2009 Brings Hope

31 12 2008

Noooo, I’m not talking about Obama and his hollow promise of ‘Hope’, I’m talking about the real deal. Below is an article concerning the smartest guy across the pond… The Environment Minister Of Ireland. Enjoy…

h/t to Giovanniworld member Steve.earth_burn1

I still think man-made climate change is a con

Wednesday, 31 December 2008

“Spending billions on trying to reduce carbon emissions is one giant con that is depriving third world countries of vital funds to tackle famine, HIV and other diseases, Sammy Wilson said.

The DUP minister has been heavily criticised by environmentalists for claiming that ongoing climatic shifts are down to nature and not mankind.

But while acknowledging his views on global warming may not be popular, the East Antrim MP said he was not prepared to be bullied by eco fundamentalists.

“I’ll not be stopped saying what I believe needs to be said about climate change,” he said.

“Most of the people who shout about climate change have not read one article about it

“I think in 20 years’ time we will look back at this whole climate change debate and ask ourselves how on earth were we ever conned into spending the billions of pounds which are going into this without any kind of rigorous examination of the background, the science, the implications of it all. Because there is now a degree of hysteria about it, fairly unformed hysteria I’ve got to say as well.

“I mean I get it in the Assembly all the time and most of the people who shout about climate change have not read one article about climate change, not read one book about climate change, if you asked them to explain how they believe there’s a connection between CO2 emission and the effects which they claim there’s going to be, if you ask them to explain the thought process or the modelling that is required and the assumptions behind that and how tenuous all the connections are, they wouldn’t have a clue.

“They simply get letters about it from all these lobby groups, it’s popular and therefore they go along with the flow — and that would be ok if there were no implications for it, but the implications are immense.”

He said while people in the western world were facing spiralling fuel bills as a result of efforts to cut CO2, the implications in poorer countries were graver.

“What are the problems that face us either locally and internationally. Are those not the things we should be concentrating on?” he asked.

“HIV, lack of clean water, which kills millions of people in third world countries, lack of education.

“A fraction of the money we are currently spending on climate change could actually eradicate those three problems alone, a fraction of it.

“I think as a society we sometimes need to get some of these things in perspective and when I listen to some of the rubbish that is spoken by some of my colleagues in the Assembly it amuses me at times and other times it angers me.”

Despite his views on CO2, Mr Wilson said he does not intend to backtrack on commitments made by his predecessor at the Department of the Environment, Arlene Foster, to make the Stormont estate carbon neutral.

He said while he wasn’t worried about reducing CO2 output, he said the policy would help to cut fuels bills.

“I don’t couch those actions in terms of reducing Co2 emissions,” he said. “I don’t care about Co2 emissions to be quite truthful because I don’t think it’s all that important but what I do believe is, and perhaps this is where there can be some convergence, as far as using fuel more efficiently that is good for our economy; that makes us more competitive. If we can save in schools hundreds of thousands on fuel that’s more money being put for books or classroom assistants.

“So yes there are things we can do. If you want to express it terms of carbon neutral, I just express it terms of making the place more efficient, less wasteful and hopefully that will release money to do the proper things that we should be doing.”  [end]


Common sense is making a come-back!


The Year In Review 2008

31 12 2008

What a year!


Obama vs Palin – Who’s Sexy?

30 12 2008

Ok, let me set this up just a little. Over on one of the liberal blogs, women (and some men) were cooing over the picture of a shirtless Obama on vacation. One lonely woman mentioned that she thought Todd Palin was better looking than Obama. As you might imagine, this started a war of words as to who was the sexiest looking man.

So ladies, this is for you… Below you will find a picture of both men and then a poll. Please take the poll and send this to your lady friends. This should be fun!






PHS – Palin Hatred Syndrome

30 12 2008

The announcement of Sarah Palin becoming a Grandmother over b9b44e64-f281-44a9-82e3-1a10ef787829the weekend really brought out the warm-hearted wishes, and loving kindness we have come to expect from the sickos on the left.

Sarah’s daughter had a baby boy this weekend, and I wish her and her soon-to-be Husband all the luck in the world in raising their new blessing of a child.

