Ann In The MSM: The View Celebrate A Strong Woman (NOT!)

Ann's appearances on shows like Today, Early Show, and The View, have got to be understood for the full drama that they are. This is not just some conservative author who is being interviewed by a left-wing media. That would be interesting enough.

This woman has really hurt these prima donna's through her laser-like analysis, and they are trying their damnedest to capture just ONE SECOND of an unflattering moment while they have her in front of their cameras. And ANYTHING will do: scratch of the nose, look of horror, snorting laughter, etc. The plastic airheads aren't the only people to worry about, either. Producers (usually younger support staff, trying to do what they have to in order to make it in broadcast media), can keep a camera trained on an unaware person, picking up hushed dialogue [witness the Jesse Jackson flap last year, where he was caught on tape expressing how he'd like to reach out and grab The Great O's twig and berries], or any unflattering face we may make in the course of a ten minute episode. Then make that one unguarded second be the most prominent image we see for the promo of the interview, the still jpg to use as the website thumbnail, etc.

A lot of people are geared towards watching you fall, towards being rewarded by these wounded Barbara Walters for picking up that ugly moment while you're in their midst.

Ann can't relax AT ALL during these red-hot "Gotcha" traps, yet she presents cooly, sophisticated, and sincerely gracious to be there for an interview. Can you understand the pressure that she's under, not only to complete this annual "dance-with-a-bear" episode without blowing up, but to take a punch on live camera like a man? (I'm sorry to be sexist, but there's no other way to express it.) Ann knows that she's coming into a hornet's nest, that Matt will be trying to slam her for what she said in her book, what Harry had someone read to him about CBS anchors, and of course, what four women got themselves in a snit over in her book. Yet she comes willingly, anyway.

Ann is one brave, cool, cat.

It is one thing to be a provocateur. I cite Rush for being one of, if not the best political satirists/provocateur of the last 50 years. But Rush doesn't submit himself to the punnishment of taking these punches like Ann does. Don't get me wrong--he's got balls, for sure. But Ann's got that, too--maybe even more so.

She's been taking her life into her hands with every speaking engagement that she does for many years, and it's all because of a drive to illuminate, to educate, and yes, even to laugh! She is a precious commodity to America, a lonely voice that speaks for all of us Conservatives, and anyone brave enough question what you were taught in high school.

She digests serious, higher-level legal/social issues with wit and humor, painting a picture that is the alternative to the one painted every night by the MSM. If you don't think Ann is brilliant, it's only because you're still brainwashed by public education. Or, you are one of the annointed airheads in front of our tv cameras every day and night.

APPEARANCE ON THE VIEW:
This interview went just like the others have, only this time there was a little more estrogen, thanks only to Hasselback.

The tension in these interviews is there from the beginning, as Ann greets the interviewer(s) each time with a cheery "Good Morning". The daggers come out, sections of Ann's book are read out loud as if you were reading the confession of a serial murderer, slow...with pauses...to resonate...in the viewer's ear.

Do these tv bobble heads read with the same passion and glare when they interview despots like Castro or Chavez? There are real men and women trying to destroy America at our doorsteps and in our neighborhoods, but the harshest language directed at an interviewee these days is targeted towards this sleek, beautiful siren who spends the other 364 days of the year away from these red light districts we call television news.

What's the main subject this time? It's the unwed mothers facts that Ann cites in her book. I haven't read her book yet [just got my signed copy from WND in the mail today], but so far, after 5 major cable and network shows have interviewed her, it looks like Ann has done a 264-page analysis of one thing: the sexual mating habits of women. I see the sharks circling around Ann, obviously trying to paint her as cruel and heartless the best their feeble little minds will allow them.

Is there any doubt that the point about unwed mothers is merely an incidental part of her larger thesis, which is that liberals try to turn the guilty into victims in our declining culture? Why not start from the top, perched as any unbiased reader might, and examine the book from it's overall argument, then, in the framework of that context, pull out several salient or weak points as you may find them? Wouldn't we all benefit from a clear-headed, dispassionate analysis of her thinking on any particular subject?

But I guess the IQ of the View and their average viewer is too low to expect a more academic approach to this great mind. It is as if Einstein stepped into a Kindergarden class to talk about gravity.

