February 8-9, 2007
Feb 08 03:42 Rally Round Our Patriots Feb 08 10:50 Stupid Is As Stupid Does Feb 08 17:46 Pelosi, Planes and Murtha Feb 08 22:38 Why Hasn't William Arkin Been Fired? Feb 09 03:51 Rally Round Our Patriots, Part II Feb 09 04:50 Day Announces For MN-1; Walz Goes On Endangered List Feb 09 15:28 Murtha Plans Gitmo Shutdown Feb 09 21:49 Global Warming: The Left's Religion
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years: 2006
Rally Round Our Patriots
A good friend of mine just emailed me about an upcoming event in our nation's capitol on March 17. Suffice it to say that I think this is the type of event that we should get behind to the utmost. Here's the important details of this event:
Leftist activists who march to the Pentagon next month will discover that their path won't be as clear as it has been in the past.It seems to me that we can support our troops and their mission by promoting this event. Let's let every veteran, whether they live in Washington, DC or in California, know that we've got their back. It's also a perfect opportunity to let the retirees from the Counterculture movement know that we won't be silent, that we will stand with true patriots who've risked their lives fighting for everyone's right to free speech.
The group, led by Cindy Sheehan, Jane Fonda, Ed Asner and their ilk, plan to gather March 17 at the Vietnam Memorial Wall to begin a march to protest America's involvement in the Iraq war. The date marks the fourth anniversary of the war's beginning.
This time, however, protesters will see objectors if they spit on Iraqi veterans again, or throw paint on a war memorial. This time, they will encounter a buzz saw of Vietnam veterans and supporters who will gather to protect the Wall, and show their support for U.S. troops. The counter-protesters are calling themselves the Gathering of Eagles.
", An eagle knows when a storm is approaching long before it breaks. The eagle will fly to some high spot and wait for the winds to come. When the storm hits, it sets its wings so that the wind will pick it up and lift it above the storm. While the storm rages below, the eagle is soaring above it."
An unknown author wrote that description, but it describes how the veterans see their mission. They are angry that the Wall is being used as a jumping off point for a political protest and they are gathering to protect it from another storm of anti-war activists.
"The anti-war/anti-America group cannot be allowed to use the Vietnam Memorial Wall as a back-drop to their anti-America venom and stain the hallowed ground that virtually cries out with blood at the thought of this proposed desecration ... it must not happen," said veteran Bud Gross. ",All Americans are invited to support our effort, which is intended as a defender of hallowed ground and intended as a non-violent competition between those that would sell out America and those of us who support freedom and keeping the fight with the enemy on distant shores."
While we heard disgusting stories about the rally that Jihad Jane, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, et al, attended, we must set a better example so that people can see that, while we vehemently disagree with the Counterculture's protesting the war, we won't stoop to the level of hostility that they showed this serviceman.
The best way to discredit and shame the Counterculture's last remnants is to show America the right way to protest. The difference is that, in this case, we'll be protesting the protesters while protecting the Vietnam Wall memorial. After all, we can't have these moonbats spraypainting graffiti on the Vietnam Memorial like they spraypainted the steps to the Capitol.
This should give you an idea of who the anti-war protesters are:
The leftist Web site MarchonPentagon.org describes the anti-war demonstrators this way: "The March on the Pentagon has already attracted more than 1,500 endorsers, including prominent individuals and national and grassroots organizations. Students on college campuses and in high schools will be attending in large numbers. There will be a large turnout from the Muslim and Arab American community, which is organizing throughout the country."Talk about a who's who of the lunatic fringe of the Democratic Party. I thought that Maxine Waters was as far left a woman as has ever been elected to Congress. Until I learned about Cynthia McKinney. What's scary is that McKinney is a moderate compared with Ramsey Clark, Jane Fonda and Medea Benjamin.