Now read how liberals look at the birth of their child…


“Anyone notice they are not married yet?”
Of course they aren’t married yet! The state of Alaska picked up the tab for Bristol’s pre-natal and birthing hospitalization costs and probably will pick up the baby’s health care for who knows how long -just as it is covering the health costs for a tremendously high-needs baby like Trig.

However the parents pay for the birth of their son… is none of your damn business. Besides, I highly doubt the validity of what this poster claims.

 These two are smart enough to grab the money and ignore marriage until whenever. As long as Mom’s health insurance is covering the four little Palins (Track or Trip or whatever his name is has military insurance), then I’ll bet you no one gets married.
Sarah will stay on some governmental payroll until she reaches Medicare age is my guess – unless Todd’s part-time drilling job has benefits.

People magazine has offered $300,000 dollars to the couple for the very first baby pics. According to liberal thinking… it’s ok to offer a slut like Madonna $1 million dollars for a baby pic, but because these are Palin kids, it’s verboten.

Maybe take some child development classes so she can be a better mother than her own mother. It takes a lot of work to break the cycle of dysfunction.

What a moronic statement! There is absolutely zero evidence that the Palins are a dysfunctional family. IMO, they are far from it.

Higher education isn’t exactly a Palin or Johnston family trait.

And just how the hell do you know that they won’t move on to higher education at a later date?

These two have been taught that if you play your cards right the public will pay their way just like sneaky Sarah.

Sneaky Sarah? Being an idiot, I guess this person missed the memo about how McCain ASKED HER to be in the spotlight, not the other way around.

This is nothing but a glorification of unprotected teenage s e x.


After using Baby Trig as a campaign prop, why should anyone be surprised that Mom’s kid has a similar taste for pandering? These people are low class.

Your stupid comment is what is low class.

Sarah made sure her little props were at almost every event.

You mean like Flags, Podium, Microphones, etc, right? 

Like mother like daughter. Except Bristol doesn’t seem to be a huge narcissist. Oh well, they’ll need all the help they can get.

Let’s see… Narcissism describes the trait of excessive self-love, based on self-image or ego. I looked this up for the exact meaning of the word and found a picture of Barack Obama next to it.

I feel very sorry for Bristol and all of Sarah Palin’s kids. Not surprising they have been getting themselves in trouble.

Now liberals claim that babies are “trouble”. I see them as blessings!

I feel sorry for them too. I was disgusted by the way they treated Bristol.

Yeah, I get disgusted too when parents stand behind and support their children. Jerk!

Palin put her family on the stage and humiliated her daughter so don’t now try to make people who comment on this situation out to be the bad guys.

It’s people like you that give bad guys a bad name.

These are disgusting, grabby people who stand behind their religion to excuse bad behavior.
looks like daughter is following her mother’s footsteps.

Just one more meaningless comment from a loving, caring, liberal. Is anyone surprised that I have a deep disdain for liberals?



30 12 2008

Got this at Little Green Footballs…


Another good reason to side with Israel. I have never seen any Jew be against Juice of any kind, and I love juice.


Mid-East Education

30 12 2008

I found this post by a fellow blogger over at NewsBusters.org it’s an excellent historical summary of Israeli and Palestinian claims.

Posted by Doc_Navy

I am not a Historian, but what I DO know about the Isreal/Palastine conflict is mired in TWO seperate historical actions. (This will be a big post)

FIRST: For the religious folks out there. You can point to the Bible and say “God gave them that land. The Jews are the chosen people”, which is fine. Of course you need to keep in mind that the land that the Hebrews (Ha’piru) invaded when they left Egypt (Land of Goshen), then known as Canaan ~WAS ALREADY POPULATED~. The Canaanites who lived there before the Hebrews came on the scene were the decendants of the Amorites,  Hittites and Mycenae. If you follow the Bible, there are a number of wars where the Hebrews pretty much wiped-out most of the Canaanites. It is estimated that king David conquered Jerusalem about 1000 BC thus consolidating the land and established an Israelite kingdom over much of Canaan including parts of Transjordan. The kingdom was divided into Judea in the south and Israel in the north following the death of David’s son, Solomon.

