Charity, Aid and Criticism
*UPDATE* United States Donates $350 million to Tsunami Aid, Japan donates $500 million. Let's hear it for them folks!
In the wake of the tragedies in Asia, countries have been rushing aid to countries in need in the form of money, supplies, and coalitions. Sadly, that is not the only thing the world community has been focused on. Instead, many nations (and here I point the finger at Europe) have been criticizing one another about who's "stingy". Of course, the United States was their first target. We all know that just about the whole of the U.N. wants the U.S. crucified and, in their usual short-sighted and spiteful manner, the United Nations began to attack us for how we had not yet donated a huge amount of money. As if on cue from the “axis of weasel” organization, the American liberal community began its attack on the President. Many liberals began harping on how the President showed a lack of sympathy for the dead in Asia by going about his usual Presidential schedule. Apparently, the liberals wanted Bush to strap on a wetsuit and head out to Sri Lanka to perform CPR on the nearest inhabitant. And while Bush was asking the media to “watch this drive”, the liberals were celebrating the enormous donation by the European Union of a whopping 3 million euros currently and a “planned” 30 million euro donation. Then President Bush, being the terrible “innocent dictatorship” invading, monkey-faced Neanderthal with an IQ of -37 that he is, donated $35 million. Instead of applauding how the U.S. had now donated more than the entire E.U., the liberals decided to attack President Bush on how his completely undeserved Presidential Inauguration would cost $50 million. They forgot how money going toward the Inauguration was not government money but private donations. Once this critical error had been realized by the liberals, they attacked the private donators group by asking, “Well, if they have that much money then why aren’t they donating to the Asian crisis”? Following this lead, the liberals began the assault on the “oh so wealthy” conservative America. They forgot to ask how much Senator Kerry and his wacko wife had donated (I believe the total amount so far has been two pairs of raised eyebrows upon hearing the news). However, the liberals did get an answer to that question. The filthy, wealthy, upper-class, conservative crooks have donated $42 million dollars and counting. Surprisingly, this wasn’t the answer the liberals were looking for, so they switched topics again to how the United States is a “scrooge” nation that never donates to any cause that doesn’t involve bombing the bejesus out of peaceful, kite-flying nations. Because of this, Colin Powell the had the pleasure of describing how over the past four years the United States has provided more such aid then all the other nations on the planet combined. Then the “one-upping” contest began. France, stung by comments made by a few Americans on its “stinginess”, changed its donation from 1.5 million euros to around 50 million euros. Chirac then proceeded to claim that France was and always had been the most charitable nation on the earth. The United Kingdom promptly donated 59 million euros. In response, Chirac stuck his tongue out at Blair. Well, whatever gets them to donate… After the European spat, the world community aimed their upturned noses at America and wondered what we would do next. We made a large aid coalition and sent it to Asia. Then, Kofi “I don’t steal oil money from Iraqis; that was my son” Annan accused the United States of trying to show off and described (lacking details and examples) how the American coalition would completely disrupt the U.N. coalition. I guess we know what the United Nations thinks of the American military and our aid workers.

It’s just my opinion…but I don’t think that what the United Nations is doing is really “in the spirit” of charity. And Europe, does it matter who gave more money to the aid in Asia? I mean, as long as people are giving money and aid, that’s all that matters. The United Nations is so focused on bashing America that they attack us for not doing enough, then hate us when we make a whole aid coalition that rivals theirs. But hey, ‘tis the season.



- posted by Jay Gatsby @ | | 4:20 PM

 
Moore...Why Pfizer?

As you may know, Michael Moore has recently made the drug company Pfizer his next smear target. I just have one question for Moore; why Pfizer? This pharmaceutical company is known, but not really well known, so I don’t see what Moore wants to do with this company. I mean, I doubt many will really care. Of course, Pfizer has been shoved into the spotlight recently due to its announcement that the popular arthritis drug Celebrex doubles a person risk for a heart attack. The media failed to mention that no deaths have occurred from the drug as this risk only presents itself when the drug is taken in EXTREMLEY high doses. If something like this is why Moore plans to attack the company, he won’t have much luck. He might, however, find success with another drug company, Merck. Merck produced a drug called Vioxx that basically did the same thing, with the same heart risk. The difference was that the heart risk presented itself to anyone taking any dose of the drug. What people fail to realize is that this isn’t anything new, products are recalled all the time, and at least Merck withdrew it from the market.

Also, Pfizer is the second most philanthropical drug company in the world, right after Merck (philanthropical means charitable, by the way). I guarantee that Moore will not mention that fact in his “mockumentary”, as he has a habit of leaving out the facts or, in some cases, completely making “facts” up. In fact, Pfizer gave away about $2 billion to charity last year alone. Now, in the wake of the catastrophic events in Asia, Pfizer is giving away $35 million to help the victims of the earthquake. Yes indeed, the company that Moore wants to call evil is giving away an amount of money equal to what the entire United States is donating.

So, Michael Moore, once again I ask…why Pfizer? Oh, and another thing I would like to ask…how much are you giving away? I promise my readers right now, Moore will do nothing to help the victims of southern Asia; financially or otherwise. Although, he will blame Bush and Pfizer for not doing enough.

- posted by Jay Gatsby @ | | 10:40 PM

 
Tsunami Warning Was Stopped
*UPDATE*
NEW CASUALTY FIGURES FROM INDONESIA PUSH TSUNAMI DEATH TOLL OVER 114,000
This is what I was describing in my previous post, and I'm glad Wizbang supports me on this. Many people have been debating this issue, but now it comes to light. Once again, thanks to Wizbang for clarifying this issue. I think you all will join me in the outrage I feel at those responsible for this travesty (except a few liberals...which oddly enough seem to want to support the people responsible).



Tsunami Wave Chart Courtesy of Fox News Channel

Just minutes after the earthquake in the Indian Ocean on Sunday morning, Thailand's foremost meteorological experts were sitting together in a crisis meeting. But they decided not to warn about the tsunami "out of courtesy to the tourist industry", writes the Thailand daily newspaper The Nation.

The experts got the news around 8:00 am on Sunday morning local time.

An hour later, the first massive wave struck. But the experts started to discuss the economic impacts when they were discussing if a tsunami warning should be made. The main argument against such a warning was that there have not been any floods in 300 years. Also, the experts believed the Indonesian island Sumatra would be a "cushion" for the southern coast of Thailand. The experts also had bad information; they thought the tremor was 8.1. A similar earthquake occurred in the same area in 2002 with no flooding at all.

...We finally decided not to do anything because the tourist season was in full swing. The hotels were 100% booked full. What if we issued a warning, which would have led to an evacuation, and nothing had happened. What would be the outcome? The tourist industry would be immediately hurt. Our department would not be able to endure a lawsuit...

- posted by Jay Gatsby @ | | 7:18 PM

 
Ohio Recount Over
What did I tell the numerous liberals out there? That Bush actually won, and even a liberal backed recount will prove it. Guess what, I was right (headless Lucy, I laugh at you now). Bush is still the winner by six figures.


Election officials finished the presidential recount in Ohio on Tuesday, with the final tally shaving about 300 votes off President Bush's six-figure margin of victory in the state that gave him a second term.

The recount shows Bush winning Ohio by 118,457 votes over John Kerry, according to unofficial results provided to The Associated Press by the 88 counties. Lucas County, home to Toledo, was the last to finish counting.

The state had earlier declared Bush the winner by 118,775 votes and plans to adjust its totals to reflect the recount later this week.

The Kerry campaign supported the recount, but said it did not expect the tally to change the election winner. Supporters of the recount, requested by two minor party candidates, said they wanted to make sure every valid vote was counted.

- posted by Jay Gatsby @ | | 5:13 PM

 
Asian Governments Could Have Warned Tsunami Victims

*UPDATE*
NEW CASUALTY FIGURES FROM INDONESIA PUSH TSUNAMI DEATH TOLL OVER 80,000

*Update* - USA Today
Minutes after a massive earthquake rocked the Indian Ocean on Sunday, international ocean monitors knew that a tsunami would likely follow. But they didn't know whom to tell.

"We put out a bulletin within 20 minutes, technically as fast as we could do it," says Jeff LaDouce of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. LaDouce says e-mails were dispatched to Indonesian officials, but he doesn't know what happened to the information.

