First, I want to make a brief observation regarding President Obama’s utter contempt for the hard earned tax money taken from hard working Americans.

He (The Communistander-in-Chief) has so far, as President, taken something like 38 fund raising trips here to New York. This is to raise money for HIS PERSONAL CAMPAIGN, yet is he, or is his campaign warchest, financing these trips?

“Of course not!” You exclaim, “Don’t be silly!”

We, the taxpaying American people, are paying for these trips, and we’re not simply financing a Greyhound bus ticket and a couple of nights at Motel 6, maybe a small per diem for lunch.

Oh, no.

We’re paying for a lot of aviation fuel, accommodations for His Majesty’s inevitable large entourage at the Waldorf Astoria, where they do a heck of a lot more than just leave the light on for ya’, travel, accommodations and deployment of O’s Secret Service detail and Lord only knows what other federally (taxpayer) funded expenses. Oh, yeah, and then there’s the cost to New Yorkers for all the police overtime and related costs.

All that so the president, who vowed “change” when he ran for office (we’ve gotten “change” alright), can panhandle here for further spare change.

Alright, having said that, on to the post at hand, which is courtesy of a great column by David L. Goetsch at Patriot Update.

One of the principal strategies of the left for the past 40 years has been the dumbing down of America’s public schools. Dumbing down public education at all levels is how the left is transforming Americans into a flock of naïve, ill-informed, easily-led sheep. A major component of the dumbing down process is historical revisionism. Historical revisionism is the concept liberals use to revise America’s past to suit their agenda in the present.

One of the most prolific practitioners of historical revisionism is President Obama. When it suits his purposes to do so, the president will simply make up history that never happened or distort what did happen until it appears to support his agenda. President Obama’s most infamous act of historical revisionism came when he claimed that not only is American not a Christian nation, it is one of the world’s largest Muslim nations. To make such an absurd statement, Barack Obama had to ignore more than 200 years of historical evidence, evidence that is readily available and clearly contradicts him.

Historical revisionists such as President Obama employ one or more of five methods for distorting America’s history to suit their purposes: 1) deconstructionism, 2) post-structuralism, 3) modernism, 4) minimalism, and 5) academic cronyism. Thinking people who respect and admire the truth no matter where it leads need to understand these five methods, recognize when they are being employed, and challenge the liberals who use them to distort the truth. The best way to challenge historical revisionists is to call the world’s attention to their use of these five wrong-headed, deceitful, and intellectually lazy methods.

Read the rest here.

This, as they say, hits the proverbial nail right on the head.

Chuck here, “the boss man” put me back to work. No sweat, friends, I really enjoy this.

So, honesty and liberals.

Apples and oranges. Rocks and books. Pterodactyls and aardvarks. Paper clips and fish.

In today’s Best Of The Web Today, James Taranto writes about some emails industrious hackers wrenched from the hallowed files of your garden variety liberal academics whom, no doubt, would be the first to become outraged/ indignant/ majorly offended (take your pick) if accused of even considering anything like that which Mr. Taranto describes in Settled Science?

“Officials at the University of East Anglia confirmed in a statement on Friday that files had been stolen from a university server and that the police had been brought in to investigate the breach,” the New York Times reports. “They added, however, that they could not confirm that all the material circulating on the Internet was authentic.” But some scientists have confirmed that their emails were quoted accurately.

The files–which can be downloaded here–surely have not been fully plumbed. The ZIP archive weighs in at just under 62 megabytes, or more than 157 MB when uncompressed. But bits that have already been analyzed, as the Washington Post reports, “reveal an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies”:

In one e-mail, the center’s director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University’s Michael E.
Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” Jones writes. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow–even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal,” Mann writes. . . .

Mann, who directs Penn State’s Earth System Science Center, said the e-mails reflected the sort of “vigorous debate” researchers engage in before reaching scientific conclusions. “We shouldn’t expect the sort of refined statements that scientists make when they’re speaking in public,” he said.

