The plague that is the elitist global warming skulduggery is getting noticed for what it actually is.

“The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity,” warns Czech President Vaclav Klaus, “is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism.”

Why does it take someone from Czechoslovakia to express the obvious; are there no sensible people left in congress? Rush Limbaugh calls them “environmental communists“; no wonder Vaclav Klaus recognizes these people for what they are after having lived under the yoke of communism for so long.

Do Americans have to live under the American version of communism such as pronounced by Barack Obama and John McCain (insofar as his acceptance of the global warming premise is concerned) before they wake up to what is at stake here? If so, heaven help us.

On the basis of speculation alone and without actual scientific evidence, environmental activists, supported by some purporting to be scientists but who live on the dole from government in return for preaching the prescribed orthodoxy, and opportunistic politicians and business men, are advocating radical economic and social regulation.

Listen closely, the statement was scientific evidence - not presumptions and trend lines. The fickle mantel of scientific consensus is melting away faster than any ice on earth, except by those whose pursuit of glory and green-related riches is directly impacted by the truth.

Understanding liberals is not easy - mostly because they relegate debate to the emotional aspects of the topic. In order to get closer to an understanding of the liberal mind, you must be able to decipher the language of liberalism.

Take “appalling attack” for example. Liberals often talk about how something someone said is an “appalling attack”. Senator Barak Obama said that President Bush’s statement to the Knesset was an appalling attack on the good Senator.

What President Bush said was:

“Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.

“We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is—the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

Now, unless Senator Obama has been engaged in appeasement politics with Hamas - or plans to work with terrorists in the future - he should have no issue with the President’s shoe of “Some”. then again, if the shoe fits, wear it.

So, “appalling attack” really means: You’re right, but I am pissed you’d say that.

The liberals want to talk with those who have pledged holy war against us because:

• They think this whole mess of Islamists wanting a worldwide caliphate is America’s fault
• Their elitist tendencies make them believe they can just talk Islamists out of their unreasonable notions, if someone smart enough would just try.
• They are immersed in victimization and identity politics to the point of not being capable of leading anything more than a moral retreat.

Once you grasp these things, it is relatively easy to understand a liberal. Understanding them is the first step to marginalizing and defeating their crazy ideals.

Barney Frank, House Financial Services Chairman, has recently shown his utter lack of concern for the American military person in Iraq. That is the only conclusion you could possibly come to with his announcement that he will defund the Iraq war under a Democratic president.

“I will move to cut funding immediately,” said Frank. “I have already done that. I voted against the war and voted to cut the funding. I would hope a Democratic president would put in place a plan that would begin a total withdrawal.”

Irrespective of the complete geopolitical disaster this would cause in the Middle East in general, and the chaos that would ensue in Iraq with Frank’s “immediate withdrawal”, the impact on the American military would be catastrophic. Any cuts in funding, prior to the intended consequence of forcing the generals to withdraw forces, would impact the ability of our military folks in Iraq to protect themselves as units become forced to do more with less. Money currently used to make life bearable - movies, phone calls, the occasional fast food  run, computer services, etc.  - those things would disappear first. The ability to spread goodwill in the neighborhoods through the use of toys, soccer balls, candy, books, shoes, and other community project items will remove the potential for our soldiers to be anything other than armed occupiers. Today, they can also help build community.

Barney Frank sits in Washington and looks down from Mt Olympus at Iraq and makes decisions without any thought to how those decisions impact anything except his sense of how things should be. This elitist moron needs to find something else to occupy his mind. I suggest he take up crochet and leave the serious business of war and peace to the professionals.

In her Earth Day press release, Speaker Pelosi stated:

“The Bible tells us in the Old Testament, ‘To minister to the needs of God’s creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us.’ On this Earth Day, and every day, let us pledge to our children, and our children’s children, that they will have clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and the opportunity to experience the wonders of nature.”

Several Bible scholars have been unable to find this quote, or own resembling it, or a quote this might be a paraphrase of, anywhere in the Bible. I have been searching my Bible references and am unable to find such a quote.

So, find this quote for me in any widely published version of the Bible, and I will send you a special prize.

I know President Bush has done some great things for America during his presidential tenure. I am certain history is going to be a lot nicer to him than the present is being. We have seen President Bush capitulate on a number of things important to republicans, even while acting courageously (in the political sense) on things like Judicial appointments, Bolton appointment, and the war on terror.