On Monday officials of Asian nations admitted they could have warned people about the earthquake caused tsunami's that, so far, have killed 22,000 with the death toll constantly rising. Had these nations warned their populations, the report said, countless lives could have been saved. I have quoted some of the Fox News article below. I hope you will all join me in praying for those lost in this terrible tragedy.

AKARTA, Indonesia — Asian officials conceded Monday that they failed to issue broad public warnings immediately after a massive undersea earthquake in Indonesia, which could have saved countless lives from the subsequent giant waves that smashed into nine countries as far away as Africa.

Governments around the region insisted they did not know the true nature of the threat because there was no international system in place to track tidal waves in the Indian Ocean — where they are rare — and they cannot afford to buy sophisticated equipment to build one.

And what warnings there were came too little, too late.

"No one ever told us that these things can be predicted and we can be told about them," said Sumana Gamage, a shopowner in Colombo, Sri Lanka. "Next time I hope our government can do this."

"This is tragic," said retired Sri Lankan air force chief Harry Goonetilleke. "There should have been such an arrangement for the region. This is absolutely not acceptable."

Dec. 27: A man carries his son as relatives and others grieve at the site of a mass burial in Cuddalore, India.

Thammasarote Smith, a former senior forecaster at Thailand's Meteorological Department, said governments could have done much more to warn people about the danger.

"The department had up to an hour to announce the emergency message and evacuate people but they failed to do so," Thammasarote was quoted as saying in The Bangkok Post newspaper. "It is true that an earthquake is unpredictable but a tsunami, which occurs after an earthquake, is predictable."

The death toll Monday topped 22,000, with millions left homeless.

- posted by Jay Gatsby @ | | 11:57 AM

 
Troops Support the War

This is an interesting story that you probably won't hear about in the mainstream media. Take a look at this poll:

Despite a year of ferocious combat, mounting casualties and frequent deployments, support for the war in Iraq remains very high among the active-duty military, according to a Military Times Poll.

Sixty-three percent of respondents approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, and 60% remain convinced it is a war worth fighting. Support for the war is even greater among those who have served longest in the combat zone: Two-thirds of combat vets say the war is worth fighting.

But the men and women in uniform are under no illusions about how long they will be fighting in Iraq; nearly half say they expect to be there more than five years.

In addition, 87%% say they're satisfied with their jobs and, if given the choice today, only 25% say they'd leave the service.

Compared with last year, the percentages for support for the war and job satisfaction remain essentially unchanged.

A year ago, 77% said they thought the military was stretched too thin to be effective. This year, that number shrank to 66%.

The findings are part of the annual Military Times Poll, which this year included 1,423 active-duty subscribers to Air Force Times, Army Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times.

The subscribers were randomly surveyed by mail in late November and early December. The poll has a margin of error of +/—2.6%.

Among the poll's other findings:

•75% oppose a military draft.

•60% blame Congress for the shortage of body armor in the combat zone.

•12% say civilian Pentagon policymakers should be held accountable for abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

To be frank, I've noticed a few kinds of ways our troops are displayed by the liberal media and leftist propagandists such as Michael Moore. The portrayals by the liberals are this: if the troops dislike the war, they are heroes. Especially if those troops received wounds. Of course, the troops and families being interviewed in Fahrenheit 9-11 were unaware of Moore's intentions. If you were to watch FahrenHYPE 9-11 (an actual documentary, unlike Fahrenheit), then you will see many wounded soldiers and families of dead soldiers saying that Moore showed them either without their knowledge, or with a huge anti-war bias. In these cases, the troops and families said that they knew what they and their loved ones were fighting for, and that it was a good cause.

However, If the troops are in favor of the war, then they are portrayed as neo-nazi bigots that only want more "fresh-meat" to join the military so the killing can continue. In Fahrenheit 9-11, you will see Military recruiters shown as ruthless thugs trying to "press gang" people into service. This, of course, is not the case. I have actually debated a Moore supporter about whether Military recruiting should be allowed in schools. His argument consisted of how Military recruiters were "forcing" kids without futures into service by simply being there. How his logic works, I don't know. The alternative to going into the Army, Marines, etc. by his stance would be living on the streets. I think it is worth knowing that the person who argued this with me is the same one that made a disgusting comment about a Marine recruiter, behind the Marine's back. I wrote about that in a previous post entitled To You, Coward, if any of you are interested in reading it.

I think the main point of this topic is to show something that I've suspected for a long time; liberals (broad generalization, I know) hate the Military. They hate the discipline, the authority, and they think that anyone who joins it must be a blathering idiot for actually putting their life on the line so that these Libs can sleep safe at night (while continuing to undermine the military). Like the person I described above, many liberals just hate the Military completely, and anyone in it. They know that just coming out and saying this would be moral and political suicide, however, so they try to mask their hatred with claims that undermining the Armed Forces is "in the best interests of America". Americans are waking up to this fact though, and the vicious portrayals of our troops by the propagandists are becoming visible for what they actually are. We know the truth.

- posted by Jay Gatsby @ | | 3:12 AM

 
Christmas in Qatar
I saw a very poetic Christmas observation while browsing The Dawn Patrol today, and I thought I should post it here. This letter was written by USAF Capt. Steven Givler, who is currently stationed in Qatar. This letter really shows what the true meaning of Christmas is about, and I'm sure you'll all join me in wishing a Merry Christmas to all of the brave people serving our nation over seas. God Bless, fellas.


Last night I walked the nearly two miles from the compound where I work to our squadron. I could have signed out a truck and driven there, but it was a beautiful night and the walk provided an opportunity for some solitude. The waxing moon outshined all but the brightest stars, and cast its light across a far-flung layer of thin, high cloud. My walk carried me past a large spherical antenna shelter. The moonlight gleamed on the top and faded down the curving sides. In the darkness, the shelter seemed to be a planet, reflecting the light of its small silver sun.

I had a cigar in my pocket, and paused a moment to light it. Then, marked by its glowing orange tip and a wreath of silver smoke, I left the road, cutting across a broad, dark patch of desert. Had I not walked this route before in daylight, I wouldn't have done it last night in the dark. Concertina wire, which is the tinsel of deployed bases, is invisible in the dark, and once wandered into, is difficult to get out of without leaving something precious behind.

Absent razor wire though, the desert is a beautiful place at night. Having no particular schedule to keep, I sat for a bit on a rock, accompanied only by the darkness, the silence, and a tiny desert fox that flirted with the limits of my peripheral vision. On a night like this, not far from here and not particularly long ago, shepherds keeping watch over their flocks were amazed by the sight of a heavenly host. Angels shouted, trumpets sounded, and the word went out. The world is changed forever.

On the distant end of a momentarily forgotten runway, a pair of fighters lit their afterburners. They shattered the silence and leaped into the sky, trailing 20-foot cones of pink flame. No angels for me this night (none that I can see) but I am no less aware of Christmas for the lack of them. This night, this place, my circumstances - as foreign and as far removed as they are >from the Christmases I have known, they are somehow appropriate. Christmas exits outside the presents, the trees, and even the company of my family.

Maybe that explains what happened on this day during the First World War. The German troops, facing the British across a blasted landscape, caroled them with Stille Nacht. The British answered with a carol of their own. The Germans sang another, and as Christmas Eve wore on, the night was filled with songs, back and forth across no-man's land, celebrating something that transcended even war. On Christmas day, a small number of Germans climbed from their trenches. With one exception, they held their hands in the air. In the center of no-man's land, the man with his hands in front of him dropped his burden. It was a soccer ball.

The day was filled with games. Schnapps and whiskey were exchanged. Men who had faced each other across the most brutal battlefield known to man laughed and ran and drank together like brothers. Even for those men, whose world was bounded by machine guns, barbed wire and slaughter, Christmas was transcendent.

We won't be playing soccer with terrorists over here. We won't share any sense of brotherhood with them. Our religions and their conduct of war preclude that. Still, Christmas is here. This evening the open space outside the chow hall was covered with tables and chairs, and burgers and hotdogs smoked over charcoal grills. We ate under the same sky I noted last night, while the general and the chief handed out stockings filled with gifts.