*sigh*

The things she must do to make a living. The book sells itself to our crowd, to be sure, but to enjoy some better return for the years spent in research, analysis, speechmaking, and weekly output of a syndicated column, this is what must be done. One must dance with the bear if you want to win the prize.


The cackling hens that are trying to tear apart Ann are less trying to remain professional than they are trying to pander to their audience. This wasn't a
segment meant to showcase a tough woman who's made her way through a male-dominated industry, relying only on brains, grit, and principles all along the way.
These pro-women hyenas tore into Ann in hopes of destroying her, all she's worked for, and all she stands for.

Yet no one sees the irony. Where's the sisterhood? So what if Ann doesn't think like your kind of women? I know plenty more that do. Why couldn't you try to showcase and celebrate one of your kind for all that she has done by herself?

No, the View women couldn't get past their show-Ann-as-cruel agenda, trying to whip up a class and racial response right there with the audience full of women who don't work for a living. These audience members were loud and disruptive towards Ann when she was to reply a few times, but their morals and standards are different from you and me. For me, talking about unwanted, illegitimate births is a serious thing that has some amount of shame and negativity attached to it. That's why I've never done it.

For that crowd, though, it's not.

The only surprise here was that Hassleback had her knives out for Ann as well. I admit to not watching this beauty parlor experience called The View enough to know whether Hassleback acted out of the ordinary, but I had grown to understand that she supports the Conservative cause, to the degree that she understands it.

The moment at the end of this clip shows Whoopi regainning the conversation reigns because she knew they were going to break, needed to wind up the segment, and wanted to throw a zinger at Ann then storm off to commercials. "You can dish it out, but you can't take it", the brilliant sophist cackled at Ann.

Amazing, Whoopi. You, of all people, should know what it's like to be circled by a bunch of angry people who want to string you up, but you sat there salivating as Ann had to spend 10 minutes fending off charges of racism, elitism, (and being a pretty blonde, which they would never admit to being jealous of, but you know it's true), responding to every single rapid-fire accusation that they had been throwing at her...and you felt so little empathy for this woman that you tried to add one more knife to the collection in her back.

And how brilliant, too! The interview is set up for four snarky women to gang up on Ann, arguing that she's many things terrible, then, as this Jet Li-like wizard defends every thrust and perry with grace and exactitude for ten minutes, she faces the charge of "not being able to take it." HA!! That is what you say when you've been bested, dear Whoopi. You couldn't form a real charge of racism, cruelty to single mothers, or even *gasp* daring to "talk down" to the almighty Barbara Walters, (in between her tell-all books about screwing married men who are still married), against Ann, so you had to resort to doing schoolyard antics like the bully you are. You've gotten way too much mileage from being ugly and black.

NEWS FLASH TO WHOOPI: She apparently CAN take it, you washed-up hack, since she's obviously HERE, answering all of your claims, and TAKING IT. When's the last time you made declarations about morality in this country (in a deeper context than being on stage for a few minutes, where you're doing little more than making fart sounds with Billy Crystal and Robin Williams, or gossiping with three white women in an effort to be another Oprah), then went to be interviewed by the very people you criticized?

Installing A KDC MP438U Into A 05 Corolla

I decided to get Pam, my girlfriend, a car stereo this year for Christmas. Unfortunately, she couldn't use her factory 6-cd changer anymore when some of the discs I made for her got stuck in the unit, unable to be dislodged.
So I decided to get her a new unit alltogether. I haven't ever replaced a car stereo, so this was done with a little uncertainty. She has an Ipod, so I decided to find a head unit (the proper name for a car stereo) that had not only an Ipod input on it, but a USB port as well. The answer: the Kenwood KDC MP438U.

This is what the old factory unit looks like from a rear view:
With the hu (head unit) removed from Pam's car:

I admit: The plugs situation sent me to the internet, and then a local car stereo installation shop to find the answer. I needed a specific wire harness that was custom-made to fit the plug assembly for her make and model of car.
I purchased an 05 Corolla (6 JBL speaker) plug assembly for 17 dollars at the local stereo shop. Otherwise, I didn't need to purchase anything else, other than the din unit (dash kit) and the stereo.