The movement is well-financed. Its sponsor list is lengthy and contains highly recognizable names, as well as those of Fonda and Sheehan: Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark (who offered his services to defend Saddam Hussein)
- Ultra-liberal Congresswoman Maxine Waters
- Former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney
- Ron Kovic, Vietnam veteran and author of "Born on the 4th of July"
- Mahdi Bray, executive director, Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation
- Waleed Bader, vice chair of the National Council of Arab Americans and former president of Arab Muslim American Federation
- Medea Benjamin, co-founder, CODEPINK and Global Exchange
- Free Palestine Alliance
- Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation
- Islamic Political Party of America
- FMLN (Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front)
- Islamic-National Congress
- Gay Liberation Network
- Muslim Student Association
- Jibril Hough, chairman, Islamic Political Party of America
Since this is a protest against the Iraq War, it shouldn't be surprising that Mahdi Bray will be attending. Bray was quite outspoken during the Flying Imam Fiasco. Here's a little history lesson on Bray:
In American Jihad, Emerson notes that when Abdurahman Alamoudi of the American Muslim Council, who is now serving a 23-year prison sentence for a terrorism financing conviction, encouraged the Muslim crowd at an October 2000 rally cosponsored by MPAC to declare their support of the jihad terror groups Hamas and Hezbollah, "MPAC's Political Adviser, Mahdi Bray, stood directly behind Alamoudi and was seen jubilantly exclaiming his support for these two deadly terrorist organizations." This was just three weeks after Bray "coordinated and led a rally where approximately 2,000 people congregated in front of the Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C." Emerson reports that "at one point during the rally, Mahdi Bray played the tambourine as one of the speakers sang, while the crowd repeated: 'Al-Aqsa [Mosque] is calling us, let's all go into jihad, and throw stones at the face of the Jews [sic].'"Here's a little background on Ms. Benjamin's CODE PINK:
This picture was taken outside Walter Reed Medical Center. CODE PINK also
Jack Murtha an award:
The anti-war group "Code Pink: Women for Peace" is thanking Pennsylvania Democratic Congressman John Murtha on its website for his "courageous stand on Iraq." The group, which sparked controversy last summer with anti-war protests at a military hospital in the nation's capital, recently presented Murtha its "pink badge of courage" for his anti-war activism.Suffice it to say that all American patriots, whether they're military veterans or people who believe in their mission, have sufficient reason to show up at the Wall. They have the motivation of doing what's right in the eyes of heroes.
Posted Thursday, February 8, 2007 8:13 PM
Comment 1 by Amy Proctor at 09-Feb-07 07:45 PM
Gary, for the past 2 years I've been going to these sorts of events to counter protest. A couple friends and I went up against Cindy Sheehan in Sept. 05 and we'd counter protest the peacekniks every Wed. for 2 years.
We just moved to another Army post and if we were still on the east coast you'd better believe I'd be there.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 09-Feb-07 07:52 PM
For those who haven't made Amy's blog part of your daily reading, you're missing out on some great reading.
And Amy, I know that you'd be there if it were possible. You're a great patriot.
Stupid Is As Stupid Does
Ted Turner called global warming " single greatest challenge that humanity has ever faced." Not wanting to be out-hyperbolized, Al Gore said " "Never before has all of civilization been threatened." Gore said that the good news is that we have the power to fix the problem. Here's more of Turner's blather:
"What we need is a moratorium on all new coal plants, on all new carbon-producing energy power technologies, and work on replacing them with renewable alternatives," the billionaire founder of CNN said Wednesday.I didn't know that Turner had returned to college and gotten his doctorate in meteorology. Is it that he just decided that he's just as right as the scientists involved in the IPCC's report? (Based on the flimsiness of their report, he might be as qualified.) This nutjob might be a wealthy man but not a terribly bright man in terms of common sense. The truth that no one wants to talk about is that there's enough oil reserves to fill our needs for a century. That's with existing technology.
Turner also called for urgent action to address global climate change, which he referred to as the "single greatest challenge that humanity has ever faced. The biggest danger is we won't do enough soon enough," he said.
I also find it more than a little interesting that Turner doesn't think that the Islamofascist threat isn't the "single greatest challenge that humanity has ever faced." I guess he thinks that they can be appeased or avoided.
Here's what Al Gore said:
Gore narrated an hourlong slide presentation with graphic evidence of global warming: Antarctic ice shelves cracking and collapsing into the sea, before-and-after shots of glaciers reduced to lakes and small patches of ice, and forecasts of heavily populated land masses such as Florida shrinking drastically if glacial meltdown reaches a worst-case scenario and floods the seas.I agree that political will is in short supply. Unfortunately, common sense and proportionality are in even shorter supply. Unfortunately, there seems to be an overabundance of hyperbole and intellectual dishonesty.
"Never before has all of civilization been threatened," Gore said. "We have everything we need to save it, with the possible exception of political will. But political will is a renewable resource."