This is downright Orwellian. What the Post describes is not a vigorous debate but an attempt to suppress debate–to politicize the process of scientific inquiry so that it yields a predetermined result. This does not, in itself, prove the global warmists wrong. But it raises a glaring question: If they have the facts on their side, why do they need to resort to tactics of suppression and intimidation?

It is hard to see how this is anything less than a definitive refutation of the popular press’s contention that global warmism is settled science–a contention that both the Times and the Post repeat in their articles on the revelations: “The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument,” the Times claims. The Post leads its story by observing that “few U.S. politicians bother to question whether humans are changing the world’s climate,” and that “nearly three years ago the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded the evidence was unequivocal.” (As blogger Tom Maguire notes, this actually overstates even the IPCC’s conclusions.)

The press’s view on global warming rests on an appeal to authority: the consensus among scientists that it is real, dangerous and man-caused. But the authority of scientists rests on the integrity of the scientific process, and a “consensus” based on the suppression of alternative hypotheses is, quite simply, a fraudulent one.

Yes, honesty and liberals, rifles and feather dusters, automobiles and coral reefs, steel and rhubarb…

Wolf here.

I’ve seen some pretty stupid and self destructive actions performed in my day by people who should at least have the sense of responsibility to think things through, weighing the pros and cons, before they act, of the decisions they make and the execution of what they’ve decided upon.

Unfortunately, and this goes not only for B. Hussein Obama but for the rest of that pack of dishonest scoundrels who call themselves Democrats these days.

They play politics, thinking only of their partisan ambitions without a thought to the good of America and the people who elected them to lead the nation.

They twist the truth and the accomplishments of potential victims of their political agendas to meet the requirements of those agendas.

Obama’s agenda, whatever it may be, certainly bides no good for this country, its economic future, its national security, our rights and freedoms, the values we hold dear, those that make us unique among nations, our morality, and his actions to date bear this up.

Now, to appease his “get Bush, Cheney and all their issue” base, Obama is attacking the CIA for operating, they were assured at the time, within the law.

Of course, we’re talking a renegade government run by Obama, Pelosi and Reid (Frankencense and Murtha?), and all the lies that come with it.

President Obama on Monday paid his first formal visit to CIA headquarters, in order, as he put it, to “underscore the importance” of the agency and let its staff “know that you’ve got my full support.” Assuming he means it, the President should immediately declassify all memos concerning what intelligence was gleaned, and what plots foiled, by the interrogations of high-level al Qaeda detainees in the wake of September 11.

This suggestion was first made by former Vice President Dick Cheney, who said he found it “a little bit disturbing” that the Obama Administration had decided to release four Justice Department memos detailing the CIA’s interrogation practices while not giving the full picture of what the interrogations yielded in actionable intelligence. Yes, it really is disturbing, especially given the bogus media narrative that has now developed around those memos.

bogus media narrative is the only kind of media narrative these days, and for some reason “bogus” and “Obama” seem to coexist easily in the same piece of thought.

This shows how bold, thanks entirely to the relative lack of awareness among the American people (read that as not paying attention to the little dictatorship style government we have developed since the third week of January), the liberals who control the Democratic party have become.

I’ll tell you something, people. Seth has said this to me before, and I have come to agree with him: If we allow these politicians to continue to go this far without voting the lot of them out of office, we, as a country, deserve every bit of shit they will eventually bury us in. It’s every voter’s sacred responsibility to study hard on what the government is doing, what our politicians are up to.

In other words, CIA interrogators wanted to use these techniques in 2002 to break a terrorist they believed had information that could potentially save American lives. Rest assured that if the CIA hadn’t taken these steps and the U.S. had been hit again, the same people denouncing these memos now would have been demanding another 9/11 Commission to deplore their inaction.

Gotta love them fuckin’ traitors Democrats. So crooked and sleazy honest and fair.

