases, and industry (jobs) fleeing, with even the alarmists seeking to find a way to stop the capital flight.

Europe is harming itself so much that it has decided it needs to harm the U.S. too. Thus, the EU is considering a greenhouse gas trade war, looking at "taxing goods imported from countries that do not impose a CO2 cap on their industry as a way to compensate for the costs of climate change measures." In short, they are contending that our government is subsidizing our industry by not taking control of the energy supply and parceling it out on political grounds.

Europe's suffering shows us what we would endure if we ratified Kyoto. Spain, for example, has closed at least three plants for failing to possess Kyoto permits. At least one manufacturer has made a good threat to leave the country to escape Spain's blackouts and rationing of energy, Acerinox, which has sent recent growth to South Africa, and Kentucky (175 jobs,at its North American Stainless Steel subsidiary).

In the UK, where like elsewhere throughout Europe firms have to buy permits from firms in other member states, companies affected by the laws had to pay [approximately [$875,000,000] to comply in 2005, a year in which Britons' electricity prices coincidentally shot up by 34%. In Germany, Fortune 500 energy and aluminum supplier Norsk Hydro Aluminum closed several production sites due to these higher costs arising from the emissions scheme which increased electricity prices.

If Europe actually pursues this agenda to a second stage, depending on the country, the damage will be considerable. Millions of jobs will be lost. Recall that these costs do not, under any scenario, buy stable climate. Further, Europe's promised--but still unfulfilled--sacrifices are more than offset by the greenhouse gas increases in the countries not covered by Kyoto.

It may be foolish for the U.S. to jump on this sinking ship but, heck, it would make some people feel really good (Al Gore, John McCain).

Europe admits that we are economically well-served by not signing on to their treaty, and they're angry about it. Now, the equally mad (take that as you wish) Al Gore and John McCain want to push us on the same page as Europe, thus protecting us from the jobs and wealth fleeing the continent.

Respected economic analysts Global Insight estimated in 2002 that meeting their Kyoto target would reduce Germany's GDP by 5.2%, Spain's by 5%, the UK's by 4.5%, and the Netherlands' by 3.8%. Spain and Britain would each lose 1,000,000 jobs, while Germany would lose nearly 2 million jobs, thanks in part to 40% increases in electricity and heating costs.

Luckily for Europeans, all of the Sturm and Drang notwithstanding, they are not reducing emissions as they promised under Kyoto.

Kyoto targets are unrealistic, attainable solely through a combination of cheating, as demonstrated, exporting growth and paying others under various Kyoto schemes designed to gain Third World buy-in (if not actual participation). Regardless of announced targets, thirteen (and possibly all fifteen) of the countries considered as "Europe" by Kyoto are on course to fail their particular emission as promised under Kyoto--which promises serve as the ostensible basis for their anti-American name-calling on "the environment"--including several that are spectacularly violating their promises.

Even Kyoto's proponents acknowledge that despite accepting, for the sake of argument, Kyoto's underlying assumptions, and even were it implemented fully, universally, and perfectly, it would have no detectable effect on temperature increase. That is to say that even in theory and according to its proponents' best case (which has been already proven to be utterly unrealistic), Kyoto might avert--delay, in fact, by just six short years--projected future warming of an undetectable few-hundredths-of-one-degree Celsius by 2050.

Books they don't want you to read:
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism by Christopher C. Horner
Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity by John Stossel
Unstoppable Global Warming [Every 1,500 Years] by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery

Some costs of bills that people like John "Every Juan Loves" McCain (who mentions cap-and-trade every opportunity he can) propose under cap-and-trade:

McCain-Lieberman I Best-Case Scenario: 31,399 tons GHG Reduced/0.04^o C Warming Avoided by 2050. Worst-Case Scenario: 16, 928 tons GHG Reduced/0.023^o C Warming Avoided by 2050. $1,354 billion Cum. GDP Loss to 2050.

McCain-Lieberman II Best-Case Scenario: 21,285 tons GHG Reduced/0.029^o C Warming Avoided by 2050. Worst-Case Scenario: 11,320 tons GHG Reduced/0.015^o C Warming Avoided by 2050. $776 billion Cum. GDP Loss to 2050.

Bingaman Best-Case Scenario: 5,816 tons GHG Reduced/0.008^o C Warming Avoided by 2050. Worst-Case Scenario: 3,163 tons GHG Reduced/0.004^o C Warming Avoided by 2050. $331 billion Cum. GDP Loss to 2050.

GHG reductions are in million metric tons carbon equivalent.

Makes you wonder why Johnny McCain is so big on cap-and-trade, huh? This is not a good plan McCain.

Barack Millhouse Obama In Portland Today

I was VERY disappointed in what Barack Millhouse Obama was saying today here in Portland at the rally this morning. I listened to it on the radio. It was weak. I just can't believe people are falling for the talking points and Bush bashing.

Does he really believe in the Global Warming(TM) myth, solar & wind power, free money for college (Who will pay for it? How much free work will the government get out of you for your free money?), getting out of Iraq (called a civil war we can't win, despite the headway) to go to Darfur (another civil war), and that he's not taking money from special interests? People are really misinformed.

Iraq War 5th Anniversary Protests

Code Pink is disgusting. Our military is volunteer. Get a job.

Barack Millhouse Obama "Uh" Count

The mighty Barack Millhouse Obama is not really that eloquent of a speaker. All fluff, no substance. Now we see "uh" he can't even "uh" really "uh" articulate ideas "uh" off the "uh" cuff.

Buy An Abortion Necklace

http://store.feminist.org/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=29

Detailed Description
This 14K gold filled hanger pendent is on a 18" gold cable chain. Each necklace is handmade by jeweler M'Lou Brubacker. Wear your hanger necklace and support reproductive rights and let everyone know how important choice really is.

Feminists are gross.

Obama Speech On Race

Obama is getting big hits because of his membership and association with his Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Here's his speech to try and say its okay who he associates with. He basically blames racism for it being okay to associate with a racist pastor.