America Needs a Mission for Energy Independence

(Excerpt from the book, A Convenient Solution)

That mission is to discover, develop and implement practical ways to save us—the United States and the world—from the ravages of the fossil fuel dragon. We should do our utmost to make everyone aware of available options for safe, affordable energy generation and use. We should also try to motivate everyone to demand we adopt these options.

We need to develop realistic solutions to the energy crisis from among the multitude of products and systems that are in use, under development, or even latent ideas in the minds of America’s creative genius. We must collect and examine descriptions of fuels and energy systems—past, present, and future—and of many possible and practical ways to replace fossil fuels with renewable fuels or energy systems. All of the new systems could replace fossil fuels as the prime energy source for our nation and even the world. In the process this could lead to a carbon dioxide neutral energy system, one that adds no new CO2 to our atmosphere. The options needed are real and practical alternatives to fossil fuels that will replace the use of petroleum and coal-based fuels with renewable, non polluting fuels and in the process:

1. build an American energy system that will stop the hemorrhaging of billions of U.S. dollars, mostly to despotic nations that preach our destruction:

2. build an American energy industry that boosts our economy and provides good jobs for many Americans:

3. stop the growth of atmospheric carbon dioxide and that possible link to global warming: and

4. accomplish most of this within just the next ten years.

There are many energy systems, sources, and conversions that comprise our total energy system. The requirements of the components of such a workable system should be judged by the following criteria:

● They should be relatively inexpensive to utilize.

● They should be developed using environmentally sound, sensitive principals

● They should be far easier, simpler and less expensive to implement than the hydrogen fuel cell system.

● They should be adaptable to our existing infrastructure with minor changes.

● They should use raw materials we already have or that can be developed here, locally.

● They should be applicable to existing vehicles with relatively minor upgrading.

● They should be useable with existing IC (Internal Combustion) engines of all types.

● They should be developed using existing, evolving technology able to be essentially complete within ten years.

● They should create a system that is a net zero contributor of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

● They should use an evolutionary as opposed to revolutionary change—a good start to becoming constantly improving, adapting systems driving numerous growing and improving technologies.

● They should be developed by America-based industry with the many resulting substantial benefits to our nation—social, political, and economic.

While the main thrust of such systems will be to provide new, better, less expensive and less environmentally intrusive systems for energy and transportation, there are many benefits other than just getting away from fossil fuels. These include direct positive effects on four of the first seven of the top twenty-two “most serious concerns of the American public” as shown in a public survey conducted by MIT and cited below.

No. 1 Terrorism—cut off the billions in oil money now going to so many despotic regimes and into funding of terrorism, chiefly to Islamic fundamentalist terrorists who plan our destruction.

No. 3 The Economy—a greatly expanded American energy industry would be an enormous boon to our economy if it only shut off the hemorrhaging of money for oil.

No. 4 Employment—thousands of high-paying new jobs would be created right here.

No. 7 Federal budget deficits—profits from new and expanded industries would pour billions into the federal treasury; money now going out overseas.

No. 13 The environment—may be far down the list of public concerns, but net carbon dioxide emissions would be greatly reduced if not eliminated. That can’t be anything but good.

Even with these substantial benefits bundled into grand plans there are significant forces to be dealt with. Forces that can make a new idea work or relegate it to the ash can of history. There are real difficulties and obstacles to overcome in order for any new system to become a reality no matter how positive and/or effective that system might be. Indeed, the battle to get the most beneficial systems noticed and made a reality may require more effort than the implementation of the idea or system itself. The process, once begun, may take completely unexpected twists and turns in moving, sometimes forward and sometimes back, but always in the ultimate direction of successful implementation.

Our space program and its “put a man on the moon” goal followed just such a wandering path en route to its success. We can expect no less from our efforts to find a new fuel/energy system which certainly has a more powerful practical and obviously profitable goal. Clearly, President Kennedy’s commitment to put a man on the moon in ten years and the follow-up on that commitment was a major force in making it happen. Media hype and glamorization help garner public support and enthusiasm. That was a government program operated by a government agency which was implemented mostly by private contractors according to government bid specifications. It was a process oriented solution with a single defined goal.

What we need now is leadership courageous enough to boldly state a goal such as eliminate the use of fossil fuels in ten years and then work ceaselessly toward achieving that goal. Leadership that will initiate a system oriented, broad spectrum approach to solving our growing energy crisis. This is an even greater challenge than putting a man on the moon, a serious challenge that could be instrumental in securing our very survival. We need this ten-year goal declaration to be well stated and backed by leadership with vision and the dedication to follow through. The commitment would be to develop new energy systems that will provide American-made renewable fuels or other portable energy systems and will add no more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and do it within the next ten years. This is a much broader multiple goal than putting a man on the moon. Indeed it has many branching and interconnected avenues which could lead to a successful solution. I believe the key to final success will be found in the development of several areas of research rather than a single one. The best combination of energy sources, means of obtaining that energy, means of moving the energy from source to use point, and finally the systems of using that energy. There may be a variety of equally effective systems fitting differing needs. The result could end up a variation on the current theme where we use several types of systems in different configurations .

The attention given to new energy and fuel systems will undoubtedly involve effort into other seemingly unconnected areas. We are still deriving long-term benefits from technology developed for our space program. It would certainly be the same for any fuel/energy program. It is amazing to discover that so many of our serious problems are interrelated and how finding one solution often leads to another almost totally unrelated solution and so to the demand for another workable system.

Existing systems

Presently there are at least seven petroleum-based and mined fuels used in a variety of engines and boilers. These are in addition to coal used mostly in power plants. Use of all of these fossil fuels add carbon dioxide to our atmosphere. There are at least six non fossil-based fuels currently being used or being considered for use. Most are manufactured from plant materials and add no-net carbon dioxide to the atmosphere in use. Some do add carbon dioxide in their process of manufacture. There are a few non fossil solid fuels, mostly used for heating and cooking. There is a wide variety of harvesting and manufacturing processes used to obtain or make these fuels. Some of these manufacturing processes require more energy input than the resulting fuel can produce.

There is also the special case of nuclear fuels that use radioactivity to generate heat to boil liquids that drive turbine generators. Since these do not use combustion, they do not release carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

The only reason we need fuel is to provide heat energy which we then convert to electricity or mechanical power. There are at least five combustion-based systems in use. The internal combustion piston engine is the most common and the most developed. Turbine engines make up the rest of the internal combustion types. Other sources of power include: piston steam engines, turbine steam engines, several types of nuclear reactors, fuel cells, and batteries. All of these power sources turn energy derived from chemical reactions or nuclear fission into electricity or mechanical energy which then powers vehicles, tools, and factories.

There are at least six types of batteries in use, some of which are very new and just beyond the development stage. These new technologies will come of age when continuing development of improved technologies lower their costs and improve their safety and efficiency.

Electric motors of many types and sizes, long important in stationary applications and semi-portable tools are growing in use in vehicles. The fastest growing application of new battery technologies is now battery-powered, cord-free tools and electronic equipment. Application of these new batteries to hybrids, plug-in electric vehicles (PHEVs), and even pure electric vehicles (EVs), is just in the beginning stages.

In the power plant segment of our energy system there are at least eight very different sources of energy we use to drive the generators that produce our electricity. Each has its own positives and negatives and all can pose serious environmental problems.

I have described all of these parts of our energy system to illustrate how complex it is. Making any major change would be a difficult and arduous task. Even deciding which changes to make—what system to develop—will be difficult. The answer could lie in a very successful technique used mostly in America for a long time, individual entrepreneurship in a relatively unfettered capitalist business environment.

The challenge ahead

There are literally thousands of individuals using their genius to develop new energy technologies motivated by the promise of rewards for themselves and for their organizations. We are not alone in free entrepreneurship. The powers that control China have suddenly realized its value and are now encouraging it. This has created one of the biggest economic turnarounds in the history of nations. Other nations have seen the light for some time and their economies are booming. Even India, the other Asian giant, is beginning to loosen the socialist government reins that have held their economy in check for so long. The phenomenal growth of the Irish economy is another example. Internet access to the rest of the world and primarily the free world has been a factor in these changes. Even some governments that once controlled virtually every aspect of their people’s lives are now recognizing the value of free entrepreneurship, and even capitalism. Profit is no longer a dirty word in many of these nations. Tom Friedman details these changes in his recent book, The World is Flat 2.0.

Ireland is a prime example of what can happen when government frees businesses and entrepreneurs from oppressive controls and taxes. After years of wallowing in poverty in a country where government controls and high taxes on business stifled progress and discouraged investment of both time and money, the Irish took a dramatic new course. Government interference and controls of business were largely abolished. Complex reporting that bogged down management was mostly thrown out. Corporate taxes once among the highest in the world were reduced or eliminated. Government changed from being the enemy of business to being a strong supporter. The results speak for themselves.

Ireland is now one of the most vibrant economies in Europe. Business is booming like never before. There are now many high paying jobs and investment capital is flowing freely into a nation that once couldn’t coax any investors. In the last twenty years more then 1,000 foreign companies have moved to or opened operations in Ireland. Local firms have also flourished and greatly expanded with worldwide impact. Employment has grown so much that Ireland now imports thousands of workers just to keep their industries running. All of this success is because of the new positive attitude of the government of Ireland to the development of business. This radical new attitude has brought on the availability of world class support services including banking, trade finance, transport systems and advanced telecommunications.