The memos give considerable indication both of the sheer quantity, as well as some of the specifics, of the intelligence gathered through the interrogations. “You have informed us,” wrote Mr. Bradbury in the May 30, 2005 memo, “that the interrogation of KSM — once enhanced techniques were employed — led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the ‘Second Wave,’ ‘to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into’ a building in Los Angeles. You have informed us that information obtained from KSM also led to the capture of . . . Hambali, and the discovery of the Guraba Cell . . . tasked with the execution of the ‘Second Wave.’”

All in all, Mr. Bybee added, “the intelligence derived from CIA detainees has resulted in more than 6,000 intelligence reports and, in 2004, accounted for approximately half of CTC’s [the CIA's Counterterrorist Center] reporting on al Qaeda.”

In a saner world (or at least one that accurately reported on original documents), all of this would be a point of pride for the CIA. It would serve as evidence of the Bush Administration’s scrupulousness regarding the life and health of the detainees, and demonstrate how wrong are the claims that harsh interrogations yielded no useful intelligence.

The above emphasis is mine.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch,

The Obama administration’s decision to release a previously classified 2004 CIA interrogation report and appoint a special prosecutor to look into possible misdeeds by personnel involved in questioning high-value terrorists is a huge mistake.

It’s almost as if - in addition to the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and on terror - the Obama administration has now declared war on the CIA, which is one of our most important assets in gathering intelligence for winning these conflicts.

First, these choices will likely have a chilling effect on the morale at the agency. Earlier this year Barack Obama himself vowed it was time to look forward, not back. (Of course, that is until it’s time to look back.)

In addition to being another Obama policy flip-flop, these decisions will likely leave officers in the field wondering whether they should be more concerned about getting terrorists or getting lawyers.

I can tell you first hand here that I know exactly where Mr. Brookes is coming from. Thank God I’m retired!

It’s also a major distraction to the CIA’s embattled director Leon Panetta, who seems to be drowning in a sea of inquiries from his White House and the Democratic Congress. Doesn’t he have more important things to look after, like Iran and North Korea?

(Some believe Panetta won’t be around much longer, giving the already-rattled CIA its sixth leader since 9/11.)

How about a dose of reality, here, Mr. O?

It isn’t by chance that we haven’t been attacked in nearly eight years. Former Vice President Dick Cheney said that we owe the CIA a debt of gratitude for keeping us safe.

It’s a sentiment the Obama administration should really consider before it goes any further.

Wolf out.

…the lefty (which is most of the) media is, despite a widespread dose of c-c-cold-d-d-d reality, still at it.

Temperatures have plummeted to record or near-record lows in 32 states this winter. On March 2, a global warming protest in Washington, D.C. was buried by nearly a foot of snow. And a new study warns that the Earth could be in for a 30-year cooling trend. Reality is not cooperating with the network news’ global warming theme, yet reporters are unwilling to even discuss the possibility that the Earth is cooling.

Global warming alarmists repeatedly link weather phenomena like tornadoes, hurricanes, ice melt, droughts and wildfires with global warming and the media embrace the stories. Yet, when cities or regions are buried in snow like the city of Chenzhou, China was in February 2008 there wasn’t a word about climate change in the cooling direction.

“It is being called China’s Hurricane Katrina,” NBC anchor Brian Williams said on Feb. 4, 2008. “… the month of blizzards that have brought it [China] to a virtual standstill. Millions have been stranded. Hundreds of thousands of people are homeless.” Williams didn’t chalk up the devastation to global cooling, of course. That doesn’t fit the media’s warming narrative.

Read the rest of the article here.

James Hansen, a leading global warming alarmist, promoted a “civil disobedience” protest at a Washington, D.C. coal power plant March 2. The protestors claim that coal – and its carbon emissions are a cause of global warming. Hansen and his friends were greeted with 8 inches of snow, “strong” winds and below freezing temperatures.

Heh, heh, heh…

…and the rest of their kind, like the MSM and your general purpose liberal, as we know are still actively campaigning against the big Dubya, despite the fact that he’s not running for anything.