I never thought President Bush would capitulate to his 2000 election rival.

President Bush is poised to change course and announce as early as this week that he wants Congress to pass a bill to combat global warming, and will lay out principles for what that should include.

I understand the reasoning which dictates passage of some sort of Global Warming legislationto stave off more stringent legislation after the elections. Democrats are likely to strengthen their control in both houses this cycle and the resultant muddle on all of the controversial topics is going to be fierce.  However, I don’t believe the ploy will work. The fierce debate which is going to take place to define the contents of such legislation puts the White House in a bad situation. For the first time, President Bush is going to recognize the need for some sort of initiative and then have his staff and supporters in congress work to limit the scope and impact of the initiative. It is oxymoronic. You cannot play into the global warming game by sticking your toe into the water.

It is one thing to propose legislation to strengthen the clean air act or one of the myriad existing environmental initiaitives. But what the White House just did is lend credence to the wild global warming is doom hand-wringing party engaged in by the left.

President Bush seems to be working hard to enhance the potential of having a positive legacy. He is working hard to not be seen as a lame duck president. Usually, this means working hard for the policies of your own party - not pandering to the drivel of the leftist nutters.

Set aside the pre-war statements by prominent Democrats about the need for regime change in Iraq. Set aside, the post invasion castigation of our “reasons for the war”. Set aside the attacks by prominent Democrats on our military. They attack using every angle of their geopolitical virtual reality as possible.

The simple truth is the leftists in America will not be disabused of their silly positions on Iraq by the facts.

But Democrats said President George W. Bush, who began the war five years ago and who will leave office in January with more than 100,000 troops still there, was failing to focus on the bigger threat of al Qaeda from the Afghan-Pakistan border.

“Protecting this nation from direct attack is job number one, yet our allocation of forces does not match this imperative,” said Rep. Ike Skelton, chairman of the House of Representatives’ Armed Services Committee.

The implication is the Iraq is detracting the US from the threat of terror attacks in the US. Really?

• Jose Padilla was interdicted at O’Hare airport - we was returning from Pakistan and had been recently messing about with nuclear materials.
• The Lakawanna  Six were apprehended for plotting an attack after having trained in Pakistan with AQ.
• Eleven men - four of whom plead guilty - were apprehended in Virginia for working with AQ and the Taliban.
• Dhiren Barot was apprehended for plotting to blow up major financial institutions, including the NYSE, after training in Pakistan.
•  James Elshafay and Shahawar Matin Siraj were arrested for plotting to bomb a subway station in New York City.
•  Umer Hayat and Hamid Hayat were arrestedafter the Hamid’s attendance at an Islamic terrorist training camp in Pakistan.
• Assem Hammoud, an al-Qaeda loyalist living in Lebanon, and others, was arrested for plotting to bomb the New York City train tunnels.
• A plot to blow fuel pipelines that runs through residential neighborhoods at the Kennedy International Airport in New York City was foiled.

Combine your knowledge of these instances with the simple fact that NO terrorist attacks have occurred on US soil since the invasion of Iraq. Add, as a seasoning if you will, the fact that AQ had a substantial subsidiary operation in Iraq. That AQ found it more desirable to attack US forces in the Middle East than to attack the US itself.

If the Democrats were serious about securing America from the potential of terrorist attacks, they would be more active in securing the borders. They are simply posing yet another childish “Nya!” to something they philosophically have no ability to understand.

If she thinks her landing into Bosnia was corkscrew, wait until she sees her landing between now and November.

I can understand where she is coming from though. I mean, all of us old battle axes tell war stories - commonly known as fairy tales.

Since Hillary has not only not served in the Military, but holds it in deep disdain, she does not realize that war stories - commonly known as fairy tales - are stories you tell over a couple of beers. They are not stories you use to hold an auditorium full of gullible voters spell-bound to your awesomeness, as she did last December. You also do not relate your vast international crisis management experience at 3 AM on the afore-mentioned war story - also known as a fairy tale.

She said she saved Kosovar refugees by persuading Macedonia to reopen its border. And in a direct jab back at Obama, she recalled visiting Bosnia on a plane that made a tight corkscrew landing to avoid potential attacks. “Somebody said there might be sniper fire,” she said, adding tartly, “I don’t remember anyone offering me tea on the tarmac.”

What is most laughable about Hillary’s entire claim of the danger she was exposed to - repeatedly, according to her - is it probably all evolved out of a practical joke by an enterprising military person.