Historians like Tom Garvin are having trouble keeping score. "I have to make a mental effort to remember the Dublin of the 1950s, which was in many ways a Third World city," recalls Garvin. "Horses, no motorcars, children in bare feet, dirt everywhere, people living in slums, no television, no bathrooms - a really impoverished European country that didn't seem to be going anywhere." The picture today is almost unbelievably different: hopeful, optimistic, enthusiastic, almost ecstatic. This amazing economic outcome resulted from government working with business rather than against it and removing oppressive tax burdens rather than imposing them. What also helped was a pro-business attitude of people and even the media rather than the class hatred and anti business attitude we see so prevalent in our own country today.

The concerted effort to solve our energy problems if augmented by this kind of positive attitude and action by everyone here at home would certainly stimulate the economic growth that has sustained our economy at such high levels for so long. If our efforts at solving our energy crisis are driven by hope for substantial economic rewards we will surely succeed and hugely so. If on the other hand, those anti-business voices of doom and gloom succeed and control our government with the new oppressive regulations and taxes they have promised, our economy could will surely go into reverse and much more quickly than even the present slow down has indicated. The fall of the dollar we are currently experiencing will accelerate. Those entrepreneurs who might have solved our energy crisis will do so in Ireland, or China, or India as our stifled economy sinks into depression and our energy needs go unsolved.

How we approach and deal with this serious problem and the attitude we take toward those who have the power to solve it will ultimately decide which technologies prosper and which fall by the wayside. The steadily rising costs of petroleum fuels has made alternative systems practical that were far too expensive when oil was five dollars a barrel. One possible stumbling block to these changes could result from an effort by OPEC to increase the supply of oil and thus reduce the price. Eventually dwindling supplies of petroleum would wipe this out as a practical tactic.

There are many serious and demonstrable problems solving the energy crisis will effect right now. The biggest is the outflow of billions of dollars for oil to nations that preach our destruction. The boost to our economy alone would create a bonanza in this country like we have never before seen. New jobs, new technologies, new industries, and new entrepreneurs would flourish. Even without new taxes (what a dream that is) government revenue would soar from the increased economic activity. The demise of the oil industry would certainly be replaced by the new energy industries. Actually, those oil companies that got aboard these new technologies rather than opposing them, could use their present wealth to invest in them and grow rather than fade away.

Whether or not human contribution of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere creates global warming is actually only remotely connected to our energy related problems. If these new energy systems eliminate the wholesale use of fossil fuels, so much the better. Even if it has a negligible effect on global warming, it can do no harm to maintain the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere near to where it has been for a very long time. That would also satisfy the demands of the global warming proponents and opponents and redirect their energies elsewhere to other far more dangerous challenges facing humanity. Concrete benefits to the rest of the world with the exception of the oil-rich nations would also be substantial.

Some predictions:

After studying energy systems of so many kinds I am convinced that the future will see the greatest growth in energy generated in the form of electricity, distributed and used by a wide variety of systems. I see rapid growth in electric generating capacity primarily in nuclear, but with geothermal a close second and possibly eventually leading. I see a decline in coal fired power plants unless we find a practical technology to gather and sequester carbon dioxide, a very difficult and expensive challenge. I see wind and direct solar generation as always being too expensive and remaining minor players in contribution to the grid. Their use in small, local applications where connection to the electric grid is expensive and to home heating and providing hot water will probably be a substantial benefit and addition to the energy mix. Hydropower will not grow much as environmental concerns will make it increasingly expensive. One interesting possibility now being studied is the conversion of ocean wave action to electrical energy. Thus far, costs and practicality seem reasonable and downsides appear to be virtually nonexistent.

Vehicles will become more electric and less fuel powered as battery technology continues to improve and rapid charging systems are developed. There will always be hybrids, mostly electric vehicles with onboard charging capability, because charging capabilities may be unavailable in some places. Of course there could also be additional growth in micro turbine generators which are already being used for both remote and emergency power applications. Variety will be great at least as technologies progress and new ones come along.

There are several effective new fuel and energy systems to replace the existing system based on coal and petroleum with one that does not use fossil fuels. The benefits of such systems are many, varied, and have far-reaching positive attributes. These include immeasurable economic and political benefits for the citizens of any state or country that adopts them and environmental benefits for the entire world.

There are many innovative new products and technologies that could help us move to a new energy system with a low, or possibly zero-net carbon dioxide environmental impact. Many of these are already available and on the market. Others are soon to come. All that is needed is acceptance by the buying public and the associated development of better technologies and manufacturing capabilities. Some effective PR would provide a big boost.

Two possible direct replacements for gasoline are butanol (butyl alcohol) and 2,5-dimethylfuran (DMF). Both have been available for a long time primarily as solvents and paint thinners. Both can be used in current gasoline engines with little or no modifications. Their high cost relative to gasoline is now changing as gasoline prices rise. New manufacturing techniques have already lowered the production costs of these new fuels to competitive levels. These also have the possibility of being made out of waste plant materials by active biota. Several new techniques have already shown some success. All that is needed is further research and development of processes that can be scaled up to meet the kind of quantities required for a gasoline replacement.

One caveat regarding alternative fuels is already creating serious problems that can only grow worse. Enough corn, wheat and soy beans are being diverted from food to energy use (as ethanol and biodiesel) to bring about some major increases in the costs of these grains. Most have hit all time highs on the grain markets and no sign of a relaxation of this upward trend has yet appeared. Farmers everywhere are thrilled with this new bonanza. Increases in prices for all baked goods, meats, eggs and milk—anything that uses or requires grains—are already quite noticeable in stores.

Another concern that has quite a different but equally negative effect is the growing of palms for palm oil to be used as biodiesel fuel. Much tropical rain forest is being cut, burned and cleared to grow palms for the highly profitable oil they produce. Destruction of rain forest with its huge capacity to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere could more than counter any gain in the carbon dioxide balance from use of biodiesel from palm oil. I’m certain there are other problems with conversion to renewable fuels from crops.

There are many other ways to produce biodiesel that could become practical were we to pursue them aggressively. One that is well documented is the use of Algae fed nutrients from waste water or other biological waste materiels to produce useable oils. View the Internet site http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html. for more information on this example of just one possible process. Many of these new technologies would bear fruit if more research were provided. This would accomplish two needed goals. One would be to produce biodiesel without interfering with food crops. The second is make profitable use of waste materials that now cost money for their disposal.

Using food crops to make biofuels has already caused disruption to the food supply which is only going to grow worse. Because of this, I favor emphasis on new fuels made from non-food chain raw materials along with new battery technologies, electric vehicles and a great expansion of geothermal power generation to cover the increased energy demand. These are some of the only readily acceptable and practical options that can lead us away from dependence on fossil fuels without a major disruption of our food supply or serious damage to our environment. I see no practical development of cost-effective fuel-cell powered vehicles, hydrogen or otherwise, without a major breakthrough in technology. Although such a breakthrough is always possible, there seems to be no hint of any in the foreseeable future.

There are powerful and deeply entrenched economic and political forces all over the world that actively oppose any system to replace fossil fuels. This is because it would challenge their power and control over energy. I trust our nation will overcome this opposition and lead the world by becoming the first to adopt such a system. If we don’t, I’m certain China, India and several other countries will jump at the chance to be first with new energy technology and its associated benefits.

Anecdotal evidence does not an understanding make

All you global warming fanatics and all you anti-global warming fanatics please take note.

Just as the higher temperatures of recent years is an entirely illogical and useless indicator that we are in a period of global warming, the drastically cold weather of the 2007-2008 winter is an equally useless indicator that we are not. The opposing opinions for or against global cooling, is just as applicable. Both of these extreme positions are caused by emotional reactions exacerbated by political bias and media hype. They have very little to do with the science of climate or climate change. These opinions are used by media hypers and those with a political agenda as weapons, really brutish clubs wielded indiscriminately. Among we who analyze the facts objectively, it seems this has to be obvious to all but the dimmest of light bulbs.

For those who would like to be enlightened about what we do know about climate and also informed of the infinitely larger body of information that we do not know, there are a lot of conflicting data and wildly divergent opinions available from both good and questionable sources. Just because the word science or scientist is attached to any source of information or opinion does not make it accurate, or even honest. Ever hear of the Piltdown man hoax?

Deliberate misinformation aside, it is extremely easy for any scientist to have his opinion shaded a bit in the direction of what he hopes to be true, especially if that helps obtain a grant, gain a research assignment, get a paper published, or win a prestigious prize. (The Nobel people even bragged that it was political expediency that motivated the award to Al Gore. Is that not the ultimate height of hypocrisy?) After all, scientists are people just like the rest of us. They are certainly not immune to the temptation to shade equations and conclusions in the direction of their own desires and opinions. This is especially true where the balance point between one direction and the opposite is close to the center. They can honestly express that those close choices are one way or the other and not be condemned except by those with differing opinions or agendas.

Consider the differing pressures on scientists brought about by their position or circumstance. All are at least partially affected by the political, social, emotional, financial and hierarchical pressures of their positions in the organization, their peers, their superiors and even those who work for them. To some extent, each group described has most of the same or similar pressures of all of the other groups.

University scientists have all the pressures of the academic environment: the need to be published, the requirements to do directed research, the need to obtain grants by yielding to the desires and requirements of the grantors, the requirements to meet peer review standards, and often the need to be socially and politically correct.

Government scientists have many of the same pressures as the academics and a few different ones: The need to meet often rigid technical and mechanical government requirements, the strict hierarchy of the government bureaucracy, the annual budget submission and justification process and all the other government red tape requirements.

Private industry scientists have some special pressures: meeting profitability projections, sometimes special reporting processes, meeting company purpose or mission requirements, less job security than the others, considerable job or position competition, and more powerful superiors to deal with.