This is pretty much a mainstay of the liberal mindset. That is, they substitute platitudinal input for proactive tangible action — they have to know that their efforts to do whatever it is they want to do to George W. Bush is undoable, that they are merely making foolish noise in the process of burning up the contributions gleaned from their faithful followers, and more often than not making preadolescent style spectacles of themselves at the same time. I entertain no doubts as to the resentment the Three Stooges would feel had they been able to see these folks attempting to upstage them in the lunacy department.

When the Berkeley kerfuffle commenced (the peoples’ and city government’s war on the Marines recruiters there), I received a bunch of emails from Move America Forward on the issue and on their response to it, and have of course read of it in numerous other places. The backlash from around the country was sufficiently intense as to cause a couple of the Kommie San Francisco suburb’s city legislators to back pedal somewhat.

They say they support the troops but oppose Bush policies. In the same breath that they tell us they have nothing against the Marines, they tell us that the same Marines are murderers and torturers who mercenary themselves to Big Oil.

The U.S. Marines, meanwhile, are but one of several elements that comprise a community whose mission is to insure that those dizzy people in Berkeley remain free to speak out against the government and even…even against the Marines!

Please pardon me, but when the issue hit the news, and when I received the outraged emails from MAF, I hardly raised an eyebrow. I mean, this is Berkeley we’re talking about. These are the same varmints who, before the fires had even been put out on 9/11, were declaring that our country had deserved the terrorist attack. That we’d earned it. That it was our fault. How could anybody actually be shocked at anything of a treasonous nature that comes out of that lefty hell-hole?

If I were suddenly appointed king of America, I would certainly deny any voter in Berkeley, the city government included, even a dime of federal funds for anything, anything at all — this would be right before I had a large, unbroken “keep ‘em in” wall built around that leftist hell hole and then had it declared a nuclear waste dump. From then on, all people convicted of treason would be sentenced to life in Berkeley.

Radioactive Cows? In Berkeley? Mooooo!

However, I didn’t come here to talk about Berkeley. Screw Berkeley. Knock knock knockin’ on treason’s door…

A projected nine inches of snow is in the process of being dumped on Chicago, even as we speak (they’re so lucky in the Burbs, where the snow will stick, covering trees, rooftops and everything else, making for a beautiful morning after), so I’ve spent the day at home, catching up on professional stuff.

There’s a deli here called Ashkenaz that delivers a pleasing variety of Jewish fare, though I have to say that their knishes wouldn’t sell in New York — they lack every single attribute of a genuine knish, from seasoning to filling. But then, Chicago isn’t called the Second City for nothing. However, they do produce lox in all its glory, belly lox, Nova (Nova Scotia lox), etc, and deliver by the pound. They’re rather costly in this endeavor, but as far as I’m concerned, the quality of the product inspires the overlooking of their $40.00+ per pound price for cut lox. To me, salmon rules in its every form from smoked to poached in the seafood category, surpassed only by those big, meaty langostas one finds in the Caribbean.

So I’m spending this particular segment of my evening munching, in leisurely fashion, on lox and cream cheese sandwiches with ultra-thin sliced red onion and, having blown the dust off my old Enya albums (just kidding, I actually downloaded them from Yahoo! Music Jukebox), am listening to Watermark and Shepherd Moons. Celtic music with New Age overtones, good stuff.

However, I actually came here to make reference to yet another portside idiocy, one which, excluding all the above, will not take up all that much of your time. That is, the Waterboarding thing.

The left has villified it on a mega-scale, even the RINO, John McCain, has opposed it, and the tone of the arguments against it has been one that suggests it to be one of many horrible, unconscionable tortures our government employs to wrench, brutally and unmercifully, for days on end, even the most trivial, useless information from captured terrorists. It is business as usual for the fascistic, nazi Bush regime, etc, etc…

And the liberal media plays it up conjure nightmarish thoughts of the torture chambers at Prinz Albrechtstrasse or 2 Dzerzhinski Square.

Meanwhile, only three prisoners, major terrorists all, have been subjected to the actually non-harmful interrogation technique, and the longest duration involved was that of Sheikh Khalid Mohammed, a terrible minute and a half! All three subjects revealed information that saved a lot of innocent lives while leading to the neutralization of a large number of terrorists and their plans for further butchery of Americans and others.