I thought Dennis Miller had it exactly right last night. While making an appearance on The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly asked him what he thought about global warming. Miller's snappy reply was (I'm paraphrasing now) "I used to think there was something to it until I heard that the UN thinks that there's something to it. Now I'm pretty sure that I don't think that there's anything to it." I think Mr. Miller is onto something.
UPDATE: I found the Dennis Miller transcript. Here's what Miller says about global warming:
MILLER: Well, listen, I...I was starting to believe in it until the U.N. said they believe in it. And now I'm pretty sure I don't believe in it, because I just don't trust the U.N.As I said before, I'm with Miller on this one.
But the fact is, Bill, that I think it is getting warmer. My next car I'll probably buy a hybrid for my son, just to hedge my bets. But the fact is, I don't know how much impact mankind has on it. You know, to think that we can make the universe hotter or our atmosphere hotter; we can't thin traffic after Dodger games, for God's sakes.
Originally posted Thursday, February 8, 2007, revised 09-Feb 2:34 AM
Comment 1 by Elaine at 08-Feb-07 12:02 PM
you're an idiot if you think global warming is not happening and is not mad-made. way to challange 1000's of peer-reviewed scientific studies with one ill-advised sentance. yay for you.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 08-Feb-07 01:36 PM
Elaine, I hate bursting your bubble but scientists haven't proven that global warming is manmade.
I do agree that we're in the midst of a climate change. I just don't buy into the consensus that it's manmade.
That belief comes from reading several speeches made by Michael Crichton, who I consider to have far more credibility than do the scientists who've participated in the IPCC's study.
Here's something that Crichton said about peer review of global warming:
To summarize it briefly: in 1998-99 the American climate researcher Michael Mann and his co-workers published an estimate of global temperatures from the year 1000 to 1980. Mann's results appeared to show a spike in recent temperatures that was unprecedented in the last thousand years. His alarming report formed the centerpiece of the U.N.'s Third Assessment Report, in 2001.
Mann's work was immediately criticized because it didn't show the well-known Medieval Warm Period, when temperatures were warmer than they are today, or the Little Ice Age that began around 1500, when the climate was colder than today. But real fireworks began when two Canadian researchers, McIntyre and McKitrick, attempted to replicate Mann's study. They found grave errors in the work, which they detailed in 2003: calculation errors, data used twice, data filled in, and a computer program that generated a hockeystick out of any data fed to it-even random data. Mann's work has since been dismissed by scientists around the world who subscribe to global warning.
Why did the UN accept Mann's report so uncritically? Why didn't they catch the errors? Because the IPCC doesn't do independent verification. And perhaps because Mann himself was in charge of the section of the report that included his work.
The hockeystick controversy drags on. But I would direct the Committee's attention to three aspects of this story. First, six years passed between Mann's publication and the first detailed accounts of errors in his work. This is simply too long for policymakers to wait for validated results.
In other words, the proof is what any scientist says it is. There isn't true peer review.
The hockey stick graph is proof of that. Dr. Mann started with a conclusion, then manipulated the data to fit his theory.
I'd doubt that any scientist would call that honest peer review.
Pelosi, Planes and Murtha
Much has been written about Nancy Pelosi's request for a military plane to take from the Capitol to San Francisco. Now there's a new twist to the storyline. Here's the details on the new twist:
Rep. John Murtha, (D-PA), the Pelosi ally who chairs the House military appropriations subcommittee, said he has spoken to Pentagon officials about the need to provide Pelosi with a bigger plane that can fly passengers coast to coast in comfort. But he denied pressuring the Pentagon. "I don't need to pressure them. I just tell them what they need to do," Murtha said."I just tell them what they need to do"??? That sounds like Murtha is so cozy with the Pentagon that he just tells them he needs this or that to further his agenda and they just do whatever he needs. I wonder if this is how he got the word on the Haditha Marines. We know that he made those accusations before he was briefed.
I'm also wondering why he's trying to pull strings inside the Pentagon for a luxury aircraft for Pelosi. Here's a video of Eric Cantor questioning Ms. Pelosi's need for the plane that she's requested:
Ms. Pelosi cited security as the reason behind her needing the bigger plane. I didn't buy that for a split-second for a couple reasons. The biggest reason why I didn't buy into that was because this plane could land at an Air Force base for refueling, which totally eliminates the security issue moot. Also, if Rep. Cantor is right in his description of the luxury items on the plane, it sounds more like Ms. Pelosi wanted the bigger plane for the additional amenities than for security reasons.