All of these pressures can affect research related decisions and the ultimate tenor of the chosen and reported results. Much data that sits on a fence is moved one way or the other by these pressures rather than by truly objective judgement.

Once in the hands of the media or politicians, information from those close choices with their many shades of gray opinions, become pure black or pure white. Remember the fable of the man who blew on his cold hands to warm them as he came in out of the cold and then blew on his hot soup to cool it? The moral is something about how can one blow hot and cold with the same breath? For media and political people, facts are rarely significant compared to the power of a position that furthers their chosen agenda. Their opinions blow hot or cold at their whim. Politization of anything is the art of creating an effective club with which to beat down and destroy competitors or rivals. It has absolutely nothing to do with finding the truth or facts in the matter, or developing a workable solution to any problem other than that of getting elected or gaining higher ratings.

If you would like to read some hopefully reasonable opinions about climate and where it might be headed, there are anumber of articles from several viewponts in earlier postings on this blog. All you need do is scroll down to find them.

For additional information in another blog goto http://hjgulfstream.blogspot.com/. The most recent article there is about geothermal energy so scroll down to the section on global warming and the Gulf Stream.

Incidently, I have a powerful personal motive for hopping onto the global warming bandwagon. As the author of a book on energy and what could be the best answer to the global warming problem, I could very easily embrace the whole global warming movement in its promotion. My book, A Convenient Solution, is about to be released and in spite of this, I still remain objectively neutral on global warming.

Global Cooling May now be Upon Us

http://robertd.wordpress.com/2008/02/28/some-global-cooling-updates/

Cashmere Goats are Dying by Ethel C. Fenig (see above link for complete story)

Have you noticed the absence of Al Gore (global-warming-the-sky-is-falling) in light of the unusually harsh winter across the planet? Why he wasn’t even at the Academy Awards!

Meanwhile cashmere goats, and their herders, do wish Al Gore would open his mouth and spew forth some hot air about the perils of global warming instead of hiding under the cover of climate change.

At least 600 rare Himalayan goats — famed for their pashmina wool, also known as cashmere — have died and thousands face starvation after their desert habitat was blanketed with snow during the region’s worst snowfall in three decades, authorities said Thursday. Over 100,000 cashmere goats have faced starvation as winter stocks of fodder ran out after heavy snow covered pastures in the remote Ladakh region near the border with China last month.

The PETA people have been unusually silent also. From American Thinker

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

Snowfall Records Being Broken in New England

by Noel Sheppard February 28, 2008 - 10:12 ET

(Photo of snow on roof in Vermont)

Remember all those articles last year about how ski resorts were going to go bankrupt, and that folks with vacation homes near such areas were going to take a bath as global warming significantly reduced snowfall levels? Well, ski enthusiasts and investors around the country should rest assured that this media hype was just as accurate as all those hurricane forecasts in 2006 and 2007. In fact, much as what has occurred across the northern US this year, parts of New England have experienced more snow than ever in history as reported by USA Today late Wednesday evening. Read the rest from NewsBusters

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This La Nina Likely to Have Legs - February 28, 2008

As I mentioned in my post here about one of the satellite data sets (RSS) that showed a marked cooling globally in 2008, La Nina and PDO seem to be drivers of this change. Here is Joe D’Aleo’s take on it below. - Anthony

By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM ICECAP

Evidence is growing this La Nina will be a longer term event. Most similar important La Ninas are often multi year events (1949-1951,1954-1956, 1961-63, 1970-1972, 1973-1976, 1998-2001). Though the easternmost Pacific near South America has warmed at the surface as the seasonal weakening of the tropical easterlies led to weakened upwelling, it is still cold beneath. Below you can see the latest depth-section of ocean temperatures (top) and anomalies (bottom). Temperature are in degree Celsius. Note the large reservoir of subsurface anomalously cold water (up to 4 degrees C) in the eastern tropical Pacific at 50 to 100 meters.

For the rest of the original article goto
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/28/this-la-nina-likely-to-have-legs/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Stop The Presses......What We Have Now Is Global Cooling

Call it what you will, global cooling, or "The Al Gore Effect". No you can not have your money back on all those carbon credits you just bought. What about all these efforts to stop global warming, the UN's IPCC, the Kyoto Treaty, what are we going to do?

Peter

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling
Michael Asher (Blog) - February 26, 2008 12:55 PM

World Temperatures according to the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction. Note the steep drop over the last year. (See graph at website link below)

Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming. Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

For the graph of world temperatures and the rest of the story goto:
http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/02/stop-presseswhat-we-have-now-is-global.html

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.

No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Verdict: All Four Major Global Temperature Tracking Outlets Release Updated Data

"For quite some time now I have been openly harping on global "warming" hysterics. Throughout my debates I have maintained that within the next 20 (or some odd) years, we will begin to see signs of the next global climate cycle - a cycle that will bring global "cooling".

It appears I was wrong.

Apparently we won't have to wait that long.

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

Meteorologist Anthony Watts compiled the results of all the sources. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

To read the complete article and comments goto:
http://theconservativemanifesto.blogspot.com/2008/02/verdict-all-four-major-global.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

February 29, 2008 7:53 AM - Comment by jovial_cynic said...

And in related news: bacteria can cause rain and snow.

Check on: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080228174801.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

February 29, 2008 7:53 AM - Comment by HoJo...

I have quite a bit of information about new energy systems that could replace our use of fossil fuels and thus stop new carbon dioxide emissions. This would silence the global warming crowd complaining about CO2 emissions. Far more important, it would bring back home all those billions now going to nations who plot our destruction.

Check out these sites on the web.

http://hjgulfstream.blogspot.com/

http://glowarmacs.blogspot.com/

Simplifying extremely complex systems

--
This is in response to the article,

Heavy footprint weighs down U.S. empire

by Paul Hanley, The StarPhoenix spnews@sp.canwest.com
Published: Tuesday, January 29, 2008

His premise is stated in the first paragraph of the article. "Is the decline of the status of the United States a result of its heavy ecological footprint? A strong argument can be made that the fading of the American empire is fundamentally an environmental issue." To his comments about "the fading of the American empire" That remined me of a quote from Mark Twain, "Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."

Mr. Hanley's copyrighted article can be read at

http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/news/arts/story.html?id=82235c7e-e146-4c12-af09-f6c3458cd676

This BLOG is in response to Paul Hanley’s article.

The article has an interesting concept and conclusion that is a typically simplistic identification of a narrow range cause of an extremely complex system. Mostly these types of conclusions tend to promote the opinion and/or agenda of the creator. This is not intended as a condemnation, but is merely an observation by one who tends to look for the complexities in systems like the Roman Empire, the United States or even global climate. One could see the similarities of destructive effects in such factors as: the growth of government of Rome and the US and the associated increasing cost, the use of human energy, and the consumption of effort that growth requires.

Another example from another source comes from far back in history. When the 13 colonies were still part of England, Professor Alexander Tyler, a Scottish historian, wrote about the fall of the Athenian democracy over 2000 years earlier.

“A democracy can not exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates promising them the most money from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.”

This does not apply as closely to a representative republic, but our republic is rapidly being eroded by those who see a democracy as being more in their own best interests than a republic. This too could be an equally accurate explanation for the fall of Rome and the future of America. There are doubtless many other applicable reasons with possible equal or greater effects. Jared Diamond covers many, natural and man made in his books, Collapse and Guns, Germs and Steel.

I shall try to explain the type of problems complex systems pose for those who would try to understand them by describing one such system I have been studying. For more than ten years I have been working on answers to a very complex system or more accurately group of systems related to our use of energy. These include: energy systems we have in place, where they are headed and practical solutions to the constantly changing energy requirements and uses in the world. My book, A Convenient Solution, does not provide a single solution but it does describe many of the systems now in use, possible future systems, their practicality and how they can be implemented. I think most people would be surprised at the number and variety of energy systems in use, soon to be in use and those that could be in use in the near future. All of these systems from power plants and distribution systems to vehicles and power tools are available with existing technology. Many new concepts are already available and more are coming in the very near future. Most are being developed by independent entrepreneurs, not government. The positive effects on our economy, our environment and the well being of planet earth could be enormous.

I state in the title that freedom from fossil fuels could be accomplished in ten years. All we have to do to achieve that goal is quit spending our efforts on blaming everyone and everything we disagree with, while condemning things as they are. Then spend our energies on developing and promoting these new concepts and products. I think we have far to much use of problems as political battering rams against opponents and far too little effort at finding and implementing viable solutions. Most everyone wants a single simple answer, and by the same token many blame one or a few situations or efforts as the sole or certainly the overwhelming villain in the case. I’d like to use the current media hot button “global warming” to illustrate.

Global warming has become such a popular catch phrase it is being used as a verbal club in condemnation of many things. It has become the subject of much TV humor. Late night talk shows on TV seldom miss a chance to tell a global warming joke. Passions run high on the subject. So high that global warming has taken on almost the trappings of a religion. Certainly it rouses almost religious fervor in its believers. The truth, degree, causative factors, and ultimate results of global warming if indeed it is real, are completely lost in the passionate rhetoric from adherents and nay sayers alike.

The truth is that climate and climate change are very complex, far more complex than our best computer simulations can handle. As a result, we have great difficulty in predicting the path of a single hurricane with much accuracy. While we are getting better at it each year as more sophisticated simulations are developed we still have a long way to go before we can have as much as 80% accuracy five days ahead. A single hurricane is a far less complex system with far fewer variables than is the climate of the entire world. Change a few variables a very small amount and simulation results can be vastly different.