Our intelligence pros aren’t electrocuting the functionality out of their testicles, beating them to a bloody pulp or decimating their minds with lysergic acid and amatol, they’re merely creating non-damaging discomfort for what amounts to mere seconds (while SKM, an abnormally tough customer, held out for some 90 seconds, the average is 1/3 of that time).

Yet our political left, who have just as much access to information as the rest of us, have chosen to ignore the facts and use waterboarding as an anti-Bush soap box, transforming the truth into exaggerations and bald faced lies in order to promote their false doctrines — in truth, given their desperation to strip us of our Constitutional system of government and quagmire us in socialism, I can’t say as I blame them: if you want to screw an entire electorate, you have to lie to them in a convincing manner. You have to promote your intended back-door entry as a pleasurable experience, one the entire family will enjoy, knowing that once they’ve let you in, the merciless shishkabobbing, weeping and gnashing of teeth will be beyond their control.

It doesn’t matter whether the sodomist is John McCain, Barak Hussein Obama or Hillary Klinton, the results will be the same.

Speaking for myself, when it comes to interrogating terrorists, I’d just as soon we refer to the Jack Bauer manual. Our misplaced sympathy for “ill-treated” terrorists is well defined in the old song about the gentle woman (for goodness sake) who saved the snake.

We’ve watched our politicians, justices and media intentionally misinterpret the Geneva Convention to “humanize” and redefine the status of the inmates at GITMO, and heard “certain parties” strongly suggest that we bring these terrorists into the American legal system for prosecution.

What it all boils down to, I think, is that these misguided souls are so secure in their illusion that certain bizarre things could never happen to them that they are confident that they’ll be safe, even if they eliminate the very safeguards that keep them safe.

What a bunch of maroons!

I’ve been sort of avoiding posting on politics for the last few days, a short break as it were, but there seems to be an issue in the wood work that I feel a need to remark upon.

It’s this whole Obama-Clinton thing wherein the media and, to some extent, the concerned candidates themselves have brought up the color of the former and the gender of the latter in the course of their Presidential campaigns.

What causes me to take notice here is that the left, which includes the mainstream media (MSM), places so much emphasis on the minority status of one and the female status of the other.

The first black President, the first female President.

One result of this is the evident need of Hillary Clinton to shout from the rooftops of hers and her husband’s infinite and historical quest for equal rights and opportunities for blacks. Despite, of course, the former POTUS’ completely empty record in that regard.

Point being, we’re seeing the history of our political left repeat itself: For decades, they have demanded equality, for everybody else, to American born white males. I completely agree that all Americans should enjoy total equality in the marketplace, in the neighborhood and everywhere in between.

That said, those we select to represent us in government should be elected purely on the merits of their policies and their patriotism, their ideals and their courage, not because they are a certain color, a certain religion or a certain gender (I know that there are generally only two genders from which to choose, but I once lived in San Francisco and in that municipality, there may well be a third sex — I mean, I would not even consider personally investigating this from a field perspective, so I’ll leave it in the realm of uninvestigated conjecture).

But the liberals and their Democrat political domestic staff insist, as they always have, in making sure to hammer home the fact that Obama is black and that Hillary is a woman.

This is divisiveness at its highest order. Everyone knows that Hillary Clinton is a woman and that Barak Obama is black. Just look at a photograph of either. The media has a lot of influence upon questions asked and the issues involved — they do, after all, have the job of informing the public as to the above. So when they stress the genders and colors of the two Presidential candidates, what are they doing? They are disrespecting both, creating artificial wedges between them. Do we want a female or a black chief exec? For that matter, what about a Mormon?

Keeping bigotry alive is a primary objective of the left, its believers, its politicians, its media — the MSM. Without the ability to play the “race card”, liberal activists and Democrat politicians alike would lose a valuable propaganda tool — they could no longer blame a white, conservative Judeo-Christian society for “oppression” against all those who don’t belong to “the club”. They could no longer brand patriotic, conservative blacks “Oreos” or “Uncle Toms” (among others, Justice Clarence Thomas comes to mind) for succeeding on their own two feet rather than pursuing the victim agenda, and pit them against lesser achievers of the same minority status’.