It is also around this time, approx. 1150 BC, that the word “Palestine” begins to show up. Palestine is a derivative of the Greek word “Palaestina” which is the Greek name for the people we know as the Philistines which, translated from the Greek, means “People of the Sea” or “Invaders from the Sea” respectively. These Philistines were of AEGEAN decent, and had settled in the southern coastal plains of Canaan (Gaza Strip), in the 12th century BC, their territory being named Philistia. You can read about the Hebrew (Isrealite) battles with the Philistines in the Biblical stories of Samson, Samuel, Saul and David which all include accounts of Philistine-Israelite conflicts.

**NOTE** It is important to note that the current people now known as “Palestinians” are in NO WAY related to or decended from the original “Philistines”.

“So where do the Muslims come in to play?”, you may ask. The answer is that during the seventh century (A.D. 600’s), Muslim  Arab armies moved north from Arabia to conquer most of the Middle East, including Palestine. Jerusalem was conquered about 638 by the Caliph Umar (Omar) who gave his protection to its inhabitants. Muslim powers controlled the region until the early 1900’s. The rulers allowed Christians and Jews to keep their religions. However, most of the local population gradually accepted Islam and the Arab-Islamic culture of their rulers. Jerusalem (Al-Quds)  became holy to Muslims as the site where, according to tradition, Muhammad ascended to heaven after a miraculous overnight ride from Mecca on his horse Al-Buraq. The al-Aqsa mosque was built on the site generally regarded as the area of the Jewish temples

SECOND: Regardless of the religious aspects of the “Ownership” of the areas around modern Isreal, Lebanon, and Jordan there are the modern legalities to consider. History shows that those areas have periodically come under the control of the Greeks, Assyrians, Babylon, Persians, Maccabeans, Romans, Byzantine Empire, Turks, and British. The one thing that stands out throughout all this time is that Jewish settlements can be found in the area known today as “Isreal”.

Nevertheless, The Balfour Declaration – In November 1917, before Britain had conquered Jerusalem and the area to be known as Palestine, Britain issued the Balfour Declaration. The declaration was a letter addressed to Lord Rothschild, based on a request of the Zionist organization in Great Britain. The declaration stated Britain’s support for the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine, without violating the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities. The declaration was the result of lobbying by the small British Zionist movement, especially by Dr. Chaim Weizmann, who had emigrated from Russia to Britain, but it was motivated by British strategic considerations. After WWI, the League of Nations divided much of the Ottoman Empire into mandated territories. The British and French saw the Mandates as instruments of imperial ambitions. US President Wilson insisted that the mandates must foster eventual independence. The British were anxious to keep Palestine away from the French, and decided to ask for a mandate that would implement the Jewish national home of the Balfour declaration, a project that would be supported by the Americans. The League of Nations agreed with the Balfour Declaration giving a provisional mandate to Great Britain over the Country of “Palestine” in 1920. At this point the borders of Plaestine would extend west and east of the River Jordan. The area of the mandate given to Britain at the San Remo conference was much larger than historic Palestine as envisaged by the Zionists, who had sought an eastern border to the West of Amman.  The mandate, based on the Balfour declaration, was formalized in 1922. The British were to help the Jews build a national home and promote the creation of self-governing institutions. The mandate provided for an agency, later called “The Jewish Agency for Palestine,” that would represent Jewish interests in Palestine to the British and to promote Jewish immigration.

In 1922, after an attack by Abdullah, the son of King Husayn of the Hijaz, the British declared that the boundary of Palestine would be limited to the area west of the river. The area east of the river, called Transjordan (now Jordan), was made a separate British mandate and eventually given independence. Jewish immigration swelled in the 1930s into the state of Palestine due to perceived persecution in Eastern Europe. The British introduced 1939 White Paper decreed that 15,000 Jews would be allowed to enter Palestine each year for five years. Thereafter, immigration would be subject to Arab approval. Unfortuneately, WWII broke out, and the borders of Palestine were shut by the Arabs. As a result there was a period of time that Euopean Jews illegaly immegrated to Palestine. By the end of WWII and in no small part because of the Holocaust, in 1947 The UN Special Commision on Palestine reccomended that the country be divided into two seperate states, one Arab, one Jewish. The UN General Assembly adopted this plan under GA 181. The Jews accepted this plan but the Arabs rejected it.