This is virtually axiomatic in all types of complex systems we could talk about. It is true of global climate, economics, energy, civilizations, nations, you name it—there are many extremely complex systems with almost infinite numbers of variables that are extremely difficult to understand. The question was posed and then somewhat answered in Paul Hanley’s article, “Is the decline of the status of the United States a result of its heavy ecological footprint?” This is a classic example of applying a single causative system as the sole or primary reason for the behavior of an extremely complex system and then applying the same factor to another very different and also complex system. I am not saying it is not a factor, but that to explain it as the primary one is to presume a great deal. It is even possible that this factor is the effect of other factors and not a cause at all. Cause and effect often are confused in this type of situation.

To illustrate my meaning I will use climate again. It is often assumed that rising average air temperatures indicate the planet is warming. Actually, that may not be the case. The entire atmosphere holds only a fraction of the heat that the earth’s liquid and frozen water holds. All of that heat is held in the planet’s very thin surface skin comparable in thickness to paint on the surface of a croquet ball. Movements of ocean currents distribute far more heat energy around the planet than do air currents and thus should be a bigger contributor to climate. Indeed, it is primarily the energy from warm ocean water that powers hurricanes and we are just beginning to understand how the warm surface waters of the Pacific can affect climate over much of the globe. Discovering how changes in our atmosphere affects the oceans—actually the complex exchanges of energy between oceans and atmosphere—is an extremely difficult and complex task. Though there is much we do understand, that understanding is but a tiny portion of what is needed to design competent computer simulations. What we can project from current knowledge is a SWAG (Sophisticated Wild Ass Guess) at best.

Too often adherents to an idea will take a SWAG and run with it as a definite fact. Our media in particular tends to do this particularly if the SWAG happens to promise dire consequences for our nation or the world. Those dire predictions seem to sell newspapers and gain TV viewers. It is well known that bad news sells much better than good news. We all have a tendency to stop and gawk at an accident scene and pictures of all manner of disasters and mayhem bring many viewers to TV. The temptation to sensationalize seems far too great to keep reporters and TV news writers from emphasizing the negative aspect of virtually any situation. With all this sensationalism available it is quite difficult for any calm, objective, broadly based observations or studies to get much exposure.

Often reports of such careful observations are condemned as opposition to an accepted position or known fact. The known fact of global warming is just such a creation and is now accepted by many as axiomatic. Thirty or forty years ago many of these same individuals were treating global cooling as a known fact.

When we learn enough that we are able to predict precisely where a hurricane is going to go and how strong it will become when it is merely a disturbance off the coast of Africa—then we may be able to say whether global warming caused by atmospheric carbon dioxide is a reality with some degree of certainty. Now, no matter how you look at it, to say that the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide is the responsible agent causing global warming in the manner it is being described by so many agenda driven spokespersons is Chicken Little at best.

The same type of observation could be made about Mr. Henley’s report. I am not saying it is wrong, just that it may be an effect, rather than a cause—a symptom rather than a disease. Certainly it is worth consideration as being among countless other factors. It may be a factor, but certainly not necessarily the definitive one. There is probably not a single definitive factor at all, but rather many significant ones. To make comparison of the situation in Rome and in America today requires another stretch of the imagination and denial of countless other factors. The two systems and their complexities have far too many differences for the type of conclusion made to have more than passing interest and value. An interesting thought perhaps, but quite far from proven.

To me the concerns expressed about our lavish lifestyle and fiscal cancer are far more significant than the heavy ecological footprint. The paragraph, "The empire also needed tax gatherers and civil servants. These armies and bureaucrats had to be supported by the empire. Expansion was also necessary to get booty and other forms of wealth, such as gold, to pay for the Roman lifestyle and the costs of expansion itself." is to me a far more significant comparison as it could be said almost verbatim of our present government. I believe Tyler’s observation about democracy cited earlier in this commentary predicts a far more accurate and likely scenario and provides more serious concern than any ecological effects. Unfortunately, it is also a real menace that seems to interest very few Americans and certainly few politicians. Currently, this frightens me far more than any concern about our ecological footprint.

Mexican Drug dealer's house full of American cash.

It must be seen!

This has been verified by snopes.com as true. To see the snopes info,
Click on http://www.snopes.com/photos/crime/drugmoney.asp

Below are pictures taken after a raid on a drug dealer's house in Mexico. Are you ready for this???

Aren't we glad that we have an open border policy between us? Just look at how well its paying off........

I think allowing Mexican truckers in the U.S. is a great idea!!! just take a look at the millions of reasons why.........

See how well these truckers are doing? What the @#@%*@ are we thinking??? Notice that nearly 100% of this money is U.S. Currency!!! Do you now wonder why the cost of living has catapulted in our country??? I don't...... Some of the illegal aliens we're letting in can afford anything at any cost!!! And for the ones who cannot........ We'll give it to them anyway!!!

And we have two border patrol agents in prison for shooting and wounding a well documented Mexican drug dealer! Who, by the way, was armed and also happens to be a convicted (by Mexico ) murderer.

Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it??? Automatics, silencers...... they're all having a nice laugh about this stuff at our expense!!!

And we want to give illegal aliens amnesty and not build the border fence because of funding!?!?!? Send this to everyone, including your local representatives in Congress. Our country is bleeding from the outside in! !! Don't you think it's time we take back what we have sacrificed for over 140 years for??? I do. Build the fence higher and deeper, tighten border control, and send EVERY illegal alien home!!!

HoJo’s comments:

I think you’re dreaming. What good would it do to write to a bunch of idiots many of whom are probably heavy on the take as it is. I’ll wager that a large portion of that cash in Mexico was scheduled to go to US Representatives and Senators either as campaign contributions or direct input into their pockets. How do you think so many of them suddenly become very wealthy after being in office for a while. I wonder how much money from similar sources found its way into the millions the Clintons have accumulated since he first gained a political office. What do you really think was the original source of all those millions in payments for speeches by our former philanderer in chief? Think about it!

I have a viable solution that will stop the illegal drug industry in its tracks, for good. Unfortunately, our Congress would never enact it because the illegal drug industry pays for so many politicians’ homes, trips and elections. Why is it people refuse to believe the most obvious? Hmmmmmm?

To read about my comprehensive, solution to the drug problem that would

1. immediately make the illegal drug trade unprofitable,

2. immediately stop all the illegal activities of drug dealers,

3. immediately stop all criminal activity by users trying to get money to buy drugs,

4. immediately stop the actvity enticing people to use drugs.

5. immediately destroy the entire illegal drug industry in the U.S.

Click on http://hjdrugprb.blogspot.com.

Last post for 2007

Oh yes, regarding global warming. I take a completely neutral stance between the usual extremes of panic and denial, or hoax believers. If it is a problem I can guarantee there are many other problems that pose far greater dangers to humanity and far sooner than does global warming. Just as no one will take a serious look at any data showing global warming not to be the humanity threatening danger that fundamentalist members of the church of global warming “know” it to be, no one will even discuss these other dangerous situations. These are far more menacing, far more immediate, and far more traumatic than the worst global warming scenario the high priest of the church of global warming, Father Gore, could possibly describe.

What are these terribly serious situations? Why, the trials of Britney and Jamie Lynn and the pains of poor little Paris Hilton. Add that to the altercations of Lindsay Lohan and you have real earth-shaking events. Then there are all those bowl games and the NFL playoffs. Consider the trauma, the personal trauma that will befall those fans whose teams lose. It’s enough to bring one to tears of sympathy for those poor, soon to be traumatized souls. The suicide rate will probably multiply amidst the uncontrolled screaming and ranting of those poor losing fans as their teams head for home in disgrace.

So, buck up all you who are or may be facing these traumatic events. You can survive and maybe even escape with minor wounds if you just keep a stiff upper lip. Remember, intellectuals, geniuses and others like them may lose their BSs, their MAs, and even their PhDs, but a fan goes on forever and—there’s always next year or another flake to idolize.

Ho

Last Newsweek of 2007

I’m not a big fan of Newsweek for reasons that should be obvious, but the final copy of 2007 at least displays some items of interest, good and bad.

On the really sick side, their list of celebrities in their “Newsmakers Madness” section had photos of 32 individuals, most of whom are from the entertainment world and even among this nondescript group they truly represent the dregs of humanity. I am happy to say I only recognized a few names. I probably knew them only because their names and faces have been emblazoned across TV and radio news on nearly a daily basis for a number of ridiculous reasons by a fawning media that thrives on repugnant happenings of all kinds. Of the eight individuals whose names I did recognize there was only one that I know anything about beyond hearing their names tied to some completely nonsensical or ridiculous action. That most of these dismal excuses for humans seem to have much in common, at least morally, with the creature from the black lagoon is patently obvious to any sensitive mind. Fanism and celebrity worship seems to be a contagious disease now of epidemic proportions among the mindless boobs currently trying to pass themselves off as adults in our present culture.

On a much more intelligent level was their list of 34 “Famous in Life, Noted in Passing” with tiny bios. (Newsweek was gracious enough not to include any such bios about those on the newsmaker list.) This list of those who died in 2007 was a much broader and more significant group. Though still primarily from the entertainment world, most had at least something of significance in their life even if it was nastiness. Of course, celebrity status is far more apt to be granted those with attributes they were born with, money or prestige they had, often inherited, or fame garnered by outlandish public acts than any demonstration of intellect or excellence. Isn’t it strange that fame is more apt to be gained by those who play-act being another person, that is being a complete fake and lie than by those they pretend to be—even some very ordinary people? Apparently, being a fake is more to be admired and valued than being the real thing. How difficult it must be for those who act to have a genuine original thought of their own without reading a script.