They would be forced to confront the equality status for which they have purportedly fought (purportedly is the key word here) as the reality it has become, and concentrate on the true issues our politicians need to address in order to competently govern our country.

Well, at least they would have a few less distractions with which to razzle-dazzle the American people while, “behind the scenes”, they eased us into the adoption of socialism as a new platform for the distribution (allocation?) of our tax payments.

In summary, we need to ignore the ethnic prejudices projected by the MSM, and start looking at the candidates themselves. The media folks have pretty much demonstrated that they are too biased, racially and otherwise, to be acknowledged as an accurate source of information or political guidance…

…so short-changed by the mainstream media in almost every area that can be equated with politics, but none so much as our involvement in Iraq.

They deny that we’re fighting an enemy there, peddling a story of pure civil war in which U.S. servicemen are dropping like flies, the Iraqis want us out of there, Iraqi civilian deaths at the hands of terrorists are 100% our fault, etc, etc.

They ignore every positive event that occurs over there.

They make an instant buffet of the slightest allegation that any U.S. troops have committed a wrongdoing, slandering the troops in the most extreme ways before any investigation has even begun.

Since the majority of Americans count on the MSM to deliver them accurate and complete news, the propaganda they actually receive gives them leftward slanted and highly inaccurate reports of the state of affairs in Iraq, and this is the information upon which they rely when it comes time to vote.

The latest example?

Water boarding, keeping interrogation subjects in uncomfortable positions, other techniques that do no physical damage to said subjects, the “plight” of captured terrorists at GITMO, which the left has compared with gulags, concentration camps and the killing fields of the Pol Pot regime, and the embarrassment to which still other jihadi murderers were subjected at Abu Graibh commanded a lengthy and aggressive crusade by the mainstream media, yet graphic pictures of fiendish tortures from a captured al-Qaeda interrogation manual and of the tools of the trade don’t even warrant honorable mention from the MSM. Whose side are they on, again?

Since the left would have the American people believe that there is no al-Qaeda activity in Iraq (that would indicate that we actually have an enemy to fight in Iraq), they ignore other stories that place al-Qaeda in the country.

The mainstream media is doing an outstanding job as a propaganda tool for the left. They are also a discerning lot — the only rank and file soldiers and Marines we ever hear from on that quarter seem to be the scarce few they can find who are against the war. Otherwise, most so-called liberal intellectuals will tell you that the folks who are over there fighting have been duped by Bush & Cheney and don’t know what they’re talking about when they support their mission in Iraq. They ignore the large numbers of volunteers who stick around for a second tour, they ignore our troops’ contributions to the betterment of education, lifestyles and infrastructure in Iraq, and the progress they’ve made in training Iraqi police and military personnel to eventually take over all law enforcement and national security duties. They ignore the courage and spirit of the Iraqi people who turned out twelve million strong to vote in a democratic government. They ignore the success of the post Saddam stock market, the copious publications of the burgeoning free press…

…yet when an American soldier is killed, they crow gleefully and shout about it from the rooftops, adding the casualty to their one-sided scorecard. If a U.S. military unit waxes thirty five terrorists, it is: 35 Dead in U.S. Firefight rather than Marines Kill 35 Terrorists.

Over at And Rightly So, Civil Truth has posted a lengthy but well worth the read compilation of beliefs on the war and U.S. politics by a man who not only survived the destruction of 9/11, but a full tour as a Marine in Iraq as well.

Although I haven’t been what one would term “pro-draft”, the writer makes some convincing points in favor of a draft that have me reevaluating my point of view on that score, and other than his choices for President in 2008, I largely agree with most of what he has to say.