In 1948, after much insurgent fighting between the Arab “Palestinians” and the Jewish “Palestinians” the Jews proclaimed the independent State of Israel, and the British withdrew from Palestine. In the following days and weeks, neighboring Arab nations invaded Palestine and Israel (click here for map). The fighting was conducted in several brief periods, punctuated by cease fire agreements ( truces were declared June 11 to July 8, 1948 and July 19- October 15, 1948). The Arabs and Palestinians lost their initial advantage when they failed to organize and unite. When the fighting ended in 1949, Israel held territories beyond the boundaries set by the UN plan – a total of 78% of the area west of the Jordan river. The Arab countries refused to sign a permanent peace treaty with Israel. Consequently, the borders of Israel established by the armistice commission never received de jure (legal) international recognition. Arabs call the defeat and exile of the Palestinian Arabs in 1948 the Nakba (disaster).

Finally, On May 30, 1967 Jordan signed a defense pact with Egypt, readying itself for war. Nasser stated: “The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel…to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations.”. When it became apparent that Egypt would not stand down, Israel attacked the Egyptians beginning on June 5, 1967. In the first hours of the war, Israel destroyed over 400 enemy aircraft to achieve total air superiority. Israeli troops quickly conquered the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza. Jordanian artillery began firing at Jerusalem on the first day of the war, despite a warning by Israeli PM Levi Eshkol to stay out of the war, and then the Jordan Legion advanced and took over the headquarters of the UN (Governor’s house – Armon Hanatziv ) in Jerusalem. After warning King Hussein repeatedly to cease fire and withdraw, Israel conquered the West Bank and Jerusalem. During the first days of the war, Syrian artillery based in the Golan Heights pounded civilian targets in northern Israel. After dealing with Egypt, Israel decided to conquer the Golan heights, despite opposition and doubts of some in the government, including Moshe Dayan, who had been appointed defense minister. (see map of territories occupied in 1967) and despite the fact that the UN had already called for a cease fire.  Israel agreed to a cease fire on June 10, 1967 after conquering the Golan Heights. UN Resolution 242 called for negotiations of a permanent peace between the parties, and for Israeli withdrawal from lands occupied in 1967. 

I could go into the Yom Kippur War, which the Arabs lost, or the 1982 war in Lebanon, which the Arabs also lost, but the main point here being that as of 1967 the borders and current “Owners” of the land now known as “Isreal” were defined and found in favor of the Jews.

Doc [end]


Waving Goodbye To America

29 12 2008

Once again a well deserved h/t to Giovanniworld member Eowyn.waving-goodbye

The night we waved goodbye to America… our last best hope on Earth.

By Peter Hitchens
Anyone would think we had just elected a hip, skinny and youthful replacement for God, with a plan to modernise Heaven and Hell – or that at the very least John Lennon had come back from the dead.

The swooning frenzy over the choice of Barack Obama as President of the United States must be one of the most absurd waves of self-deception and swirling fantasy ever to sweep through an advanced civilisation. At least Mandela-worship – its nearest equivalent – is focused on a man who actually did something.

I really don’t see how the Obama devotees can ever in future mock the Moonies, the Scientologists or people who claim to have been abducted in flying saucers. This is a cult like the one which grew up around Princess Diana, bereft of reason and hostile to facts.

It already has all the signs of such a thing. The newspapers which recorded Obama’s victory have become valuable relics. You may buy Obama picture books and Obama calendars and if there isn’t yet a children’s picture version of his story, there soon will be.

Proper books, recording his sordid associates, his cowardly voting record, his astonishingly militant commitment to unrestricted abortion and his blundering trip to Africa, are little-read and hard to find.

If you can believe that this undistinguished and conventionally Left-wing machine politician is a sort of secular saviour, then you can believe anything. He plainly doesn’t believe it himself. His cliche-stuffed, PC clunker of an acceptance speech suffered badly from nerves.  It was what you would expect from someone who knew he’d promised too much and that from now on the easy bit was over.

He needn’t worry too much. From now on, the rough boys and girls of America’s Democratic Party apparatus, many recycled from Bill Clinton’s stained and crumpled entourage, will crowd round him, to collect the rich spoils of his victory and also tell him what to do, which is what he is used to.