If you get a chance, read George Will’s The Last Word at the very back of the issue. Here’s the first paragraph:

In 2007, CAME THE REVOLUTION, determined to end the war in Iraq and begin the reign of justice in America, Democrats took over Congress and acted on the principal, “ready, fire, aim.” They threatened to tell the Ottoman Empire (deceased 1922) that it should be ashamed of itself (about Armenian genocide) and raised the minimum wage to $5.85, which is worth less than the $5.15 minimum was worth when it was set in 1997. Onward and upward with compassionate liberalism: The Democrat controlled Senate flinched from making hedge fund millionaires pay more than a 15 percent tax rate. (Too many of them on the Democrat side of the aisle in the Senate?) At the year's end, there were more troops in Iraq than there were at the year’s beginning. Although it was not yet possible to say the war was won, it was no longer possible to say the surge wasn’t succeeding. (Harry Reid please note.) The McClatchy Newspapers, with the media’s flair for discerning lead linings on silver clouds, offered this headline: AS VIOLENCE FALLS IN IRAQ, CEMETERY WORKERS FEEL THE PINCH.

George Will continues filling the page with salient bits of news the main stream media usually hides among ads in the back pages, if not completely ignoring them. Among the most significant was this story from in Seattle, USSR:

A Seattle based day-care center banned Lego building blocks because the beastly children “were building their assumptions about ownership and the social power it conveys, assumptions that mirrored those of a class-based, capitalist society.” The center reinstated Legos but allowed the children to build only “public structures” dedicated to “collectivity and consensus.”

Do you suppose maybe old line communist Chinese, driven from their homeland by the new business and profits movement there, have moved to and taken over Seattle? The lead article on China in this issue indicates this could be a possibility. Just a thought.

So all you liberal Democrats out there, READY! FIRE! AIM! or is it, FIRE! AIM! READY!

Global warming - again!

To all you who put up with my sometimes a bit off the wall rants.

Several years ago I joined a group named The Environmental Defense Fund. Since joining I have found them to be a far left wing organization whose true agenda lies quite remote from that which they profess to support. Most of their effort seems to be to scare people about the imminent effects of global warming so that they donate to the organization. What follows is but one example of exchanges we have had continually since I joined. Interestingly, not one of my emails has ever been answered. Apparently all they are interested in is getting donations for their “cause.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Howard,

2008 could be a turning point in our fight against global warming.
Donate now to double your year end gift and help fight global warming.
Can you feel the tide turning? Last week's historic passage of the Climate Security Act out of a key Senate committee represents a new day for global warming action.
We are now poised to make history in 2008. But we need your help to keep up the pressure.

And to encourage your support, more than 1,000 Environmental Defense members have contributed to a Global Warming Challenge Grant to match your year end gift dollar-for-dollar.

Donate today to our Year-End Global Warming Challenge and double the value of your gift.

Your challengers are everyday people just like you. They care about our future and they helped create the Challenge Grant to help build our campaign to stop global warming.

Here are some of the things these men and woman have had to say:
Environmental Defense goes after the biggest energy problems on earth, working at the highest levels for the most significant changes. Supporting ED's efforts will allow you to have the largest effect possible in the effort to save the earth.
- Kathy R, Cambridge MA

It is our responsibility to do everything we can to save our environment. I always think of the Iroquois proverb, "In our every deliberation, we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations." What are we leaving behind for our children?
- Marjorie, Iowa City, IA

I am on board with Environmental Defense because I am concerned about my young daughter's future, and because, as a religious leader and person of faith, I can think of no greater sacred responsibility than protecting the future of life on earth. I urge people of all faiths and traditions to join in this holy task.
- Rabbi Steve Folberg, Austin, TX

Contrbuting to Environmental Defense is one of the few ways that an individual can hope to make a difference. If there is any hope to protect our fragile planet from being ravaged by the uncaring and ignorant, Environmental Defense will be in the forefront. We must act as stewards.
- Louise Hodges, Hanford, CA

Donate today to have your gift matched dollar-for-dollar.
In all of my years working on important environmental issues, I cannot recall a mobilization as massive and concerted as the one now underway to fight global warming. And you and I have progress to show for our efforts.

But we can't let up, not for a minute. We can't wait for the results of next year's elections. We can't hope for the sea change within American industries to continue on its own. And we certainly cannot count on Congress to pass an historic cap on global warming pollution without continued grassroots demand.

We now have serious momentum toward the kinds of changes that could lead to major global warming progress.

Please donate today to help us take advantage of this momentum and have your gift matched dollar-for-dollar.

Thanks for all you do.

Sincerely, Fred Krupp
President
Enviromental Defense

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My reply that followed:

Dear Fred:

Global warming as a result of our use of fossil fuels may be a political fact which provides many benefits for those who would control our lives for their own personal benefit, a fact in the news media since it is useful in promoting their agenda, and an economic windfall for many, like yourself, who have jumped on the global warming bandwagon. It is definitely not a scientific fact.

It is a proven fact that there are at least a dozen other causes that could be equally responsible for any global warming caused by the increases of CO2 in the atmosphere. In addition, the continuing destruction of forests, primarily in the undeveloped world, is very possibly responsible for more of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere than is the combustion of fossil fuels. I would like to see some studies of both how much CO2 is produced by the burning done to clear these forests and the amount of CO2 the destroyed forest no longer removes from the atmosphere. Somewhere I remember reading that a 12% increase in forests in the world would remove all the CO2 produced annually by all the vehicles in the entire world.

I think it unconscionable that the promoters of the "global warming" panic never address these other factors, even those like forest destruction which could be controlled far easier than forcing changes in our vehicles by writing more laws. In spite of this opinion, I have written a book, A Convenient Solution, about how to change our energy system to get us away from fossil fuels and greatly reduce or stop the emission of CO2. It will be published and released within the next few weeks. My reasons for writing the book are about ptoblems and dangers far more challenging than any possible effects of global warming. The overpowering reason is to get us away from dependence on foreign oil and reduce the ponderous drain of billions of dollars presently leaving our country and mostly going to nations that hate us and preach our destruction.

I would even be willing to send you a copy of my book if you would like. Just let me know where. If any of the systems described in my book were to be put in effect the increase of atmospheric CO2 would be stopped and even reversed. These changes would do far more to stop your form of CO2 caused global warming than any of the efforts you are now making no matter how successful are those efforts.

Howard Johnson.

End of email

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PLEASE NOTE: The global warming phenomena is an artificially created, politically motivated mass movement—almost a religion—that will rarely if ever make any serious effort to really solve the problem if there indeed is one. That there are now more climate scientists questioning the CO2 greenhouse effect than are caught up in this religious frenzy is becoming more evident. That the media and global warming fanatics completely ignore all these scientists and their evidence is increasingly evident. The reasons are simple and Fred Krup (who is a fund raiser and not a scientist of any sort) is but one example of people who are making a career out "global warming." Those reasons are simply the desire for power and money along with an antibusiness political agenda on the part of those who would use it to increase taxes and gain political control for themselves. I certainly would welcome a serious effort at objective examinations of data pertaining to all of the plausible global warming (and cooling) causes including the “greenhouse gas” effect of CO2 so dear to the hearts of the left, fund raisers, and the media. The data I have seen thus far show that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is no more the likely cause of global warming than at least a dozen other natural systems that we know quite a bit about.

I wonder just how many organizations like environmentaldefense.com are using global warming as a tool to raise money for themselves and for their political aims. I also wonder why it is these organizations have to use strictly emotional appeals and strong arm tactics to obtain their funds and promote their agendas. They capitalize on the ignorance of both the media (who haven’t a clue as to the facts about “global warming”) and the masses of the public who succumb to their rants of fearsome consequences. Everyone knows how the media feeds on pain and misery and will promote anything that gives them fodder for their “woe is me” attitude. In reality, the billions we spend for oil from nations who preach and plot our destruction are part of a very real and present (and rapidly growing) danger that poses a much bigger and more immediate threat to America than does global warming by even the most convoluted scenario any of the global warming crowd could possibly come up with. That is where we ought to be focusing our efforts and expending our resources and energy.

Business isn’t the villain in this case, it’s an enforced victim that the left and their captive media love to use as a whipping boy. Why else do you think they have made profits into a dirty word. The very profits that generate the money the government confiscates as taxes in order to feed the career bureaucrats’ insatiable appetite for money and power. Global warming is merely the current tool used to obtain that power and money. What are these money grubbers going to do if they succeed in destroying American business enterprises? Where will the steadily increasing funds these bureaucrats need to run their unproductive departments come from when profits cease to exist, tax money ceases to exist, and our economy grinds to a halt?

One of my favorite quotes which fits perfectly into the political scene we are now witnessing comes from a Scottish historian, When the 13 colonies were still part of England, Professor Alexander Tyler, a Scottish historian, wrote about the fall of the Athenian democracy over 2000 years earlier.

“A democracy can not exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates promising them the most money from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.”

In other words what is happening is that voters are in the process of killing the geese that lay the golden eggs and politicians, mostly left leaning, are handing them the ax and urging them to use it. Since it is far easier for a mob to destroy than build, that’s what they will do, even though they suffer grievously in the process. They forget that the only way we can all be “equal” is if we all have nothing. As stupid as that is, it seems to be human nature. Eric Hoffer had a real good handle on these individuals and why they do what they do. In one favorite of mine he said.