After supper two of my colleagues and I retired to the smoking area - a dusty corner protected by 12 foot high concrete barriers - for a Christmas Eve cigar. (I know, that's two cigars in as many days, but it's Christmas.) We were surprised to find that the camo netting overhead, through which the silver moonlight filtered, was strung with Christmas lights. Someone had spread Astroturf over the gravel and set out chairs, and from a radio came Christmas carols. I might have failed to notice these improvements were we at home, or noticing them, failed to be affected. Here though, they mean a lot to me.

When we finished smoking and talking to the airmen gathered there, we wished them all a Merry Christmas and returned to the facility where we work. On entering, we were arrested by the sound of a flute. On the operations floor, below the many screens showing maps and aircraft, and video footage from our unmanned surveillance aircraft, a group of carolers was finishing Oh Come Oh Come Emanuel.

Normally I can't decide what I want for Christmas, but this year I know exactly. To read again to my children. To say their prayers and put them to bed. To spend a quiet evening with my wife and, when the evening is over, to peer into our little ones' darkened rooms and listen to the softness of their breathing. I will have those things. It will take a little while, but don't feel bad about that. As with many things, the waiting will make the realization that much better.

I've long been a little cynical about decorations and carols and wishing people Merry Christmas. Not long ago I told a friend that I wasn't sure why we made such a big production out of the day. Easter I understand, because Jesus' resurrection seems to me so much more miraculous than His birth. But I've come to revise that philosophy. The angels who appeared to the shepherds clearly thought Jesus' birth warranted celebration on a grand scale. I find, now, that I am inclined to agree. That alone might be worth the trip.

Merry Christmas,

Steven



Capt. Givler

"The tree is made of clothes hangers, straightened out and taped together into a trunk, then bent down as branches. We have a surplus of hangers here. There are no laundry facilities for us to wash our own things, so we have to send them out (I know, it sounds more like a luxury than a complaint) and everything comes back on hangers so they're everywhere."

At this time I would also like to wish a Merry Christmas to Christopher Lucas, who is serving with the 210th EN Detachment in Afghanistan. Keep up the good work, Chris, and Merry Christmas from View of the Republic.

- posted by Jay Gatsby @ | | 1:46 AM

 
Merry Christmas!


Merry Christmas to all, and especially to Michael Moore and all you liberals out there!
- posted by Jay Gatsby @ | | 2:10 AM

 
Journalistic Treason

You've all seen the pictures in magazines such as Time and Newsweek and in newspapers such as The New York Times and Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The pictures showing Iraqis holding guns, yelling, discussing things unknown to the viewer. And, you have all seen the captions that describe how the people in the photograph are insurgents, terrorists, trying to kill Americans and innocent Iraqis. When I saw these pictures, I always figured that they must have been taken by an insurgent and sent to the press, or something happened in a similar manner that allowed the media to get a hold of these images. But, no, these pictures were taken by American Journalists. As it turns out, some insurgents allow journalists to photograph them.

From JACK STOKES, director of media relations, Associated Press: [This is a solicited letter regarding Salon’s “The Associated Press ‘insurgency.’”] Several brave Iraqi photographers work for The Associated Press in places that only Iraqis can cover. Many are covering the communities they live in where family and tribal relations give them access that would not be available to Western photographers, or even Iraqi photographers who are not from the area.

Insurgents want their stories told as much as other people and some are willing to let Iraqi photographers take their pictures. It’s important to note, though, that the photographers are not “embedded” with the insurgents. They do not have to swear allegiance or otherwise join up philosophically with them just to take their pictures.

What are these people thinking? Those insurgents WANT TO KILL AMERICAN SOLDIERS. That is their goal, and (as the journalists must know) they will attempt to very soon, if they haven’t already. These journalists are guilty of something I call journalistic treason; knowing where insurgents are, knowing that the people they are photographing are terrorists that have an intent to kill Americans, and not reporting these people’s whereabouts to the proper authority so the insurgents can be eliminated or taken into custody. Kill them, for crissake. These people are going to kill Americans, and the journalists don’t give a damn. They just want their story. If you lack the means to kill these people when you find them, at least report to soldiers exactly where they are located.

To get an idea of the mindset these journalists have, take a look at the caption below.

A gunman, left, shoots and kills a man lying in Baghdad’s Haifa Street after being pulled from a car Sunday, Dec. 19, 2004. The man at right on his knees was executed moments later, along with another man not shown in picture. About 30 militants hurling hand grenades and firing machine guns attacked a car carrying five people employed by the commission’s Baghdad office and tried ‘to drag them out,’ said Adel al-Lami, a member of the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq.

Want to know how the journalist explains this disgusting photo away? Take a look below:

"Even with today’s proliferation of compact photographic equipment, a legitimate photojournalist rarely gets the opportunity to capture an execution."

This person sounds positively giddy at the prospect of catching the multiple murders of several innocent Iraqis on film. Did the photojournalist try to stop the murders though? No, of course not; that would have ruined his story.

My thanks to Little Green Footballs, for initially bringing up this topic.



- posted by Jay Gatsby @ | | 5:39 PM

 
Sand in the Gears

Sand in the Gears is the funniest bunch of words on paper (or cyberspace, what ever) that I have seen in a long time. The author is also a Political Scientist (you go to college for that, folks), and while browsing his archives, I noticed a very funny and very true post. I reprinted the main part of it below. Please guys, check this site out whether you are a liberal or conservative, the sense of love this guy has for his family is something you can just sense through his writing and it makes me hope that I'll find happiness like this one day.

...So over dinner, several family members get into the inevitable Iraq/War on Terror conversation. To give you a flavor for the discussion, a few quotes selected primarily to make the part about me below sound especially good:

"We aren't the world's policeman."

"No wonder people over there hate us."

"The Europeans are sick of us meddling."

"We're just doing it for oil."

And so on. I kept my mouth shut. That's right. I kept my mouth shut. For this reason, I shall be abstaining from any sacrifice during the 2003 Lenten season.

A day or so later, my mother-in-law, bless her soul, asked me what I thought about the conversation.

"I'm no expert on foreign affairs," I demurred. I'm shy that way; can you tell?

"C'mon, Tony, I want to know what you think."

"Well, since you asked, we aren't the world's policeman, until the world goes and gets itself in another bind, usually involving the Germans directly or indirectly, and requiring some sort of rescue of the French, during which they will try to overcharge us for amenities. Come the wet-ass hour, to quote Al Pacino, we are everybody's daddy. So no, the Europeans don't want us involved, because they are too busy having fun pretending, now that we've defeated the U.S.S.R., that somehow they can manage their own safety without actually having armies, and while selling technology and weapons to terrorists and communist China. About the time they have their fat heads in a noose, made of rope they've sold at EU-subsidized prices to their executioners, then they'll start carping about how isolationist and hard-hearted we are. So the Europeans can bite me. And another thing -- it may be fashionable for liberals whose sole source of education is the E Channel to deride Ronald Reagan as an idiot, but he is a hero, that's right, a hero to millions of East Europeans, because he had the moral courage to call the Soviet Union what it was -- an Evil Empire -- while the slack-shouldered agnostics ladling out second-rate education in our nation's colleges were too busy sipping cappuccino and banging co-eds to recognize that communism is responsible for more state-sponsored murder than ten Nazi holocausts. So to answer your question, no, we aren't the world's policeman, but when there are people out there who want to kill me and my children, and they are actively seeking the means to do so, then my personal philosophy is that you kill them and everything within a ten-mile radius of them, post freaking haste. And if the U.N. doesn't like it, they can pack their louse-filled bags and hold their busy little seminars on gender inequality and structural racism on somebody else's dime. Since you asked, I mean."

- posted by Jay Gatsby @ | | 11:07 PM

 
Christmas in Baghdad
This is a really touching story that was pointed out to me by Iraq the Model. I have reprinted it here:

Rose describes briefly her experience with Christmas in Baghdad and writes a little about the social bonds among Iraqis from different religions, ethnicities..etc

"The Iraqis have strong bonds between them, in spite of religion or ethnic differences, we all work together, have neighbors from other religions, visit each other and respect our differences. my neighbors are shias, my best friends are Christians and Kurds and I’m Sunni"
It's a nice post, read the rest here.