The attendant at the local car stereo shop was glad to show me the harness I was wanting, but suddenly, after pecking around on his pc keyboard a bit before ringing me up, he gets a serious look on his face, and told me that he's supposed to include a $110.00 pre-amp digital converter if my girl's car was a 6-JBL speaker setup. It was, but this new amp device was news to me. All of the research I'd done, plus seeing the plugs as they were originally plugged, told me to resist his hard sell.

I quickly steered the conversation into deeper details, ("Well, why does the 6-speaker assembly need a digital conversion that the 4-speaker wouldn't", etc) mainly out of shock at the price of this device, and had him unable to answer me within a minute or so. He finally said, "Look man, all I know is that if your stock stereo has inputs like the ones you got in this picture, here", [I printed off a copy of the above photo with "05 Corolla stock radio" in it to illustrate my job needs when I went to the shop], pointing not to the ones that are circled in yellow, but to the ones on the left side of the rear of the stereo, "then I'm supposed to include this amp convertor".

That port looked more like the port on the back of the new Kenwood, and I had been wondering why there was nothing plugged to them when removing it. But the ONLY plugs (besides the antennae) from the Corolla were the ones circled in yellow above, going to the yellow-circled ports above that pic. Nothing was plugged into the left-side ports, and I told him that twice--once in the beginning, then again now.

He said, "If you didn't have cables running to that port, then your car ain't a 6-JBL speaker system--it's a 4-speaker system." triumphantly, with finality, as if there was no more left to say about the matter.

I told him, "I'll take my chances, let me buy the 17 dollar JBL 6-speaker harness for now, and if I need to, I'll come back for that amp convertor."

The new harness is to be connected to the one your radio manufacturer sends you. They look similar, but with different plugs, of course, and maybe some labels, but they are using universal colors in the car stereo industry, so you just merry up color to like color. This is the Kenwood harness that came with the package:

My advice: crimp (with butt joints, not crude splicing with electrical tape) the new assembly to the new stereo wiring harness, which should be included in your new stereo packaging:

After crimping, attach them to the car's harness:

Before attaching the wires:

After plugging in your antennae (single-post adaptor, usually), plug in your new hu:

Slip it in, and carefully snap the dash console back in place:

And VOILA:

All works great, and she's really impressed with the upgrade. I'm happy--she deserves to have nice things. We particularly like the USB port capability, and the dual-zone feature, where the rear speakers play from a different source, in their own "zone". The rear speakers can be playing something from your jump drive while the front speakers are listening to an IPod, satellite radio, a phone call, or, if you care to listen to the museum of broadcasting, terrestrial AM\FM radio and its polished turd, HD radio.

FOOTNOTE: The guy at the stereo shop was wrong, obviously, by saying that Pam's car was a 4-JBL speaker system. I knew that when he told me that I had a 4-speaker setup if those (yellow-circled port above) were the only plugs I had going to the factory unit. Luckily, I had already taken apart Pam's dash before going into this store, seeking a part and advice. That's how I knew for sure that I didn't have to purchase the $110.00 device.

I listened to each of her 6 speakers, all responding in beautiful clarity.

Preview Of Destruction: Obama Warns A Nation

You can practically hear the disdain for business [free market] in this report of the speech above, especially when you get to the end, where Obama’s emphasis is illuminated: “Obama also promised action to address the economy’s ills beyond the package, such as tackling a potential wave of home foreclosures, preventing the failure of financial institutions, rewriting financial regulations and keeping accountable the “Wall Street wrongdoers” who engage in risky investing.” (source)

“Risky investing”???? Screw you, you f*ing punk! “Wall Street wrongdoers” were ONLY put in place because of YOU and your ACORN nuts, your Andrew Cuomo bolsheviks at HUD in the 1990’s, and your lickspittle peckerheads like Bill Clinton. Don’t EVEN act like Wall Street dreamed up these home lending procedures which were the first cancer cells in this crash we’re now experiencing! (free market banks aren’t told to make loans to people who can’t pay them back)