“Passionate hatred can give meaning and purpose to an empty life. Thus people haunted by the purposelessness of their lives try to find a new content not only by dedicating themselves to a holy cause but also by nursing a fanatical grievance. A mass movement (like global warming) offers them unlimited opportunities for both.”

You can read some of his other pertinent quotes at: http://ehoffer.blogspot.com/

For more real information on possible causes of global warming,
goto http://hjgulfstream.blogspot.com/

Liberals, are they geneticly haters?

In the present politically charged atmosphere of the coming Presidential race the candidates seem to be keeping most of their claws retracted under smiling faces and supposed congeniality. Even Hillary seems to be on her best behavior most of the time and that must take a lot of restraint on her part. It has been evident for some time and to virtually everyone that Hillary is an incarnation of the "Wicked Witch of the North." Her hate for all who oppose her were expressed quite accurately by Howard Dean, president of the DNC when he literally screamed, "I hate Republicans. I hate conservatives. I hate Rush Limbaugh."

I just ran across a piece I had downloaded from the Internet nearly two years ago. While reports of the nastiness of Hillary have been circulating for many years, this one comes from people with a record of being in contact with Hillary on a daily basis. I couldn't write a rant with nearly the impact of this report so, here it is:

Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 22:15:58

Subject: Presidential Observations by the Secret Service - By Dave Kulow

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We had a neighbor when I lived in DC who was part of the secret service presidential detail for many years. His stories of Kennedy and Johnson were the same as those I heard from the guys who flew the presidents' plane

Yes, Kennedy did have Marilyn Monroe flown in for secret "dates," and LBJ was a typical Texas "good ole boy" womanizer. Nixon, Bush 41, and Carter never cheated on their wives. Clinton cheated, but couldn't match Kennedy or LBJ in style or variety.

The information below is accurate: The elder Bush and current president Bush make it a point to thank and take care of the air crews who fly them around. When the president flies, there are several planes that also go, one carries the armored limo, another the security detail, plus usually a press aircraft. Both Bush's made it a point to stay home on holidays, so the Air Force and security people could have a day with their families.

WHAT WAS: Hillary Clinton was arrogant and orally abusive to her security detail. She forbade her daughter, Chelsea, from exchanging pleasantries with them. Sometimes Chelsea, miffed at her mother's obvious conceit and mean spiritedness ignored her demands and exchanged pleasantries regardless, but never in her mother's presence.

Chelsea really was a nice, kindhearted, and lovely young lady. The consensus opinion was that Chelsea loved her Mom but did not like her. Hillary Clinton was continuously rude and abrasive to those who were charged to protect her life. Her security detail dutifully did their job, as professionals should, but they all loathed her and wanted to be on a different detail. Hillary Clinton was despised by the Secret Service as a whole.

Former President Bill Clinton was much more amiable than his wife. Often the Secret Service would cringe at the verbal attacks Hillary would use against her husband. They were embarrassed for his sake by the manner and frequency in which she verbally insulted him, sometimes in the presence of the Secret Service, and sometimes behind closed doors. Even behind closed doors Hillary Clinton would scream and holler so loudly that everyone could hear what she was saying.

Many felt sorry for President Clinton and most wondered why he tolerated it instead of just divorcing his "attack dog" wife. It was crystal clear that the Clinton's neither liked nor respected each other and this was true long before the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Theirs was genuinely a "marriage of convenience."

Chelsea was much closer to her father than her mother, even after the Lewinsky scandal, which hurt her gravely. Bill Clinton did in fact have charisma, and occasionally would smile at or shake hands with his security detail.

Still, he always displayed an obvious air of superiority towards them. His security detail uniformly believed him to be disingenuous, false, and that he did nothing without a motive that in some way would enhance his image and political career. He was polite, but not kind. They did not particularly like him and nobody trusted him.

WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN: Al Gore was the male version of Hillary Clinton. They were more friendly toward each other than either of them were towards former President Clinton. They were not intimate, so please don't read that in. They were very close in a political way. Tipper Gore was generally nice and pleasant. She initially liked Hillary but soon after the election she had her "pegged" and no longer liked her or associated with her except for events that were politically obligatory.

Al Gore was far more left wing than Bill Clinton. Al Gore resented Bill Clinton and thought he was too "centrist." He despised all Republicans. His hatred was bitter and this was long before he announced for the Presidency. This hatred was something that he and Hillary had in common. They often said as much, even in the presence of their security detail.

Neither of them trusted Bill Clinton and, the Secret Service opined, neither of them even liked Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton did have some good qualities, whereas Al Gore and Hillary had none, in the view of their security details.

Al Gore, like Hillary, was very rude and arrogant toward his security detail. He was extremely unappreciative and would not hesitate to scold them in the presence of their peers for minor details over which they had no control. Al Gore also looked down on them, as they finally observed and learned with certainty on one occasion. Al got angry at his offspring and pointed at his security detail and said, "Do you want to grow up and be like them?"

Word of this insult by the former Vice-president quickly spread and he became as disliked by the Secret Service as Hillary. Most of them prayed Al Gore would not be elected President, and they really did have private celebrations in a few of their homes after President Bush won. This was not necessarily to celebrate President Bush's election, but to celebrate Al Gore's defeat.

WHAT IS: Everyone in the Secret Service wants to be on First Lady Laura Bush's detail.
Without exception, they concede that she is perhaps the nicest and most kind person they have ever had the privilege of serving. Where Hillary patently refused to allow her picture to be taken with her security detail, Laura Bush doesn't even have to be asked, she offers. She doesn't just shake their hand and say, "Thank you." Very often, she will give members of her detail a kindhearted hug to express her appreciation.

There is nothing false about her. This is her genuine nature. Her security detail considers her to be a "breath of fresh air." They joke that comparing Laura Bush with Hillary Clinton is like comparing "Mother Teresa" with the "Wicked Witch of the North."

Likewise, the Secret Service considers President Bush to be a gem of a man to work for. He always treats them with genuine respect and he always trusts and listens to their expert advice. They really like the Crawford, Texas detail. Every time the president goes to Crawford he has a Bar-B-Q for his security detail and he helps serve their meals. He sits with them, eats with them, and talks with them. He knows each of them by their first name, and calls them by their first name as a show of affection. He always asks about their family, the names of which he always remembers.

They believe that he is deeply and genuinely appreciative of their service. They could not like, love, or respect anyone more than President Bush. Most of them did not know they would feel this way, until they had an opportunity to work for him and learn that his manner was genuine and consistent. It has never changed since he began his Presidency. He always treats them with the utmost respect, kindness, and compassion.

Please pass this on. It is important for Americans to have a true inside understanding of their President.

Hal Johnson

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No wonder she's sinking in the polls. Maybe Republicans should run Laura Bush.

A Big Backfire Against Liberal Democrat Actions

I challenge any of you liberals to refute any of the facts in this BLOG. Facts, not opinions. On second thought, maybe you shouldn't read this. Your thin skin couldn't take the facts.

The beginning of the fracus, (My commentary inserted in italics) Harry Reid on the Senate floor:

Washington, DC—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made the following statement today on the floor of the U.S. Senate, urging Senators to sign a letter that calls on Mark P. Mays, CEO of Clear Channel Communications, to publicly repudiate Rush Limbaugh’s characterization of troops who speak out against the Iraq war as "phony soldiers."
Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

"Freedom of speech is one of our country’s most cherished values. Nothing sets us further apart than the countries and regimes we oppose than our belief that everyone’s opinion matters, and everyone has the right to express it. That is why, when we hear things on the radio that are offensive, by and large, we tolerate them.

"But last week, Rush Limbaugh went way over the line – and while we respect his right to say anything he likes, his unpatriotic comments cannot be ignored. (Boy, Dingy Harry, did you ever get that wrong! For one who routinely condemns the war and Ameria, you have little authority to accuse others.)

"During his show last Wednesday, Rush Limbaugh was engaged in one of his typical rants. This rant was unremarkable and indistinguishable from his usual drivel, which has been steadily losing listeners for years (In your dreams, maybe! Factually incorrect as usual. Rush continues to gain listeners and has the largest following of anyone on radio.) – until he crossed that line by calling our men and women in uniform who oppose the war in Iraq ‘phony soldiers.’ This comment was so beyond the pale of decency that it cannot be left alone. And yet, he followed it up with denials and an attack on Congressman Jack Murtha, a 37-year active member of the Marine Corps. (He denied the Media Matters interpretation of his words and his "attack" was to repeat Murtha’s own words verbatim. Funny how liberal Democrats consider repetition of their own words as an attack on them.)

"We have been debating the Iraq war here in the Senate and throughout the country for not months, but years. (Wrong! You, the left, and your lackeys in the media, have been condemning Bush for waging an "illegal" war, calling him and his administration "criminals," "Nazis," and launching numerous other personal attacks, twisting facts and downright lying since the war started, and strictly for political gain. You have aided and abetted our enemies and provided direct support for their propaganda machines.) There are good, patriotic Americans who favor the war – and good, patriotic Americans who oppose President Bush’s handling of it. (There are also millions of Americans who decry the obvious assistance those bitter condemnations in your propaganda provides to those Islamic terrorists. Al Jazeera frequently uses your words verbatim in their constant attacks on our nation.) Neither party holds a patent on patriotism. (The liberal Democrats certainly act like they hold a patent on anti American hate speech.) I know all my Republican colleagues would agree with that.