- posted by Jay Gatsby @ | | 8:45 PM

 
Freedom of (Non-Christian) Religion
This story is just ridiculous. Now a kid can't go to a holiday party dressed as Santa (an image already displayed on coke bottles, advertisments, etc.) because someone could get offended. I seriously can't believe the stupidity of this principal. If a Jewsih boy had showed up at the party dressed as a Dradle, the Prinincipal wouldn't dare ask him to leave. Political correctness has made this country one of religious freedom, providing you are not Christian. If anyone is actually offended by the Image of Santa Clause, please seek emotional help. I mean, who was thinking of the feelings or saftey of this poor kid? I've highlighted important section from the article below, the full version can be found here.



Bryan Lafond, in a photo taken at his home, before going to the holiday dance at Hampton Academy Junior High School on Friday night.
Courtesy photo

A parent of a Hampton Academy Junior High School student says the principal of the school told his son to leave the school’s holiday dance on Friday night because the boy was dressed in a Santa Claus costume, which was politically incorrect. Michael Lafond said his son, Bryan, went to the dance dressed as Santa because it was a holiday party. "He asked if he could dress like Santa and we said yes," said Lafond. "We went to Brooks and purchased the outfit and everything."

"I went to the dance with my friend," said Bryan Lafond, who is in seventh grade. "He had an elf hat on and we thought it was pretty cool. Everyone loved the suit, but when I went by the principal, he asked why I was dressed like that."

Principal Fred Muscara said he told the boy he couldn’t get into the dance because he was wearing the costume.

"It was a holiday party," said Muscara. "It was not a Christmas party. There is a separation of church and state. We have a lot of students that go to Hampton Academy Junior High that have different religions. We have to be sensitive to that."

"My wife was leaving the parking lot when she saw Bryan running out of the building," said Lafond. "He told her that the principal said it was politically incorrect to wear the Santa outfit."

"I saw him running out of the building crying," said Leslie Lafond, Bryan’s mother.

"One of reasons why we are so angry is that the school has a policy that says once you go to the dance you can’t leave until it’s over," said Lafond. "You can’t leave school grounds unless they call a parent. If my wife wasn’t there, my son would have been out roaming the streets."

Bryan’s mother picked up her son and drove him home to change.

Lafond said his wife had to persuade Bryan to go back to the dance.

"He was so embarrassed," said Lafond. "It wasn’t like he was trying to pull a prank. He is just a good-natured kid getting into the holiday spirit who just happened to walk right by Scrooge."

"I don’t want this to happen again," said Leslie. "It is unacceptable. When Bryan returned to the school, the principal said, ‘What are you doing, trying to get me fired.’ That is not a proper comment to make to a student."

- posted by Jay Gatsby @ | | 5:32 PM

 
Rumsfeld and the Autopen: A Holiday Story
I have been getting a lot of greif about how Rumsfeld uses an auto-pen to sign letters addressed to the families of soldiers killed in Iraq. But...that's all I've been hearing. Oh, and that whole armor schmeil that was already proved to not be a problem(they stopped talking about that one real quick. Anyone wonder why?). The neo-libs have nothing to accuse Rumsfeld of profesionally, so they go on the "he's a heartless bastard and therefore is unfit to be in charge of the troops" ploy. So what if he is? He's damn good at running the military, so maybe the neo-libs should just get over this auto-pen issue. Would you really feel better knowing that your son died in Iraq...but Rumsfeld hand signed a letter to you? Big whoop. Ann Coulter published an article on this that seems to describe what I'm feeling. You can view it below.

Since the attack of 9-11, we've won two wars, liberated millions of people from monstrous regimes, presided over one election in Afghanistan and are about to see elections in Iraq and among the Palestinian people. Focusing like a laser beam on the big picture, liberals are upset that, during this period, the secretary of defense used an autopen.

An autopen is a mechanical arm that actually holds a pen and is programmed to sign letters with a particular person's precise signature. Imagine a President Al Gore, with slightly more personality, signing all official government letters – that's an autopen. (You can relax now, there will be no more exercises imagining a President Al Gore.)

There are 300 million Americans who have a constitutional right – an actual right, not a phony one invented by Harry Blackmun – to write to government officials. Every government office you've ever heard of in Washington, D.C., uses autopens with abandon.

As president, Clinton sold burial plots in Arlington Cemetery and liberals shrugged it off. What really gets their goat is the autopen. Evidently, the important thing was that every one of those pardons Clinton sold for cash on his last day in office was signed by Bill Clinton personally.

It occurred to someone (who obviously has the best interests of America at heart!) that among the letters Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld sends out there must be condolence letters to the families of servicemen who died for their country. So liberals are in a lather that those letters were signed by autopen.

On the bright side, this is the first war America has been in where the number of casualties is small enough that it would even be theoretically possible for a Defense secretary to sign each condolence letter personally. When Democrats were running the Vietnam War, letters of condolence often began, "To whom it may concern" and were addressed to "occupant."

Most politicians were mum about Autopen-gate, inasmuch as they respond to letters from constituents with dying children in letters signed by autopen. Not Sen. Chuck Hagel, D-Neb. He criticized Rumsfeld for the autopen, saying: "My goodness, that's the least that we could expect out of the secretary of defense, is having some personal attention paid by him."

It would save everyone a lot of trouble if the New York Times would just go ahead and put Hagel on the cover of the Sunday magazine with the headline: "COURAGE." Even now, Hagel can apparently count on no reporters dropping by his office to investigate whether he uses an autopen.

I've been so damn upset that Rumsfeld uses an autopen that I've barely had time to enjoy the "Giving Tree" season. Actually, I think it's time to come clean with my readers and admit that I belong to a small religious cult that celebrates the birth of Jesus this week. So things have been a little hectic.

And if the best liberals are going to give me to argue about this week is Autopen-gate, then: (1) I shall sleep well knowing that the secretary of defense has made so few mistakes for the past four years that liberals are reduced to carping about his autopen, and (2) I'm going to re-gift one of my interviews not published in the United States so I have time to buy more Ann Coulter action figures for Christmas, or as the Blue States call it, "December 25."

- posted by Jay Gatsby @ | | 3:48 PM

 
Possible Site Change
I was thinking of including some of my political cohorts in my blog, and changing it into a team effort. There will be at least one democrat and one more conservative (besides me, that is). They will leave comments, and their own posts. Do you think I should do this? Please, my four viewers, leave your opinion below. If you have any other ideas, go ahead and comment.
*UPDATE*
I changed around the site format and added a traceback feature to the comments. Sadly, the old comments were deleted(*sniff* we had such good debates on those old comments), but y'all can just comment again on the old posts if you really think it's important. The question above is still open, so go ahead and comment. BTW, if you don't like the idea changing THIS site around, then I can just create a new blog and use that for the team run one. Thanks for bearing with me guys.

- posted by Jay Gatsby @ | | 1:18 AM

 
"Wrongful-Life" Suit Dismissed

Wrongful...life? Doesn't that sound like an oxymoron? Well, thanks to Dawn and the Associated Press, this story is getting out there. What is this mother thinking...and how will this affect her judgment in the future?

The South Carolina Supreme Court has rejected a lawsuit that claimed a woman was denied the option to abort her disabled son because she was not told about the condition.

Jennie Willis of Marion County contends she would have legally aborted had she known when she was pregnant that most of his brain was missing, said her lawyer, O. Fayrell Furr Jr. of Myrtle Beach.

The lawsuit was filed by Willis on behalf of her now 8-year-old son, Thomas....

[T]he state's high court unanimously ruled Monday it recognizes the "extremely severe nature" of the boy's impairment, but it could not accept the "wrongful life" claim.

"Even a jury collectively imbued with the wisdom of Solomon would be unable to weigh the fact of being born with a defective condition against the fact of not being born at all," Associate Justice E.C. Burnett of Spartanburg wrote for the court. "It is simply beyond the human experience."

South Carolina joins 27 other states, including Georgia and North Carolina, that either reject or limit the "wrongful life" claim, the court said. California, Washington and New Jersey are the only states that allow such claims; the remaining states haven't taken a position.

Willis contended in court papers that Dr. Donald S. Wu, an obstetrician-gynecologist, failed to tell her about her son's condition in 1995 before the 24-week deadline under state law to have a legal abortion.