Posted Thursday, February 8, 2007 5:47 PM
No comments.
Why Hasn't William Arkin Been Fired?
That's what I asked in this post from 1 February. Now I've got company in the form of Ken Allard. Here's what Mr. Allard asks about Mr. Arkin:
But Arkin instead opined that politically astute commanders should have taken the offending soldiers aside and explained how it wasn't their place "to disapprove of the American people", especially since those same citizens are paying them a "decent salary" and providing soldiers with a vast social service network denied ordinary Americans, in addition to those obscene war zone amenities.Frankly, I thought that Arkin would've gotten fired by NBC and the Washington Post for his outlandish statements in his blog. I know that he's apologized for calling our troops mercenaries but that's only part of the outrageous things he said. Here's another Arkin quote that should be an offense worthy of termination:
As soon as they read the blog, or at least gauged popular reaction to it, I figured NBC News would lose no time firing Arkin, a colleague during our occasional television stints together as military analysts. There has long been an unwritten but well-understood policy governing outside experts appearing on TV: Hold any opinion you choose, but don't do anything to embarrass the network.
"Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order."Arkin is lumping every soldier in with the guards who mistreated the prisoners at Abu Ghraib. He's also passing judgment on the Haditha Marines before the investigation is finished. (Thank John Murtha for creating the perception that they've already been convicted.) Mr. Arkin's statements reveal his true nature. The Washington Post and NBC certainly have the right to keep Arkin if they want but it's also our right to vote on their decision by abandoning Arkin's blog and by not watching NBC Nightly News.
This speaks ill of these news organizations because they aren't upset with Arkin's values and observations. I know that he's supposed to be an analyst so he's supposed have opinions but his analysis should be grounded in verifiable facts.
It shouldn't be based on emotions as this seemed to be.
Posted Thursday, February 8, 2007 10:39 PM
No comments.
Rally Round Our Patriots, Part II
I did some checking into the sponsors of the anti-war rally in Washington, DC on March 17th. The first organization that I checked into was the Free Palestine Alliance. Here's something that jumped out at me:
In addition to the Palestinian people, the FPA recognizes that the struggle for Palestine is a joint responsibility of the Arab people as a whole, and an integral part of the peace, justice, solidarity and liberation movements worldwide. In that context, the FPA recognizes the unique symbiotic relationship of the reciprocal political-economic-military interests between Western colonialism in general, the US Empire, the Zionist movement and its material manifestation, the racist Apartheid State of Israel.Anyone who hasn't been comatose the last two months recognizes that highlighted phrase. It's a phrase that could've just as easily been quoted from Jimmy Carter's book. It's almost impossible to find any mainstream people thinking that Carter's book is anything other than a shill for Palestinians.
Here's something else that caught my attention:
The FPA fully recognizes the emerging Arab-American character of our community in the United States, and seeks to establish programs and projects to empower, safeguard, and develop our cultural, linguistic and political identity.The current Palestinian political identity is that of a terrorist organization:
The radical Islamic movement Hamas won a large majority in the new Palestinian parliament, according to official election results announced Thursday, trouncing the governing Fatah party in a contest that could dramatically reshape the Palestinians' relations with Israel and the rest of the world.In other words, FPA's goal is to not assimilate into American society. They've just stated that they want to use the language of their homeland, a homeland governed by terrorists. If you doubt that, here's some information about their goals:
In Wednesday's voting, Hamas claimed 76 of the 132 parliamentary seats, giving the party at war with Israel the right to form the next cabinet under the Palestinian Authority's president, Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of Fatah.
10. Divestment, Corporate Boycott, and Ending all Support to Israel: The FPA regards the implementation of a full divestment program in the United States coupled with effective corporate boycotts to be a necessary material formulation of the overarching goal of ending all forms of governmental and private economic, political, and military support to the Apartheid State of Israel.It's quite clear that the FPA advocates the elimination of Israel and that they hope to weaken Israel by doing everything in their power to cut off as much financial and political aid from the United States to Israel as is possible.