"Yet Rush Limbaugh took it upon himself to attack the courage and character of those fighting and dying for him and for all of us. (How you could twist and mischaracterize Rush’s actual words means you did not hear them yourself and are either lying about what you heard or are taking the words of some other person or organization as being correct– which they certainly are not. Perhaps you get your marching orders from ‘Media Matters.’) Rush Limbaugh got himself a deferment from serving when he was a young man. He never served in uniform. He never saw in person the extreme difficulty of maintaining peace in a foreign country engaged in civil war. Yet he thinks that his opinion on the war is worth more than those who are on the front lines. (Sounds like a description of Bill Clinton to me. See "Bill Clinton's Militarfy Career" below.)

"And what’s worse – Limbaugh’s show is broadcast on Armed Forces Radio, which means that thousands of troops overseas and veterans here at home were forced to hear this attack on their patriotism. Rush Limbaugh owes the men and women of our Armed Forces an apology. (In the light of Rush’s long standing and unquestioned support for our troops, these last statements are pure nonsense and apply more to your actions, Senator Reid. Indeed, you are the one who owes everyone an apology.)

"On Friday, many Democrats joined me in drafting a letter to the Chief Executive Officer of Clear Channel, Mark Mays that we will send out this week. (This may actually have been a criminal or at least illegal act. Of course, liberal Democrats are above the law, aren’t they? They certainly seem to think they are.) Here is what we wrote:

‘Dear Mr. Mays,

‘At the time we sign this letter, 3,801 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq, and another 27,936 have been wounded. 160,000 others awoke this morning on foreign sand, far from home, to face the danger and uncertainty of another day at war. (The same is true about just three days of the start of the invasion of Normandy in WWII.)

‘Although Americans of goodwill debate the merits of this war, (I see absolutely no evidence of goodwill on the part of any liberal Democrat in this so called ‘debate.’) we can all agree that those who serve with such great courage deserve our deepest respect and gratitude. That is why Rush Limbaugh’s recent characterization of troops who oppose the war as "phony soldiers" is such an outrage.

‘Our troops are fighting and dying to bring to others the freedoms that many take for granted. (I can hardly believe you have admitted that, Senator Reid. George Soros, moveon.org and Media Matters will really be upset at you.) It is unconscionable that Mr. Limbaugh would criticize them for exercising the fundamentally American right to free speech. Mr. Limbaugh has made outrageous remarks before, but this affront to our soldiers is beyond the pale. (Compared to your ‘outrageous’ propaganda and hate speech about Bush and Republicans, Rush’s words are mild.)

‘The military, like any community within the United States, includes members both for and against the war. Senior generals, such as General John Batiste and Paul Eaton, have come out against the war while others have publicly supported it. A December 2006 poll conducted by the Military Times found just 35 percent of service members approved of President Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq, compared to 42 percent who disapproved. From this figure alone, it is clear that Mr. Limbaugh’s insult is directed at thousands of American service members. (What a farce and the military knows it is. I’d like to see results of a poll comparing Rush’s approval rating among all of our troops compared to yours, Senator. Try about 100 to 1.)

Active and retired members of our armed forces have a unique perspective on the war and offer a valuable contribution to our national debate. In August, seven soldiers wrote an op-ed expressing their concern with the current strategy in Iraq. Tragically, since then, two of those seven soldiers have made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq. (I suppose that’s why General Petraous’ report was given such great support by lefties.)

‘Thousands of active troops and veterans were subjected to Mr. Limbaugh’s unpatriotic and indefensible comments on your broadcast. We trust you will agree that not a single one of our sons, daughters, neighbors and friends serving overseas is a "phony soldier." We call on you to publicly repudiate these comments that call into question their service and sacrifice and to ask Mr. Limbaugh to apologize for his comments.’

"Just as patriotism is the exclusive realm of neither party, taking a stand against those who spew hate and impugn the integrity of our troops is a job that belongs to all of us. I can’t help but wonder how my Republican colleagues would have reacted if the tables were turned – if a well-known Democratic radio personality had used the same insulting line of attack against troops who support the war. (Your people do so all the time and there is no well known Democrat radio personality.)

"The letter I read will be available on the Senate floor for the entire day. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle will have every chance to add their names to it, and I encourage all of us to do so. If we take the Republican side at their word that last week’s vote on another controversial statement related to the war was truly about patriotism, not politics, then I have no doubt that they will stand with us against Limbaugh’s comments with equal fervor.

"I am confident we will see Republicans join with us in overwhelming numbers. (What a farce! He knows that's untrue.) Anything less would be a double standard that has no place in the United States Senate. I ask my colleagues, Democrat and Republican alike, to join together against this irresponsible, hateful, and unpatriotic attack by calling upon Rush Limbaugh to give our troops the apology they deserve."

HoJo’s follow up commentary: My only question is how stupid, ignorant and childish can a Senator get to concoct such a letter? The results of Reid’s stupid and possibly criminal behavior triggered a response that showed without a doubt who stood where in support of our troops and just how out of touch Reid is with reality. After this completely erroneous and unjustified attack, the poise and humor with which Rush handled his actions in response certainly speaks well for the kind of a man he is. That liberals will do literally anything they can to shut down Rush Limbaugh and many others on talk radio is an accepted truth. This is because so many in talk radio are among the very few in the media who tell the truth about the liberal left and their hatred for Republicans, the military, capitalism and yes, even the America that grants them the freedom to utter their words of hatred. They particularly hate the fact that their own words are used to show their true nature and what they are after. Notice who’s on the list of signers of his letter. It's a who's who among Socialist hate mongers in our Senate.

Senators that signed are listed below.
Senator Harry Reid, Senator Richard Durbin, Assistant Majority Leader (D-NY)
Senator Charles Schumer, Vice Chairman, Democratic Conference (D-NY)
Senator Patty Murray, Secretary, Democratic Conference (D-WA)
Senator Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Senator Max Baucus (D-MT)
Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) Wants to be President?
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV)
Senator Benjamin Cardin (D-MD)
Senator Tom Carper (D-DE)
Senator Bob Casey (D-PA)
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) Wants to be President?
Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) Wants to be President?
Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Senator Tom Harkin (D-CA)
Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA)
Senator John Kerry (D-MA) Wanted to be President
Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Senator Carl Levin (D-MI)
Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ)
Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) Wants to be President?
Senator Jack Reed (D-RI)
Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO)
Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT)
Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-M)
Senator Jon Tester(D-MT)
Senator Jim Webb (D-VA)
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Comments from everywhere:
For more varied comments, click on http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1913623/posts

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I include the following few comments from bloggers:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I don't think the shook up Dem party will appeal to the masses.

Too out there. Too socialistic, too entitlement, too anti entrepreneurship. They quite obviously try to keep the poor poor and make the rich and successful pay for it.

They need to work with what they have, stop the petty crap and accomplish something. Fat chance of that actually happening.

Add up Hillary’s proposed trillion dollar tax increase (offered up by front man Charley Rangle) and you have a real recipe for a US financial disaster like Jimmy Carter’s 20%+ interest rate debacle and the recession it caused. Are Dems really so stupid they don’t realize that lower taxes equals prosperity and greater tax revenues? It happened under Kennedy, Reagan and Bush. It’s just that they really aren’t interested in an economy that creates wealth for so many people, only a system that puts as much money under their control as possible. How long do you think it will be until they take all your income (and property) and dole back to you (and illegals) what they decide you need.

But my question remains, why is there no press coverage on the auction? Nothing on network news, my local papers, etc. even if you hate Rush, why aren't more people disturbed? This shows strong news bias to the left. Don't you all want to hear all the news - good and bad? And why didn’t all those wealthy Democrat Senators offer to match the bid as Rush did? Because they think all donations should come from your tax dollars and not from their pockets, no matter how deep.

Or do libs only want to see, hear and read good things about Dems and bad about Republicans? They seem to hate everybody that speaks the truth. In fact, hasn’t unreasoning hate become their single most used method? The certainly never propose or talk about practical solutions or offer proposals for real progress.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

'Today' Omits Mention of Rush's $2.1 Million Donation

By Mark Finkelstein October 20, 2007 - 13:58 ET

Given his show's modest ratings, it's unlikely that Keith Olbermann would be in a position to make a multi-million dollar donation to charity anytime soon. But let's imagine he did. Do you think that, in a segment on a related subject, NBC might find a moment to mention Olbermann's generosity?

So do I.

But "Today" managed to get through its report this morning about Rush Limbaugh's auctioning off of the Harry Reid letter . . . without mentioning that Rush has publicly pledged to match the $2.1 million winning bid.