Wu in court papers said at the 22-week stage he informed Willis after her third ultrasound examination of a potential problem and ordered another test by a fetal specialist in Charleston.

But she refused to go, even after another examination a week later showed her son "lacked any significant brain," he said in court papers.

"The question I posed to the court was, `Where do you draw the line?'" said Stephen Brown, Wu's Charleston lawyer. "Is it (for example) a Down Syndrome case or a child who takes 20 diabetic shots a day?"...

"There are better ways, there are positive alternatives to dealing with people with disabilities than to get rid of them," said Holly Gatling, executive director of South Carolina Citizens for Life. This child was born less than perfect, but I would say who of us is not?"...

Brian Lewis, spokesman for Planned Parenthood of South Carolina, said Monday that expectant mothers should always be told, if possible, whether their children might be born with disabilities so they can decide whether to keep the child, seek adoption or have an abortion.

"It's up to that woman (to determine) where she is in her life, what her needs are, what she can or cannot handle," he said.

There they go again. Planned Parenthood claims it's "up to [the] woman" to determine if she can "handle" a disabled child—and if not, kill it.

Read this mother's account of the baby she refused to abort. How cruel that Planned Parenthood and others would say the child should have been killed before birth to spare its mother grief. (As if an abortion actually could spare a mother grief—plenty of post-abortive women would give the lie to that.) Thank God that, as with this South Carolina case, there are still judges who refuse "to weigh the fact of being born with a defective condition against the fact of not being born at all."

- posted by Jay Gatsby @ | | 5:18 PM

 
Fire Rumsfeld!
Well, that’s what the media has been saying lately. I just can’t figure out one thing…why? Rumsfeld’s resume is flawless, he has served our country impeccably, and he is one of the greatest Defense Secretaries of our nation’s history. The big media buzz urging Rumsfeld to step down seems to have started with his speech to the troops in Iraq. In that speech, as most of us know, a soldier questioned Rumsfeld about the lack of armored Humvees. This question was met with cheers of agreement from the soldiers around Rumsfeld. Of course, the media coverage stops right there. In actuality, Rumsfeld went on to answer the soldiers question by stating that production of armored Humvees had been increased to 400 units a month and that the armor shortage would quickly be over. After Rumsfeld said this, he received a standing ovation from the troops. Surprisingly, I didn’t learn of that part until first heard about it on a talk radio show yesterday.
This is an obvious case of media blackout and deception. They saw an opportunity to attack Rumsfeld and grabbed at it, not caring what information was left out in the process. I say they saw an opportunity, but really they created it. The question about armor that was asked to Rumsfeld was planted by an imbedded reporter in Iraq. You can read all about that story here. So, the media created an opportunity to attack Rumsfeld, followed through on it while intentionally leaving out important facts, and are now urging Rumsfeld to resign. I think it seems obvious that the people in charge of this “Fire Rumsfeld” campaign are the ones that need to resign. Intentional misrepresentation of the facts is a deceitful and immoral tactic, and when it’s being perpetrated by the people that we are supposed to be able to trust for unbiased news then we have a real problem. Rumsfeld has honorably served our nation extremely well, and no one can challenge that. I mean, he is independently wealthy, so he really doesn’t need to stay and take all this open criticism from the media, but he does because he loves this country and he is the best man for the job.

- posted by Jay Gatsby @ | | 2:25 PM

 
Name Change
Just to let you guys know, I have (once again) switched names. The name I was using before was an old friend of mine's from Georgia, and I figured with all the internet badness out there(the recent case of a woman being murdered), I shouldn't be using it. My posts will be under Jay Gatsby from now on. Hope you continue reading.

- posted by Jay Gatsby @ | | 8:32 PM

 
Iraq Elections to Proceed

The approach of the Iraqi election has been responded to by terrorists with increasing violence and attacks. The terrorists and insurgents in Iraq hate the idea of freedom so much that they are wiling to kill thousands of innocent Americans and Iraqis to stop the voting process from going forward. This kind of violence, in reaction to freedom no less, only proves to the Iraqis that our side is the right one.

The Iraq elections are to go forward, even with all the violence, as the President made clear today.

"The terrorists will attempt to delay the elections, to intimidate people in their country, to disrupt the democratic process any way they can," Bush told reporters in his 17th solo press conference of his presidency. "Yet I am confident of the result. I'm confident the terrorists will fail. The elections will go forward and Iraq will be a democracy" that reflects the freedoms and the ideals of its people.

These attacks will not be successful, nor will they weaken the will of the people in Iraq. The elections will proceed on January 30^th, and nothing these people do will stop freedom from reaching Iraq.

- posted by Jay Gatsby @ | | 6:17 PM

 
Iraq The Model’s Ali Foretells Trouble

Ali of Iraq The Model has resigned from writing on the blog, with an outgoing message that predicts problems. I wish all the luck in the world for Ali, and I hope his quest for the truth will be successful. I put his final post below. If I had to guess guys....I would say that some Americans are taking advantage of the election made by Ali and his brothers. Hopefully, this will hit the media hard and fast and soon we will all know what really is going on. Wish Ali luck guys, Lord knows he'll need it.

- posted by Jay Gatsby @ | | 1:12 PM

 
The Global Warming Myth Continued

Since I first published my post on Global Warming, there have been a couple people willing to keep believing that Global Warming is actually happening. They questioned the reliability of the article I posted, and so they should have. It is never good to unquestioningly believe in an article (especially one that did nit cite its sources. I have contacted the author and asked him to send me his sources). So, I went searching for more…unbiased…information on sites purely devoted to science. Lo and behold, the scientists back up what I have been saying. I have given the link to The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change website, which backs up the theory that Global Warming is nothing more than a myth.

You can find the article here. By the way, liberals, before you rage at me, look up this guys sources and tell me they're are wrong.

- posted by Jay Gatsby @ | | 10:29 AM

 
TIME Person of the Year is Bush
TIME Magazine has named George W. Bush as their Person of the Year, and let's get some opinions on this guys. I think y'all know mine.

- posted by Jay Gatsby @ | | 12:54 AM

 
The Global Warming Myth
The article below was written about the huge Global Warming myth that Democrats have continuously blathered about and blamed on Republicans. I always had a hinting that Global Warming wasn't a real threat (mainly because of the numerous scientific reports claiming that the Earth was actually getting colder...) and this pretty much clears it up. I have reprinted the article in full below, and would like to give credit to Tom DeWeese for writing it and to the American Policy Center; a grassroots movement.

There Is No Man-Made Global Warming
by Tom DeWeese
17 December 2004

Modern-day environmentalism has little to do with protecting the environment. Rather, it is a political movement led by those who seek to control the world economies, dictate development, and redistribute the world's wealth.

There is no scientific evidence to back claims of man-made global warming. Period. Anyone who tells you that scientific research shows warming trends -- be they teachers, newscasters, Congressmen, Senators, Vice Presidents or Presidents -- is wrong. In fact, scientific research through U.S. government satellite and balloon measurements shows that the temperature is actually cooling -- very slightly -- .037 degrees Celsius.

A little research into modern-day temperature trends bears this out. For example, in 1936 the Midwest of the United States experienced 49 consecutive days of temperatures over 90 degrees. There were another 49 consecutive days in 1955. But in 1992 there was only one day over 90 degrees and, in 1997, only 5 days. Because of modern science and improved equipment, this "cooling" trend has been most accurately documented over the past 18 years. Ironically, that's the same period of time the hysteria has grown over dire warnings of "warming."

Changes in global temperatures are natural. In fact, much of the recent severe weather has been directly attributed to a natural phenomenon that occurs every so often called El Nino. It causes ocean temperatures to rise as tropical trade winds actually reverse for a time. The resulting temperature changes cause severe storms, flooding, and even drought on every continent on earth. It's completely natural. El Nino has been wreaking its havoc across the globe since long before man appeared.

How about the reports that the polar ice cap is melting? On Election Day the Financial Times of London carried the hysterical headline: “Arctic Ice Cap Set to Disappear by the Year 2070.” The article stated that the Arctic ice cap is melting at an unprecedented rate. The article is based on a report titled: “Impacts of a Warming Arctic,” submitted by a group of researchers called the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA).