“Welcome Mrs. Clinton, I am Chief Master Sergeant Thompson. We’re on approach now. Please fasten your seatbelt tightly because we are going to have to maneuver evasively as we land to reduce our risk of being shot down. Also, Mrs. Clinton, there is a possibility we could come under sniper fire, so if you hear anyone yell ‘Bravo! Bravo!’ immediately take cover. Do you have any questions for me?”

Sinbad remembers the trip being a lot different.

Now, Senator Clinton says she “misspoke” and it was a “minor blip” - hog wash. She has been telling this story to voters for months. And last week she said,

During a speech last Monday on Iraq, she said of the Bosnia trip: “I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”

But her book tells a different story.

“Due to reports of snipers in the hills around the airstrip, we were forced to cut short an event on the tarmac with local children, though we did have time to meet them and their teachers and to learn how hard they had worked during the war to continue classes in any safe spot they could find,” Clinton wrote.

Her campaign has reduced this to a single event - something that happened last week, but let me remind you of that December Iowa talk to her voters. I guess it depends on what your definition of “one time” is.

The Leftist Spin has begun!

Isn’t it odd that just when New York Governor Elliott Spitzer has introduced the RHAPP Bill — the Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection Act — which guarantees women the right to choose or refuse birth control and abortion, he is simultaneously the subject of a highly publicized sex sting that threatens to destroy his career and possibly send him to prison?

Surely, what Spitzer is accused of — an interstate tryst with an expensive prostitute — is egregious for a family man and a high ranking public servant. Nonetheless, it’s striking that the Governor comes under attack NOW when he’s proposing the country’s most comprehensive protection for women.

Right from the Clinton era play book, yeah?

Elliott Spitzer “may” have committed an act that is shameful for a husband and a father, but how many other politicians and powerful leaders are guilty of the same? The only difference may be that those other leaders aren’t launching sweeping legislation to protect the rights of women, and in so doing, mobilizing the powerful and vengeful forces of the conservative religious right.

Well, I guess that makes sense. As long as Spitzer is doing something you agree with, we should ignore his illegal activities.  I get it.

Here is yet another example of the “everything is equal” thought process, which makes discussing politics with some people totally useless.

To the Editor:

The political cartoon of Feb. 26 suggested some connection between the tragic Cottonwood bus accident and the fact that the person apparently at fault is an illegal immigrant. By precisely the same logic, we might suggest that, since the driver is female, we ought not to let women drive. She is 24, so maybe we need to ban everyone under 30 from driving. She had black hair, so …

The point, of course, is that accidents are caused by bad driving, not by immigration status or gender or age or hair color.

When I complained that the cartoon was racist, Mr. Anderson (R-E, March 1) replied that race has nothing to do with it. Perhaps he is right, but if racism isn’t the cause of such irrational thinking, what is?

So, there is a moral equivalent between being involved in illegal activity and being a female under 30?

The point you should be taking away is that if someone is driving a vehicle illegally, because they are in the country illegally, we really don’t know whether they are a bad driver or not. This accident was not caused SIMPLY by bad driving. It was caused by a bad driver, who had no no authority to operate a motor vehicle, primarily because she was not authorized to be in the country.

The cartoon is only racist to someone who believes that illegal immigration is an issue of race - that somehow people should be allowed to act outside the law because their race mandates we should expect less of them. In short, only a racist would apply such irrational thinking to something which is clearly not an issue of race.

So, Let me answer your question. The cause of such “irrational” thinking is simple:

Kids are dead because this particular lady had no respect for our laws.

What proponents of a lot of these green energy initiatives don’t often get is that mother nature is not a constant. Everything is cyclical - everything.

HOUSTON (Reuters) - A drop in wind generation late on Tuesday, coupled with colder weather, triggered an electric emergency that caused the Texas grid operator to cut service to some large customers, the grid agency said on Wednesday.

You have to have a “toolbox” approach to life. Trying to build a house with just a hammer is short-sighted. Wind turbines fail, the conditions which make the successful are not constant, and the enviromental cost of wind turbines is far from ideal.

It is nice to know you can create energy that is renewable, but to put people in a position where a lack of wind means they get no service is dumb, dumb, dumb.

Another thing I find appalling is that in many places you used to be able to enjoy vistas of enormous natural beaty, now what you see is this. I think I’ll take a .5 degree Celsius temperature change over ruining the landscape of every windy place on earth.