This petty beaurocrat has listened at the feet of communists and socialists all of his life, and it is apparent. He doesn’t have the courage to be a free thinker, willing to throw off those chains of old. The Democrat Party has not evolved for 50 years, and it is obvious to those of us who have paid attention to the past 200 years of Western Civilization. Instead of innovation and production, our economic wizards like Obama and those who feed at the same trough promote niche interests [how many unskilled masses will "green business" employ?] and peacemeal projects ["updating schools and universities"? Who gets those few jobs in select college towns across America--your union thug buddies? What about those of us who don't belong to a union, live out in the boonies, and just lost our job? NEWS FLASH: there's MILLIONS of us. How many universities you got?] as a solution to our global financial crisis.

This idiot drinks from the same well as many fine characters from our past: Trotsky, Stalin, Mao. Where’s the NEW approach from the Left? Where’s the evolution? We’ve had to endure MUCH modification of our Free Market stance in this world (think about how much Adam Smith’s formula has changed), why doesn’t the Left ever have to change and meet us halfway on…ANYthing?

But they don’t. We will be strangled by this new administration, unable to gasp for air. The Free Market’s solution would be to let the markets encounter their corrections, make adjustments, then proceed on an improved path. But Obama will feed this cancer to keep it going, extracting more and more tax dollars from our whimpering freedom, all the time telling us that it was Free Markets that got us here, and that if we were wise, we would stop dreaming about making 100K a year anymore. Just like Michelle said in Ohio, “Don’t set yourself up for that dream job, making that dream salary”. It’s all too hard. And it keeps you from being herded into our circles.

Two legs bad, four legs good…

Ann In The MSM: Matt Lauer Suits Up

SCORE: Ann-2 MSM-0

This was yet another display of someone with one hand tied behind her back absolutely demolishing an opponent. The awkwardness of NBC having to re-schedule Ann is painfully apparent when:
1) Matt opened his mouth to proclaim that the allmighty NBC DIDN’T ban Ann for life, so there.
2) Matt tried to ‘flip the script’ like any child does, and claim that Ann herself made the quote about being “banned for life by NBC”.
3) Matt turns antagonistic after the first attempt of his is beautifully countered by Ann.

The rest of this embarrassing display shows a red-faced Matt desperately trying to play Gotcha with this master, and, unlike Harry Smith, Matt knows that he can’t win a debate against Ann, so he tries to bait her with seemingly-sincere questions. Not quite the same fiasco that Smith performed (where Harry’s personal feelings got the best of him) yesterday, but a shoddy interview, nonetheless.

Where’s the Journalism, here? I’m a graduate of the same university that Matt attended in the beginning of his coke years, and there’s a school of journalism there named after Scripps. I’m sorry, but to look at the crop of mind-numbed idiots who graduate from these esteemed places grow into such namby-pamby, squealing, airheads is an embarrassment to watch.

Where’s the inquisitive reporter who wants to ask Ann questions in order to learn something about her philosophy, perspective, background, etc? I’ve now watched 2 networks “serve the public” by interviewing a serious author of many books, and I can’t say that I have learned ONE thing of value about her new book, which is supposed to be the focus of these “professional” interviews.

There’s got to be hundreds of pages from Ann’s new book, but after 20 minutes of analysis, the only thing that the intrepid Smith and Lauer have shown us is a kid poking an animal with a stick.

Ann In The MSM: Harry Smith Suits Up

What I think is pure brilliance, here, is the way that Ann turns around her would-be assassin in mid sentence:
SMITH: You want to be taken seriously…I sense that, right? [then takes a deep breath, ready to deliver some one-two punch at Ann]
ANN: [interjects] Well, I make serious points in a humorous way, for instance…

You could feel Harry exhale, in a dejected way, having missed his big chance to skewer Ann Coulter. Did you notice the body language in this interview? Harry is up on the edge of his chair, feet planted and ready to leap to them if necessary, and is both leaning into and pointing at Ann as he tries to methodically lay a trap for her.

But Ann is WAY too advanced to be prey to this two-bit hack anchor, and his high school debate tactics. Has Harry ever argued with any mind more prepared than the typical CBS Early Show staff? I mean, does he even understand a person like Ann? Here’s a plastic piece of lawn furniture in Harry Smith, trying to match wits with the Hanging Gardens Of Babylon in Ms Coulter.