FPA's website also contained a links page, with links to like-minded organizations. One organization listed was Palestine Remembered. Here's the map that I found on their website:
Free Palestine Alliance and Palestine Remembered believe that the true Palestinian homeland is the very ground on which Israel now exists. In other words, their beliefs are exactly the same as Yasser Arafat, Hamas and Hezbollah.
If that's all we knew about these co=sponsors, we'd be astonished that anyone would associate with such anti-Semitic organizations like that. As I said yesterday, that isn't all we know about them:
In American Jihad, Emerson notes that when Abdurahman Alamoudi of the American Muslim Council, who is now serving a 23-year prison sentence for a terrorism financing conviction, encouraged the Muslim crowd at an October 2000 rally cosponsored by MPAC to declare their support of the jihad terror groups Hamas and Hezbollah, "MPAC's Political Adviser, Mahdi Bray, stood directly behind Alamoudi and was seen jubilantly exclaiming his support for these two deadly terrorist organizations." This was just three weeks after Bray "coordinated and led a rally where approximately 2,000 people congregated in front of the Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C." Emerson reports that "at one point during the rally, Mahdi Bray played the tambourine as one of the speakers sang, while the crowd repeated: 'Al-Aqsa [Mosque] is calling us, let's all go into jihad, and throw stones at the face of the Jews [sic].'"The reason why this is relevant is because their stated goal is to not assimilate into American society. Their implicit goal is to bide their time until they can turn the United States into part of their worldwide caliphate.
One question that you're probably asking is why an organization like FPA is participating in an anti-war rally. The simple answer is because they're hoping to undercut President Bush's attempt to democratize the Middle East and restore that region to its original state, where monarchies and dictators rule the land.
The best way they can undercut President Bush's democratization agenda is by teaming up with these anti-war extremists. By teaming up with the anti-war left, they hope to put a Democrat in the White House. Based on the Clinton administration's record, they probably think that the United States won't pressure Palestinians into real reforms.
They rightly believe that Hillary's administration wouldn't put the same pressure on them here in America as long as they didn't cause alot of trouble. They'd also be hoping that the House and Senate would stay in Democrats' control, thereby making it easier for them to gut the Patriot Act and to enact special civil liberty protections for Muslims.
This event is being billed as an anti-war rally but it's really an anti-American, anti-Israel rally masquerading as an antiwar rally.
Isn't it time that pro victory patriots stepped up and pushed back against the 'Blame America First Crowd'? Isn't it time that we sent the message that we're in this war to win and that's the only outcome that we'll accept?
Isn't it time that those of us who haven't served send a message to the troops protecting our liberties that we've got their backs for a change?
Posted Friday, February 9, 2007 3:52 AM
No comments.
Day Announces For MN-1; Walz Goes On Endangered List
Former Minnesota House Minority Leader Dick Day filed his papers for the GOP nomination for the right to oppose Tim Walz. This immediately puts Walz' seat in jeopardy and likely returns the seat to the GOP column.
The Owatonna Republican, a six-term member of the Senate, said he is beginning his candidacy 21 months before the 2008 election partly as an exploratory mission and also to begin fundraising. The seat, currently held by first-term Democrat Tim Walz, represents a district that encompasses much of southern Minnesota.Day has good name recognition and is a good fundraiser, two very important things in challenging an incumbent representative. There's something else that helps Day in his bid to unseat Walz:
Unseating an incumbent could take more than $1.5 million, and beginning an aggressive campaign after a spring 2008 endorsing convention would be impractical, Day said. He noted that he had raised $780,000 for his caucus last year, evidence of his fundraising skill.
Day acknowledged that freshman Walz, who defeated six-term Republican Gil Gutknecht in November, has little record to campaign against. But, Day said, he was surprised by the number of people who approached him after Walz's victory about the possibility of running.
"It's a long haul and it might be numerous people that might be running. We're a long ways from the real true horse race," Day said. "I'm hoping people feel that they can spend some money on me and I would be a good candidate. I know I'm taking my Saturdays and Sundays and the rest of my valuable time but it's something I'm willing to do."