Just look at his sermon by the shores of Lake Michigan. He really did talk about a ‘new dawn’, and a ‘timeless creed’ (which was ‘yes, we can’). He proclaimed that ‘change has come’. He revealed that, despite having edited the Harvard Law Review, he doesn’t know what ‘enormity’ means. He reached depths of oratorical drivel never even plumbed by our own Mr Blair, burbling about putting our hands on the arc of history (or was it the ark of history?) and bending it once more toward the hope of a better day (Don’t try this at home).

I am not making this up. No wonder that awful old hack Jesse Jackson sobbed as he watched. How he must wish he, too, could get away with this sort of stuff.

And it was interesting how the President-elect failed to lift his admiring audience by repeated – but rather hesitant – invocations of the brainless slogan he was forced by his minders to adopt against his will – ‘Yes, we can’. They were supposed to thunder ‘Yes, we can!’ back at him, but they just wouldn’t join in.  No wonder. Yes we can what exactly? Go home and keep a close eye on the tax rate, is my advice. He’d have been better off bursting into ‘I’d like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony’ which contains roughly the same message and might have attracted some valuable commercial sponsorship.

Perhaps, being a Chicago crowd, they knew some of the things that 52.5 per cent of America prefers not to know. They know Obama is the obedient servant of one of the most squalid and unshakeable political machines in America. They know that one of his alarmingly close associates, a state-subsidised slum landlord called Tony Rezko, has been convicted on fraud and corruption charges.

They also know the US is just as segregated as it was before Martin Luther King – in schools, streets, neighbourhoods, holidays, even in its TV-watching habits and its choice of fast-food joint. The difference is that it is now done by unspoken agreement rather than by law.

If Mr Obama’s election had threatened any of that, his feel-good white supporters would have scuttled off and voted for John McCain, or practically anyone. But it doesn’t. Mr Obama, thanks mainly to the now-departed grandmother he alternately praised as a saint and denounced as a racial bigot, has the huge advantages of an expensive private education. He did not have to grow up in the badlands of useless schools, shattered families and gangs which are the lot of so many young black men of his generation.

If the nonsensical claims made for this election were true, then every positive discrimination programme aimed at helping black people into jobs they otherwise wouldn’t get should be abandoned forthwith. Nothing of the kind will happen. On the contrary, there will probably be more of them.

And if those who voted for Obama were all proving their anti-racist nobility, that presumably means that those many millions who didn’t vote for him were proving themselves to be hopeless bigots. This is obviously untrue.

I was in Washington DC the night of the election. America’s beautiful capital has a sad secret. It is perhaps the most racially divided city in the world, with 15th Street – which runs due north from the White House – the unofficial frontier between black and white. But, like so much of America, it also now has a new division, and one which is in many ways much more important. I had attended an election-night party in a smart and liberal white area, but was staying the night less than a mile away on the edge of a suburb where Spanish is spoken as much as English, plus a smattering of tongues from such places as Ethiopia, Somalia and Afghanistan.

As I walked, I crossed another of Washington’s secret frontiers. There had been a few white people blowing car horns and shouting, as the result became clear. But among the Mexicans, Salvadorans and the other Third World nationalities, there was something like ecstasy.

They grasped the real significance of this moment. They knew it meant that America had finally switched sides in a global cultural war. Forget the Cold War, or even the Iraq War. The United States, having for the most part a deeply conservative people, had until now just about stood out against many of the mistakes which have ruined so much of the rest of the world.

Suspicious of welfare addiction, feeble justice and high taxes, totally committed to preserving its own national sovereignty, unabashedly Christian in a world part secular and part Muslim, suspicious of the Great Global Warming panic, it was unique.

These strengths had been fading for some time, mainly due to poorly controlled mass immigration and to the march of political correctness. They had also been weakened by the failure of America’s conservative party – the Republicans – to fight on the cultural and moral fronts.

They preferred to posture on the world stage. Scared of confronting Left-wing teachers and sexual revolutionaries at home, they could order soldiers to be brave on their behalf in far-off deserts. And now the US, like Britain before it, has begun the long slow descent into the Third World. How sad. Where now is our last best hope on Earth?[end]



For an in-depth look at what makes Obama tick, I suggest you read this.

Why Obama Scares The Crap Out Of Me