It must be understood just who makes up this so-called group of researchers. The report is not unbiased scientific data. Rather, it is propaganda from political groups who have an agenda. The report was commissioned by the Arctic Council, which is comprised of a consortium of radical environmentalists from Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United States. All are nations that possess land within the Arctic Circle. Many of these countries, through the Kyoto Protocol, have a financial stake in pushing the global warming agenda. One of the groups providing “scientists” to the ACIA “researchers” is the World Wildlife Fund, one of the leading chicken-little scaremongers which creates junk science at the drop of a news release to terrify us all into proper environmental conduct.

The report is now being used at the global warming meeting currently underway in Buenos Aires to rally the troops and bully the United States into accepting the discredited Kyoto Protocol.

We are being warned of killer heat waves, vast flooding, and the spread of tropical diseases. Ocean levels are rising and America's coastlines are doomed, they tell us. Hurricanes and tornadoes have already become more violent, we are warned. Floods and droughts have begun to ravage the nation, they cry.

Any change in temperatures, or an excessive storm, or extended flooding is looked upon as a sure sign that environmental Armageddon is upon us. Diabolical environmentalists are using the natural El Nino phenomenon to whip people into a Global Warming hysteria.

Two Kinds of Scientists

We are assured by such groups that scientists everywhere are sounding these warnings, and that we may only have one chance to stop it. Well, as the debate rages, we find that there are really two kinds of scientists.

There are those who look at facts and make their judgments based on what they see and know. Their findings can be matched by any other scientist, using the same data and set of circumstances to reach the same conclusions. It's an age-old practice called “peer review.” It's the only true science.

And then there are those who yearn for a certain outcome and set about creating the needed data to make it so. Usually you will find this group of scientists greatly dependent on grants supplied by those with a specific political agenda who demand desired outcomes for their money.

Let's just take NASA, for example -- the most trusted name in American science. A lot of NASA scientists have fallen into the money trap. Environmental science has become the life-blood of the space program as the nation has lost interest in space travel. To keep the bucks coming, NASA has justified launches through the excuse of earth-directed environmental research. And the budgets keep coming. At the same time, many of NASA's scientists have a political agenda in great harmony with those who advocate global warming. And they're not above using their position to aid that agenda whenever the chance is available.

This was never more clearly demonstrated than in 1992, when a team of three NASA scientists were monitoring conditions over North America to determine if the ozone layer was in danger. Inconclusive data indicated that conditions might be right for ozone damage over North America -- if certain things happened.

True scientists are a careful lot. They study, they wait, and many times they test again before drawing conclusions. Not so, the green zealot. Of this three-member NASA team, two could not be sure of what they had found and wanted to do more research. But one took the data and rushed to the microphones with all of the drama of a Hollywood movie and announced in hushed tones that NASA had discovered an ozone hole over North America.

Then Senator Al Gore rushed to the floor of the Senate with the news, and drove a stampede to immediately ban Freon -- five years before Congress had intended -- and without a suitable substitute. He then bullied President George H.W. Bush to sign the legislation by saying the ozone hole was over Kennebunkport, Maine -- Bush's favorite vacation spot.

Two months later NASA announced -- on the back pages of the newspapers -- that further research had shown there was no such damage. But it was too late. The valuable commodity known as Freon was gone forever.

Flawed Computer Models

Then there are those computer models. Night after night Americans watch the local news as the weatherman predicts what kind of a day tomorrow will be. These meteorologists, using the most up-to-date equipment available, boldly give you the five-day forecast.

But it's well known that even with all of their research and expensive equipment it really is just a “best guess." There are just too many variables. If the wind picks up here, it could blow in a storm. If the temperature drops there, it could start to snow. The earth is a vast and wondrous place. Weather does what it wants.

Yet those who are promoting the global warming theory have the audacity to tell you they can forecast changes in the global climate decades into the future. The truth is computer models are able to include only two out of 14 components that make up the climate system. To include the third component would take a computer a thousand times faster than we have now. To go beyond the third component requires an increase in computer power that is so large only mathematicians can comprehend the numbers. Moreover, even if the computer power existed, scientists do not understand all the factors and the relationships between them that determine the global climate.

So it's an outrage for the World Wildlife Fund or the Sierra Club to tell you that man-made global warming is a fact and that we Americans must now suffer dire changes in our lifestyle to stop it.

Scientists are Not on the Global Warming Bandwagon

And so too is it an outrage for the news media to tell you that most true scientists now agree that man-made global warming is a fact. What it doesn't tell you is that roughly 500 scientists from around the world signed the Heidleburg Appeal in 1992, just prior to the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, expressing their doubts and begging the delegates not to bind the world to any dire treaties based on global warming. Today that figure has grown to over 4000 scientists. Americans aren’t being told that a 1997 Gallop Poll of prominent North American climatologists showed that 83 percent of them disagreed with the man-made global warming theory.

And the deceit knows no bounds. The United Nations released a report at the end of 1996 saying global warming was a fact, yet before releasing the report, two key paragraphs were deleted from the final draft. Those two paragraphs, written by the scientists who did the actual scientific analysis, said:

1. "[N]one of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases."

2. "[N]o study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to…man-made causes."

Obviously, those two paragraphs aren’t consistent with the political agenda the UN is pushing. So, science be damned. Global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the people of the world -- bar none.

The Kyoto Climate Control Protocol

Those who have been fighting against the radical green agenda have been warning that modern-day environmentalism has little to do with protecting the environment. Rather, it is a political movement led by those who seek to control the world economies, dictate development, and redistribute the world's wealth.

They use the philosophical base of Karl Marx, the tactics of the KGB, and the rhetoric of the Sierra Club. The American people have been assaulted from all directions by rabid environmentalists.

School children have been told that recycling is a matter of life and death. Businesses have been shut down. Valuable products like Freon have been removed from the market. Chemicals and pesticides that helped to make this nation the safest and healthiest in the world are targeted for extinction. Our entire nation is being restructured to fit the proper green mold. All of it for a lie about something man has nothing to do with.

But the lie has grown to massive proportions -- and the game is about to get very serious indeed. Pressure is building again to impose the Kyoto Protocol worldwide. Only a few years ago, this treaty appeared dead when President George W. Bush refused American participation. Now, however, Russia has signed on and the UN has enough support to begin implementing its dire consequences -- even on the United States. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has called the White House stance on global warming “terribly disappointing.” McCain is now using the ACIA report to convene hearings on the “human effect on climate and what to do about it.” McCain intends to help build pressure on the President to accept the Kyoto Protocol.

In fact the Kyoto Protocol is a legally binding international treaty through which industrial nations agree to cut back their energy emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels. That means that all of the energy growth since 1990 would be rolled back, plus 7 percent more. Such a massive disruption in the American economy, particularly since it has nothing to do with protecting the environment, will devastate this nation.

To meet such drastically-reduced energy standards will -- in the short run -- cost the United States over one million jobs. Some estimate it will cost over seven million jobs in 14 years. If the treaty sends the economy into a tailspin, as many predict, it will cost even more jobs.

It will cost the average family $1,000 to $4,000 dollars per year in increased energy costs. The cost of food will skyrocket. It has been estimated that in order for the United States to meet such a goal, our gross domestic product will be reduced by $200 billion -- annually.

To force down energy use, the Federal government will have to enforce a massive energy tax that will drive up the cost of heating your home by as much as 30 to 40 percent. In all likelihood there will be a tax on gasoline -- as high as 60 cents per gallon. There will be consumption taxes and carbon taxes. The Department of Energy has estimated that electricity prices could rise 86 percent -- and gasoline prices 53 percent.

The purpose of these punitive costs is to drive up the cost of modern living in order to force you to drastically change your lifestyle. That is the diabolical plan behind this restructuring scheme. Cars banned. Industry curtailed. Housing smaller. Family size controlled.

Every single product that is produced with the use of energy will increase in price. This includes items such as aspirin, contact lenses, and tooth paste. A study by the Department of Energy's Argonne Laboratory finds that the treaty will cripple six U.S. industries including paper, steel, petroleum refining, chemical manufacturing, aluminum, and cement. That about sums up the economy.