Day acknowledged that freshman Walz...has little record to campaign against.That's a big advantage for a good campaign because they'll gladly fill in Walz's image for him. Walz himself will make things difficult on himself if he continues voting for Nancy Pelosi's agenda. The truth is that Pelosi's agenda has little in common with southern Minnesota. The other thing that Day will certainly use against Walz is his co-sponsoring the minimum wage bill that reeked of cronyism:
Fending off charges of favoritism, House Democrats say a just-passed minimum wage bill will be changed to cover all U.S. territories, including American Samoa, before it reaches President Bush's desk. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, (D-CA), told reporters she has instructed the House Education and Labor Committee to help get the bill changed to "make sure that all of the territories have to comply with the U.S. law on minimum wage." Her remark Friday followed accusations from Republicans a day earlier that American Samoa, which is not now covered by the $5.15 an hour federal minimum wage, was not included in the law raising the federal pay floor to $7.25 an hour because StarKist has a large cannery in the island chain. StarKist is owned by Del Monte Foods Co., which has its headquarters in San Francisco, Pelosi's district.I'll guarantee that Day will use Walz's co-sponsoring of this bill as an illustration of Walz not being independent-minded like he ran on in 2006. I suspect that he'll ask Walz why he didn't insist on removing American Samoa's exemption to the minimum wage bill. That might prove to be a difficult question for Walz to answer.
"Something is indeed fishy when the federal minimum wage is good for all Americans as espoused by the Democrat majority, yet we exempt a small, in many terms economically struggling island," Rep. Patrick McHenry, (R-NC), told colleagues on the House floor last week.
"We certainly welcome Senator Day to the race, but I hope he realizes quickly that being a member of the United States Congress isn't something you do for the heck of it," said DFL chairman Brian Melendez.Brian Melendez has a penchant for making some off the cuff remarks. This one certainly fits that bill. I'm sure he has a purpose for making it. I just don't think it'll have any effect on the race.
Posted Friday, February 9, 2007 4:50 AM
No comments.
Murtha Plans Gitmo Shutdown
I've long known that John Murtha's arrogance knows no bounds. Still, this article surprised me in its stupidity. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Murtha Must GO. Here's what I read that infuriated me:
For example, Murtha said, funding could be manipulated to close the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where accused terrorists have been held indefinitely; to limit overall troop levels in Iraq; and to require that troops be properly trained and equipped before being shipped overseas. "We've got some specifics that we can do to change the course of the war," Murtha said.The first thing I thought after reading this is: I hope that Diana Irey is running again in 2008. the second thing I thought was how much I'd love shipping the Gitmo 'detainees' to live with the Murthas. Seriously, it's impossible for me to take this jackass seriously. How can I when he's ready to introduce legislation that would close Gitmo without providing an alternative place for the terrorists to be held? Further, the old fart wants to limit the President's warfighting options without cutting off funding entirely. You'd think that that's of suspect constitutionality:
Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Indian Shores, said he has no problem with holding a debate on a resolution critical of the troop surge, but he was wary of legislative efforts to micromanage the war. "I don't believe Congress can effectively manage a battle," Young said.There's a reason why the Constitution spells out the position of Commander-in-Chief. It doesn't spell out a position called Commanders-in-Chief. I'd have to think that, constitutionally, it's one thing to cut off funding for the war. It's another to legislate the things a sitting president must do before sending troops to fight an authorized war.
The good news is that the Senate won't let this pass. If nothing else, Republicans will filibuster such legislation.
People who stayed home last November need to think long and hard about their actions. Their inaction has led to Murtha having this position of influence. Their staying home in 2008 would endanger us all. That's unacceptable. It's time that conservatives realized that they need to vote for candidates that will try to keep America safe. If the thought of Murtha running roughshod isn't enough to scare you, then perhaps this story will:
To the surprise of the Bush administration, the House Intelligence Committee voted unanimously Wednesday night to allow all 435 House members to see the classified version of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq sent to the White House last week. The report is classified in part because it contains information about sources and methods used in intelligence-gathering.I'd hope that the White House would challenge the constitutionality of such a vote. After all, it's the Executive branch that can make documents available except to those with the proper security clearances.
What's to say that a representative could view the information, then leak the information to the press? Remember that some of the people who will be looking at this classified report are John Conyers, Baghdad Jim McDermott, Keith Ellison, Maurice Hinchey and Maxine Waters.
Does anyone think that some of this NIE won't get leaked or shared with subversives? Are people naive enough to think that some of this information won't make it into CAIR's hands? If it makes it into CAIR's hands, it's a given that it'll make its way into others' hands.
If you think that scares you, it gets worse:
Remarkably, each House member will be given five minutes to speak.Five minutes to speak is a bunch of time, especially since the classified portion of the NIE contains sources and methods used in collecting intelligence.