President Bush’s veto of the pork-ridden, cut & run, head for the tall timber, tails between our legs, whimpering surrender redeployment deadlined Congressional rendering evidently backed the Democrats far enough into a corner that they were forced to submit a much more sane and acceptable bill.

Of course, this is only a brief respite from the sabotage tactics crowd over on the port side and their mainstream media hacks, those tenaciously anti-American scumbags progressive souls, to borrow a line from a governor I once successfully voted for, “will be bock!”

I can see no reason why liberals should even want to live in America, except to destroy this great country. There is no other conceivable purpose they could have for remaining here.

They should go to countries whose governments are structured more to their liking and leave this one alone.

Sure, they claim to respect our form of government, yet prove time and time again that they do no such thing – if they did, they would permit it to work as it’s supposed to.

For example, if a given decision is solely the responsibility of Congress and the President to reach agreement on, like the decision or not, that is the final word. Next time elect senators, representatives and/or a President who are more in tune with your own political agendas. If you fail to do this, well, guess what? This means that the majority of the citizens with whom you share this democracy disagree with your choice. Sorry, try again next election.

What do liberals do when they don’t get their way? They weasel around Congress and take their case where it just flat out, plainly does not belong: To the courts. To leftist judges like those treasonous commie toilet cakes on the bench at the 9th Circus in San Francisco, or, if that doesn’t work, to the Supreme Court.

The courts have no mandate to legislate, yet these self important, sleazy southpaw judges are permitted to get away with it both blatantly and regularly.

One such issue is the global warming farce. You know, the one that caused recent snow in Florida and seems to be adding density to Algore’s “melting” Arctic ice mass (It’s pretty easy to B.S. a few hundred million people when you know they’re not very likely to climb into a boat and go up there to check for themselves).

The Supreme Court this week will begin hearing perhaps the most significant environmental case ever to reach its marbled halls — a dispute that could shape the future of U.S. policy on global warming.

This is not SCOTUS’ mandate. It is not their job. It is not a Constitutional issue. It is purely a Congressional issue.

The Court’s rightful response here, simply put, should be “Ees na’ my yob, man!”

In 1999, when environmental groups originally petitioned the EPA, they argued that the Clean Air Act required EPA to regulate “any air pollutant” that could “reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”

EPA denied the petition in 2003, saying even if the agency had the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, it would be inappropriate because there’s no conclusive proof the gas hurts to the environment.
The agency cited a 2001 study by the National Research Council that concluded, “A causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established”

Some climate scientists say that view contradicts the best evidence now available.
“The EPA position is untenable,” said Andrew Dessler, an associate professor of climate science at Texas A&M University. “At the present time it is virtually certain that human emissions are warming the planet. The real question is how much warming we can attribute to emissions, and it’s likely that most of the recent warming is due to human activity.”

There they go again! ….it is virtually certain that human emissions are warming the planet.

Yoda: Virtually certain, they are!

….the best evidence now available.

And what the {pick an expletive} does that mean? They couldn’t convict OJ with “the best evidence available”!

Excuse me, Andrew, but last time I looked, no one had proven anything of the kind! The only science that supports your theories is political science. Get any new research grants lately?

If SCOTUS does its job, it will simply opt not to rule on the issue and cite it as a matter for Congress, but after some of their more recent offerings of note, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

And here we have a sterling, totally blatant example of liberal hypocrisy in its finest hour, courtesy of none other than John Edwards, our former Vice Presidential candidate.

In a very well written post, Thespis at Thespis Journal talks about another lefty member of Congress, Ohio’s “The Dishonorable” Sherrod Brown, and his blatant self exposure as a bald-faced liar.

I mean it when I say that Democrats have a recent years’ record of voting irresponsibly, because a) they don’t take the trouble to learn exactly who and what they’re voting for, b) they are profoundly gullible, or c) they prefer to be represented in Congress or have in the White House adulterers, cheats, liars, traitors, whores and pimps.

Hell, if you contributed enough to Bill Clinton’s campaign, you were permitted to punch notches in the Lincoln Bedroom. On the streets a structure that affords that sort of arrangement is called a “trick pad”.