Global Raid on American Wealth

But perhaps you still are not convinced. Maybe you still cling to the idea that such drastic action is necessary -- that those pushing the global warming agenda are truly in a panic over global warming and are just trying to find a solution.

If you are one of these people, ask yourself: Why does the Kyoto Protocol only bind developed nations to draconian emission levels?

Undeveloped Third-World nations will be free to produce whatever they want. These will include China, India, Brazil, and Mexico. Yet 82 percent of the projected emissions growth in future years will come from these countries.

Now ask yourself: If the Kyoto Climate Change Protocol is all about protecting the environment -- then how come it doesn't cover everybody? The truth, of course, is that the treaty is really about redistribution of the wealth. The wealth of the United States is, and has always been, the target. The new scheme to grab the loot is through environmental scare tactics.

And international corporations, who owe allegiance to no nation, will bolt America and move their factories, lock, stock, and computer chip to those Third World countries where they will be free to carry on production. But that means the same emissions will be coming out of the jungles of South America instead of Chicago. So where is the protection of the environment? You see, it's not about that, is it?

Still not convinced? One more thing. Hidden in the small print of the treaty is a provision that calls for the "harmonizing of patent laws." Now, robbing a nation of its patent protection is an interesting tactic for protecting the environment, don't you think?

And there’s still more looting of the U.S. treasury planned. Supporters of the Kyoto Protocol also want industrialized nations to subsidize poor countries’ adaptation to global warming to the tune of $73 billion per year. Obtaining such subsidies will be an interesting trick after the U.S. economy has been destroyed by the treaty. Looters rarely have the ability to think that far in advance.

Don’t think this devastation can’t happen. The UN and the European Union have exposed their hatred for the United States. They envy our wealth and think that legalized theft, rather than sound economic policy, is the way to obtain it.

The fact is that one person now stands between the global warming jackals and economic sanity -- George W. Bush. Will he stand firm in his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol? Or will he capitulate to massive international pressure and sell America’s soul?

Tom DeWeese is publisher and editor of The DeWeese Report and president of the American Policy Center, a grassroots, activist think tank headquartered in Warrenton, VA.

UPDATE:

The article below is pertaining to the Global Warming issue. This only further affirms the truth about Earth's climate.

Prophets, False Prophets and Profiteers

by Paul Driessen
17 December 2004

Over 18,000 scientists have signed a petition saying they see “no convincing scientific evidence” that humans are disrupting the earth’s climate.

Some ten thousand delegates, scientists, activists, politicians and journalists have convened in Argentina for the COP-10 confab on “solutions” to the theoretical problem of “dangerous” and “catastrophic” global climate change. Months of hype and consternation preceded the event, to pressure the United States and Australia into ratifying the Kyoto Protocol.

The Day After Tomorrow and interminable activist group press releases provided appropriate horror movie scenarios. A hearing chaired by Senator John McCain promoted his prophecy that a climate Armageddon is near -- and his legislative palliative.

A new report warned that North Pole temperatures are rising. Science magazine asserted that not one of 928 studies supported the position that climate change is naturally occurring.

UK science advisor Sir David King said global warming is a greater threat than terrorism, and greenhouse emissions will have to be cut by 80% by 2050 to avoid massive coastal flooding due to melting Greenland ice sheets. European Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy hinted that the EU would give preferential access to its markets for poor countries that accept Kyoto.

The hysteria and caterwauling swamped essential facts.

Actual satellite and weather balloon data -- as well as historic and geologic records of numerous warming and cooling cycles -- contradict computer models, theories and assertions that humans are causing disastrous weather events and climate shifts. Arctic temperatures were even higher in the 1930s, before cooling again for several decades. Science’s editors didn’t mention countless studies that analyze natural warming and cooling cycles -- or the fact that 18,000 scientists have signed a petition saying they see “no convincing scientific evidence” that humans are disrupting the earth’s climate.

All the countries in the world together are responsible for less than 3% of the Earth’s total greenhouse gas emissions (the rest are natural), and the U.S. emits only 1/5 of this. The Kyoto treaty would force the U.S. to slash emissions and fossil fuel use by some 25% over the next decade -- an impossible task that would cost millions of jobs and over $300 billion annually, according to government and other studies.

Even perfect compliance with Kyoto would keep average global temperatures from rising only 0.3 degrees less than they would by 2050 in the absence of a climate treaty. Actually stabilizing greenhouse gases and temperatures would require 19 to 40 “successful climate treaties” -- causing ruinous social and economic impacts, and diverting resources from solvable problems like AIDS, malaria, poverty and poor sanitation.

What then energizes all these false prophets of doom and their demands for immediate drastic action? Simply put, profits and power.

Just the 12 largest environmental lobby groups in the U.S. had a combined budget of $2 billion in 2003. Collectively, the global environmental movement has a war chest of up to $8-billion a year. That buys a lot of influence, but apparently it’s never enough. As National Audubon Society chief operating officer Dan Beard has admitted, “What you get in your mailbox is a never-ending stream of crisis-related shrill material designed to evoke emotions, so that you will sit down and write a check.”

Global warming is big business. The U.S. government ladled out $15 billion on global warming research and “education” between 1992 and 2000. The United Nations spent billions more, as did the European Union, and big foundations provided hundreds of millions more.

Unfortunately, most government money goes to researchers who support the position that human-caused climate change is a serious problem. Foundation money does likewise, for operations like the Pew Charitable Trusts’ Global Climate Change Center, and an International Institute for Sustainable Development $700,000 study of “how farmers in India may be vulnerable” to problems supposedly caused by “economic globalization and climate change.”

“Scientists must be allowed to conclude that we don’t have a problem,” MIT professor Richard Lindzen insists, and funding should not be based on politics and preconceptions. What’s needed are nonpartisan funding mechanisms to support climate research.

Climate treaties are driven by near-religious convictions, Lindzen and author-producer-molecular biologist Michael Crichton observed. This further politicizes science, makes rational debate unlikely, and keeps people perpetually anxious -- and in desperate search of saviors.

“To capture the public imagination,” global warming scientist-activist and former global cooling false prophet Stephen Schneider once said, “we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

Former Boston Globe editor Ross Gelbspan urged a Washington, DC audience in July 2000: “Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming. They have a responsibility not to report what these scientists say.” In a similar vein, Time science editor Charles Alexander told a Smithsonian Institution conference: “I would freely admit that on [global warming] we have crossed the boundary from news reporting to advocacy.”

Many climate alarmists see the Kyoto and other treaties as instruments of international power politics. Ultimately, they seek to give activists and centralized government bureaucrats control over fossil fuel use, economic growth, lifestyles, housing and transportation.

EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstroem says Kyoto “is not a simple environmental issue, where you can say scientists are not unanimous. This is about international relations, this is about the economy, about trying to create a level playing field for big businesses throughout the world. You have to understand what is at stake and that is why it is serious,” she declaimed. And French President Jacques Chirac has termed the Kyoto Protocol “the first component of authentic global governance.”

Even now, proposals are being floated in Argentina that would allocate the right to emit carbon on a per capita basis throughout the world. Eventually, the scheme would ensure that every person has an “equitable” right to the same (minuscule) amount of energy -- whatever global bureaucrats and activists determine is “appropriate” and “sustainable.”

“Environmentalists are quick to accuse their opponents in business of having vested interests,” The Economist has observed. “But their own incomes, their fame and their very existence can depend on supporting the most alarming versions of every environmental scare. Pressure groups, journalists, and fame seekers will no doubt continue to peddle ecological catastrophes at an undiminishing speed.”

Actually, industry has much stronger motivations for honesty than do the activists, Daniel Koshland, Jr. noted when he was Science magazine editor. “Businesses today have product liability and can incur legal damages if they place a dangerous product on the market.” Environmental pressure groups “have no such constraints.”

All this should be on everyone’s mind -- in developed and developing countries alike -- as COP-10 attendees debate the merits and demerits of Quixotic proposals to “control” the world’s climate.

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Congress of Racial Equality, Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death.

- posted by Jay Gatsby @ | | 5:01 PM

 
Happenings In Iraq
The Frozen Toaster pointed something out that I think should be shared. The letter below is from a Marine in Iraq right now and was recieved 3 days ago via email. This is a very important story, and (like the Toaster pointed out) it will probably never be written about by the media. They reallt don't want stories that prove what we are doing in Iraq is helping those people, so it's up to the bloggers to get this news out. Enjoy.