Silvestre Reyes delivered this pronouncement justifying the opening of the NIE:
"It is critical that all Members of Congress understand the consensus view of the Intelligence Community on the gravity of the situation in Iraq and the consequences for U.S. troops and our long-term national security interests."Representative Reyes, It isn't important that every blabbermouth congressman knows the sources and methods used to compile the NIE. There's a reason why there's different levels of security clearances for different representatives. You can color it any way you want but that's reality.
This is a prime example of what happens when Democrats deal with national security issues. They put together a meaningless resolution that criticizes the president. Then they give blabbermouth representatives the right to view documents that they don't have the security clearance for. Then they tell the people who've viewed the sources and methods that they can each talk for five minutes on the resolution.
Conservatives who stayed home last time better know that they've helped put us in this compromised national security situation. It's unacceptable for them to wash their hands and say that Democrats are the only ones to blame. If they hadn't cast protest votes, we wouldn't have a Speaker Pelosi or Chairman Reyes and we certainly wouldn't have had blabbermouth congressmen and women viewing the sources and methods that were used to compile the NIE.
That said, Democrats deserve the lion's share of the blame on this. Their actions have potentially compromised our national security by potentially compromising our agents in the field.
I ask my readers a simple question: Is that the type of America you want to live in? If you don't, then it's time to fire up everyone you know to make national security the only issue of importance in 2008.
If we don't get this right, the rest is irrelevant.
Posted Friday, February 9, 2007 3:29 PM
No comments.
Global Warming: The Left's Religion
The Left's obsession with propping up the IPCC report is predictable because the global warming debate is the Left's religion. This Ellen Goodman column is proof of their obsession with the global warming religion:
By every measure, the U N 's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change raises the level of alarm. The fact of global warming is "unequivocal." The certainty of the human role is now somewhere over 90 percent. Which is about as certain as scientists ever get.
I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.
Ms. Goodman would be wise to understand that we aren't disputing the fact that temperatures are rising. We're simply arguing that there's proof of warm periods and mini ice ages and that these temperature fluctuations are cyclical, not manmade. I'm also disputing the IPCC's report because there isn't any critical review of their findings, which means that they're asking us to trust them. It isn't only that I don't trust the UN, it's that I think Reagan's old "trust but verify" policy is the right policy to follow.
Michael Crichton stated that the models that the global warming crowd use have been discredited. Crichton cited the Hockey Stick graph as an example of the inaccuracy of their work. Here's my post on Crichton discrediting the Hockey Stick graph:
To summarize it briefly: in 1998-99 the American climate researcher Michael Mann and his co-workers published an estimate of global temperatures from the year 1000 to 1980. Mann's results appeared to show a spike in recent temperatures that was unprecedented in the last thousand years. His alarming report formed the centerpiece of the U.N.'s Third Assessment Report, in 2001.
Mann's work was immediately criticized because it didn't show the well-known Medieval Warm Period, when temperatures were warmer than they are today, or the Little Ice Age that began around 1500, when the climate was colder than today. But real fireworks began when two Canadian researchers, McIntyre and McKitrick, attempted to replicate Mann's study. They found grave errors in the work, which they detailed in 2003: calculation errors, data used twice, data filled in, and a computer program that generated a hockeystick out of any data fed to it-even random data. Mann's work has since been dismissed by scientists around the world who subscribe to global warning.
Why did the UN accept Mann's report so uncritically? Why didn't they catch the errors? Because the IPCC doesn't do independent verification. And perhaps because Mann himself was in charge of the section of the report that included his work.
I wonder if Ms. Goodman has bothered talking with a knowledgeable critic of the manmade global warming theory like Michael Crichton. I suspect she hasn't. If she had, she might have come to a completely different set of conclusions. Ms. Goodman's opinions aren't based on critical thinking but rather on a faith basis. Ergo my contention that the environment in general and global warming in particular are the radical Left's religion.
One final thought on Ms. Goodman's article: It's silly for her to compare people who disagree with the causes of global warming with Holocaust deniers. Holocaust deniers are doing their thing as part of their spin. Conservatives who disagree with the source of global warming are doing so because of the scarcity of verifiable evidence on the causes of it.
Originally posted Friday, February 9, 2007, revised 17-Mar 7:56 AM
No comments.