Typical main stream media "objective" reporting.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Comments from Republican Representative, Joe Wilson of South Carolina:

WILSON: Madam Speaker, last week, America's number-one radio personality, Rush Limbaugh, auctioned off for charity a letter shamefully signed by a group of 41 Democrat senators. The letter to Limbaugh's employer attacked Rush for comments blatantly distorted by Media Matters regarding persons who had lied about their service in the military. I am happy to report that the Senate letter of infamy auctioned for $2.1 million, an amount Rush says he will generously match. That brings the total to $4.2 million. The money will be donated to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation. This charitable organization provides financial assistance to the children of fallen Marines and law enforcement officers. I wish to commend Rush for overcoming what was clearly a political ploy to chill his First Amendment rights of free speech. Rush took an abuse of power by Democrat leadership and turned it into something positive. Between Rush Limbaugh and Senate Democrats, America knows who really supports our troops.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Comments from Rush on his program:

RUSH: Well, we have a winner. The auction is over. The final bid remained at $2,100,100. The winning bidder, the high bidder: Betty Casey. More about Betty Casey in due course. (Open Line Friday intro jingle) Betty Casey: $2,100,100. She now is the proud owner of the Smear Letter written by Dingy Harry Reid, read by him on the Senate floor, mailed to the CEO of Clear Channel Communications, my syndication partner. This, ladies and gentlemen -- for those of you watching on the Dittocam, this is -- the Zero Halliburton metal attaché case, and inside (I'm going to be very, very careful with this) is the letter. I am holding it up now so that you can see it, watching on the Dittocam. Here is the first signature page that contains Hillary Rodham Clinton. It also contains Senator Reid, the Senate leadership and so forth. The attaché case, the letter, and a very, very well-written and nice thank-you note from me will be included, as well as a picture of me displaying it publicly for the first time last week in Philadelphia. Now, folks, while I'm waiting on the information here to fill you in on Betty Casey, who is a noted philanthropist, I want to share with you just a couple thoughts here about this. Everything about this, the letter -- and, by the way, I have to tell you...Harry Reid in a speech on the Senate floor at 12 noon today, a little over an hour ago, attempted to horn in on all this and take some credit for it, claiming that he and I had buried the hatchet, or implying that that had been the case, and then kept using the pronoun "WE" in discussing how good this was, the money going to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation. So the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation, it's now official, is going to get in excess of $4.2 million because I am matching Betty Casey's bid on eBay -- $4.2 million. I asked Senator Reid to match and all the other senators who can afford to do so. I haven't heard from them on that. I asked Senator Reid to go on the program and discuss his discussion of me as "unpatriotic." He did not accept my offer to do that, and now has the audacity to climb aboard this, praising the effort, saying that "he" never knew that it would get this kind of money. It got this kind of money because it represents one of the most outrageous abuses of federal power in modern American history, and that is what makes it a collector's item.

This letter that Senator Reid wrote will forever memorialize him as a demagogue, and the same for the other 40 who signed it. Senator Reid will be remembered forever, here, as a disgrace. But let's put this in perspective. I think it's fascinating to see what happened here. Look at what happened. The Senate leader, the Senate majority leader, smeared a private citizen -- a private citizen, I, me, who has donated time and money to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation. The government tried to take away my living, by sending this letter to Mark Mays at Clear Channel and asking him to confer with me about my remarks. So that was an attempt from him to take away from me my living, and, in the process, my ability to support charities like this: the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation. This is the government, by the way, that our Founding Fathers warned us about and tried to protect us from, with a Bill of Rights. As a result (and I have tingles going up my spine here, and I have had all week long), fellow private citizens took up the cause. They bid their own hard-earned, after-tax dollars -- and many of you are sending your money in small amounts and large amounts to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation, the charity that Senator Reid indirectly attempted to damage when he smeared the charity's board member and very active donor and fundraiser. The government was used as a blunt instrument here on me, and you could almost say as a blunt instrument on people in need.

Private citizens, of their own accord -- without a government mandate, without an Algore pledge -- responded with creativity, and charity, and a sense of fun. See, in the private sector, ideas matter, individuals care, and things get done. I guess conservatives are compassionate after all. The winning bidder is -- and this is subject to the receipt of funds, of course -- a wonderful woman named Betty Casey. She is a trustee of the Eugene B. Casey Foundation. She gives significant sums of money to hospitals, hospices, colleges, and private schools. These include the Eugene B. Casey Diabetes Education Center at Suburban Hospital, the Eugene B. Casey Swim Center, and the Eugene B. Casey Academic Center, and the Casey Home Hospice in Rockville. She has also donated tens of millions from the foundation and her personal funds to the Washington Opera. Betty Casey has been a listener to this program since its inception. She's a huge fan. We would expect nothing else -- and we cannot thank her enough for her support in this, and I am honored, and proud, and happy to be matching her $2,100,100. We also want to give thanks to eBay Giving Works, for allowing us to break their website in the closing moments of the auction. We were trying to get the latest bid amount in the last ten seconds, and on three different computers, we got a "system down" message. We broke eBay! I don't know that anybody has ever broken eBay. As such, we have heard from south Florida lawyers, ladies and gentlemen, who suspect that there might be a hanging-chad scenario here. We, of course, are going to just flick that away as we would a Lake Erie midge during a New York Yankees game in the American League Divisional Series Playoffs. Auction Cause also is an outfit we want to thank, because they managed all of this on eBay. They were our consultant, prequalifying bidders and developing the auction. So thanks again to Betty Casey, who is a trustee of the Eugene B. Casey Foundation, a fan and listener of this program from the beginning. It's $2,100,100 for the Harry Reid letter and this attaché case from Zero Halliburton.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Another demonstration of where liberal Democrats stand in their battle against America:

By Colonel Harry Riley USA ret.

Senators,

Your vote against an amendment to the Immigration Bill 1348, to make English America's official language is astounding. On D-Day no less when we honor those that sacrificed in order to secure the bedrock character and principles of America. I can only surmise your vote reflects a loyalty to illegal aliens.

I don't much care where you come from, what your religion is, whether you're black, white or some other color, male or female, democrat, republican or independent, but I do care when you're a United States Senator, representing citizens of America and vote against English as the official language of the United States Your vote reflects betrayal, political surrender, violates your pledge of allegiance, dishonors historical principle, rejects patriotism, borders on traitorous action and, in my opinion, makes you unfit to serve as a United States Senator... impeachment, recall, or other appropriate action is warranted.

Worse, 4 of you voting against English as America 's official language are presidential candidates: Senator Biden, Senator Clinton, Senator Dodd, and Senator Obama. Those 4 Senators vying to lead America but won't or don't have the courage to cast a vote in favor of English as America's official language when 91% of American citizens want English officially designated as our language. This is the second time in the last several months this list of Senators have disgraced themselves as political hacks... unworthy as Senators and certainly unqualifed to serve as President of the United States.

If America is as angry as I am, you will realize a back-lash so stunning it will literally rock you out of your pants... and preferably, totally out of the United States Senate.

The entire immigration bill is a farce... your action only confirms this really isn't about America ; it's about self-serving politics... despicable at best. "Never argue with an idiot; they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." ~anonymous

"If you are a liberal, you never let lack of or even contrary facts get in the way of your opinion. How you ‘feel’ about it is all that counts."

FOR COUNTLESS EXAMPLES: Read "I’ve Always Been a Yankees Fan" by Tom Kuiper and get to know Hillary Clinton like never before with this often shocking, always hilarious collection of the former-First Lady and aspiring-President's own quotes!

From claiming to be named after a famed mountaineer (Sir Edmund Hillary actually scaled Mt. Everest years after she was born), to bragging about being a lifelong Yankees fan (although she grew up in Chicago rooting for the Cubs), Hillary shows that there's no tall tale too tall to tell.
With extensive, attributed sources, including recollections from former Clinton aide Dick Morris, this is the biggest collection of Hillary quotes ever... witty with clever illustrations, and always hilarious context. Sad, but true that a US Senator and aspiring President should be such a consummate liar or have such a terrible memory. Remember those countless, "I just can’t recall." statements to questions about her activities in a testimony. Do you really want such a person running the country?

The following senators voted against making English the official language of America :

Akaka (D-HI)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE) Wants to be President?
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Clinton (D-NY) Wants to be President?
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT) Wants to be President?
Domenici (R-NM) Coward, protecting his Senate seat...
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI) Not unusual for him
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-CA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA) Wanted to be President
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT) Disappointment here.....
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL) Wants to be President?
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV) Senate Majority Leader
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-M)

"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale, and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled or hanged."

~ President Abraham Lincoln

"Amen!"

Of course, Lincoln was one of those hated Republicans so his words now carry little weight with Congress or the main stream media.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

BILL Clinton's MILITARY CAREER - Dan Rather please note!

Bill Clinton registers for the draft on September 08, 1964, accepting all contractual conditions of registering for the draft. Selective Service Number is 3 26 46 228.

Bill Clinton classified 2-S on November 17, 1964.

Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on March 20, 1968.

Bill Clinton ordered to report for induction on July 28, 1969.

Bill Clinton refuses to report and is not inducted into the military.

Bill Clinton reclassified 1-D after enlisting in the United States Army Reserves on August 07, 1969, under authority of COL. E. Holmes.

Clinton signs enlistment papers and takes oath of enlistment. Bill Clinton fails to report to his duty station at the University of Arkansas ROTC, September 1969.

Bill Clinton reclassified 1- A on October 30, 1969, as enlistment with Army Reserves is revoked by Colonel E. Holmes and Clinton now AWOL and subject to arrest under Public Law 90-40 (2)(a) registrant who has failed to report...remains liable for induction.

Bill Clinton's birth date lottery number is 311, drawn December 1, 1969, but anyone who has already been ordered to report for induction is INELIGIBLE!

Bill Clinton runs for Congress (1974), while a fugitive from justice under Public Law 90-40.

Bill Clinton runs for Arkansas Attorney General (1976), while a fugitive from justice.

Bill Clinton receives pardon on January 21, 1977, from President Carter.

Bill Clinton becomes the FIRST PARDONED FEDERAL FELON ever to serve as President of the United States.

All these facts come from Freedom of Information requests, public laws, and various books that have been published, and have not been refuted by Clinton.

After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors, Clinton promised that those responsiblewould be hunted down and punished.

Maybe if Clinton had kept those promises, an estimated 3,000 people in New York and Washington, DC. who are now dead would be alive today.

THINK ABOUT IT! It is a strange turn of events. Hillary gets $8 Million for her forthcoming memoir. Bill gets about $12 Million for his memoir yet to be written. This from two people who spent 8 years being unable to recall anything about past events while under oath.

Sincerely, Cdr. Hamilton McWhorter USN (ret)

Dan Rather please note that at least George Bush reported for duty.

I wonder if any liberals read this far?