Just wanted to write to you and tell you another story about an experience we had over here.
As you know, I asked for toys for the Iraqi children over here and several people (Americans that support us) sent them over by the box. On each patrol we take through the city, we take as many toys as will fit in our pockets and hand them out as we can. The kids take the toys and run to show them off as if they were worth a million bucks. We are as friendly as we can be to everyone we see, but especially so with the kids. Most of them don't have any idea what is going on and are completely innocent in all of this.
On one such patrol, our lead security vehicle stopped in the middle of the street. This is not normal and is very unsafe, so the following vehicles began to inquire over the radio. The lead vehicle reported a little girl sitting in the road and said she just would not budge. The command vehicle told the lead to simply go around her and to be kind as they did. The street was wide enough to allow this maneuver and so they waved to her as they drove around.
As the vehicles went around her, I soon saw her sitting there and in her arms she was clutching a little bear that we had handed her a few patrols back. Feeling an immediate connection to the girl, I radioed that we were going to stop. The rest of the convoy paused and I got out the make sure she was OK. The little girl looked scared and concerned, but there was a warmth in her eyes toward me. As I knelt down to talk to her, she moved over and pointed to a mine in the road.
Immediately a cordon was set as the Marine convoy assumed a defensive posture around the site. The mine was destroyed in place.
It was the heart of an American that sent that toy. It was the heart of an American that gave that toy to that little girl. It was the heart of an American that protected that convoy from that mine. Sure, she was a little Iraqi girl and she had no knowledge of purple mountain's majesty or fruited plains. It was a heart of acceptance, of tolerance, of peace and grace, even through the inconveniences of conflict that saved that convoy from hitting that mine. Those attributes are what keep Americans hearts beating. She may have no affiliation at all with the United States, but she knows what it is to be brave and if we can continue to support her and her new government, she will know what it is to be free. Isn't that what Americans are, the free and the brave?
If you sent over a toy or a Marine (US Service member) you took part in this. You are a reason that Iraq has to believe in a better future. Thank you so much for supporting us and for supporting our cause over here.
Semper Fi,
Mark
GySgt / USMC

- posted by Jay Gatsby @ | | 2:17 PM

 
Hero of the Week
This guy is a true patriot, if only others could be more like him. Make no mistake, I'd be in Iraq now if they'd only let me in. Asthma keeps you out, you know? Thanks to The Frozen Toaster for finding this one.

Dr. John Caulfield thought it had to be a mistake when the Army asked him to return to active duty. After all, he's 70 years old and had already retired - twice. He left the Army in 1980 and private practice two years ago.

"My first reaction was disbelief," Caulfield said. "It never occurred to me that they would call a 70-year-old."

In fact, he was so sure it was an error that he ignored the postcards and telephone messages asking if he would be willing to volunteer for active duty to "backfill" somewhere on the East Coast, Europe or Hawaii. That would be OK, he thought. It would release active duty oral surgeons from those areas to go to combat zones in Iraq or Afghanistan.

But then the orders came for him to go to Afghanistan.

.......

Caulfield has much-needed experience in gunshot and fragmentation injuries. "We salute his courage," Schwartz said. "We salute his bravery."

Caulfield lived and practiced oral surgery in Salisbury, N.C., before moving to Satellite Beach two years ago. When the call came, he had no qualms about serving. He said that because the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq were within such a close time, the military is exhausting some specialties. They have rotated some reservists in and out. "Because there is no draft, they are using and maybe overusing the National Guard and Reserve," he said. "There is no obligatory method."

Caulfield said he is glad to be able to help.

"I've been a soldier for 25 years," he said. "When your country asks, you do it."

Amen, sir and God bless. The origional article can be found here.

- posted by Jay Gatsby @ | | 11:14 PM

 
Aide to Iraqi 'Beheader' Shot Dead
We got one of them guys. Let's hope more are to follow.

Allawi, in a televised address to Iraq's National Council, said police had killed Hassan Ibrahim Farhan and seized two of his aides, but did not say when or where.

Allawi said those captured were responsible for carrying out the beheadings of several hostages in Iraq. Zarqawi has claimed responsibility for many of the worst attacks to take place in Iraq over the past year, including beheadings of foreigners.

A group allied to Zarqawi said on Monday it had carried out a suicide car bomb attack on a checkpoint near Baghdad's heavily protected Green Zone which killed at least nine people and wounded 19.

U.S. military officials have said they believe Zarqawi, or at least some of his chief lieutenants, may have fled to the northern Iraq city of Mosul ahead of the Falluja assault.


- posted by Jay Gatsby @ | | 10:41 PM

 
Possible AIDS Cure Found
This is very big, guys. We can only hope that this will be the end of the terrible virus. I hope you like the article I quoted from ;) . Well done to the guys at Rutgers!

Researchers from Rutgers University are expressing optimism over a trio of HIV drugs they have developed that could possibly destroy the AIDS-causing virus.

According to a prepublished report in the electronic edition of the Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, the drugs, known as R278474, have the potential to interfere with an enzyme that HIV needs to copy and insert itself into human cells.

Tests show the drugs can be taken in the form of one pill that is easily absorbed with minimal side effects, the Associated Press reported.

"We're on to something very, very special," said chemist Eddy Arnold, who led the research team.

The research team, which is partnered with Johnson & Johnson subsidiary companies, has targeted reverse transcriptase, a submicroscopic protein that is a key protein in HIV.

"If you can really inhibit reverse transcriptase, you can stop AIDS," said Dr. Stephen Smith, the head of the department of infectious diseases at St. Michael's Medical Center in Newark, N.J.

The full research will be published in the Journal of Medicinal Chemistry early next year.

- posted by Jay Gatsby @ | | 10:22 PM

 
Blurring the Line

A while ago, to the outrage of the Blogger community (even though surprisingly few people know about this even now), post-birth abortion was made legal in the Netherlands. Only in cases of terminal illness or severe mental retardation, however. In their logic, the baby has “no free will” and therefore, is not a life. This is, of course, an atrocity and disgusting in every way. After bringing this subject up to a friend of mine, something interesting occurred to me. Before abortion was made legal (way back in the day, mind you) the conservatives against it made a point that the liberal community scoffed at. The conservatives predicted that if abortion were made illegal, the line about life would be blurred. They predicted, ladies and gents, that if abortion were made legal, eventually, so would post-birth abortion. Liberals in favor of abortion immediately discarded the claim as nonsense. Who would ever kill a baby once It has been born? Well, liberals…..we told you so. Soon, parents will kill their children because they are missing an arm, or because their baby has some other kind of undesirable trait. Perhaps parents don’t like the color of their baby’s eyes. Parents are already making abortions based on gender, so this certainly isn’t outside the realm of possibility. And liberals didn’t have the foresight to realize that this would eventually come. Cause and effect, a simple concept, but one that is forever lost on liberals. The line of where life begins was forever blurred by pro-abortionists, and now it is slowly becoming “OK” to kill babies after birth. It’s Nazi reminiscent, it’s disgusting. Welcome to the world you brought in, liberals.

To bring up another issue of cause and effect…gay marriage. Albeit, gay marriage is definatly less severe than what’s happening in the Netherlands, but they are (however distantly) related. By creating rights that never existed, you are allowing new rights to be claimed in the field of marriage. These rights will be claimed by bigamists, and possibly by incestuous people. Now, history is repeating itself, and liberals fail to see that by ushering in gay marriage, they are opening the doors to a country where bigamy is allowed, and where you pay for the marriage benefits bigamists receive. And in bigamy, the women always lose. Wake up, liberals, and realize the consequences of your actions. You never have before, and now, our children are being murdered. We can still stop this, but I doubt any of the liberals out there will even make a semblance of an effort.

UPDATE
I mistakenly implied in the post above that all liberals are pro-abortion and that all conservatives are against it. This is not true, of course, and was pointed out to me by a teacher of mine. I would like to add, however, that most pro-abortionists are liberal, and most pro-lifeists (correct term?) are conservatives.

- posted by Jay Gatsby @ | | 7:27 PM