It was priceless to see how Ann turned Smith into a pussycat.

What is even more delicious is to know the backdrop to the whole appearance, which I didn’t before. Here’s Ann, who has been finishing her next book for months, now, and ALL of these networks know that a book tour is going to be following the release of her book. Hell, the NBC segment which was to be aired yesterday (then today) was recorded months ago. Then, at the point of having her on, they balk not once, but TWO days in a row! And who did they replace Ann’s book interview segment with? The highly important and profound Perez Hilton! The NBC audience IQ is more suited for Perez Hilton’s kind of wisdom, anyway, I guess. They can understand trite not truth.

NBC made the move for political reasons, and then it BACKFIRED on them when Ann, on the fly, goes over to CBS to perform her segment. And to add even more sweetness to the deal, we saw her deftly light herself like a bird into Mr Smith’s outstretched hand, which concealed the knife he wished to plunge into her back while performing the interview.

And she bested him!!

After that first perry, Ann had Harry leaning back, defeated, trying to figure out a different angle since she threw him off stance. The rest of the interview consisted of a supposedly-objective network news anchor trying to criticize Ms Coulter worse than he would have a Mr Hussein, a Mr Amedinejad, or a Mr Medvedev.

He dares to call the legal scholar “goofy”, and “sophomoric”, and feigns concern over whether people can really take her seriously or not. Let’s see: Ann can command the largest book advance of any conservative writer up until this point in time, and Harry is so wise and hip that he thinks no one takes her
seriously!

NEWS FLASH TO HARRY: You’re an idiot. You don’t know when to give up. The joke was on YOU. You should have conducted an informative interview of this
major thinker in America today, but you tried to make it about you and how you’ve read 150 pages in one night, and can’t find a reason to buy her book.

Here’s another tip, Harry: don’t try to speed-read one of Ann’s books. I know that you’re used to cramming the night before a big interview the next day, but this isn’t the same mind that you’re normally picking through. This time, you might not be dealing with an author of a pet grooming book, or whatever
you normally stay up for.

Then the interview takes kind of a surreal turn: Harry had the producers type up a quote before the objective interview, and now was his big chance to cry
and whine that Ann called him insane. He apparently had been anticipating this moment for some time, because, without provocation he gets a steely look in his eye, similar to what you may find at your average mental hospital, outstretches his arm at Ann again, then swells up with indignation at her as he declares:
“One of my friends was gunned down in Denver. He was a talk show host. I’ve been to the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. I’ve looked hate in the eye.”

What??? You arrived at the Murrah Building after it had been destroyed–how did you encounter the hate that commited its destruction, Harry? You’re
deluding yourself if that’s the only two examples of your “seeing hate up close”. Ann was right–you’re certifiably insane.

And whoopee if you’ve “looked hate in the eye.” Does that disqualify Ann and her perspective? Have you even asked her what SHE might have lost in 911?
What about the rest of her life? Are you so cocksure, Harry, that your trauma of supposedly knowing Alan Berg when he was killed and having stood at a place where something bad happened trump Ann’s experience? Why even bring up those deep wounds that you carry with you to this day?

In his twisted little mind, standing at a place in Oklahoma City and proclaiming to have known Alan Berg qualify him to know that Obama could be assassinated.

Does his mind seem more squirrely to you like it does to me? Too much time spent in front of the mirror and camera have caused the same detatchmet syndrome that afflicts Dan Rather.

From this display which was most certainly scripted on Smith’s part, you can tell that nothing valuable is going to be learned here, today. Other, of course, than the fact that as time goes on, Ann is like a fine wine, getting better with age.

When Ann finally grasps the depth of this attacker’s intelligence, and how shallow it is, she laughs. Harry thinks that Ann’s book has only the amount of legitimacy that could be afforded the comment about CBS anchors, namely Harry Smith. Once he heard that she had a line about him in her book, that’s all he needed to know. Book stinks–her bad!
(In psychological texts, it used to be called “egocentric”, most easily illustrated in infant behavior when playing peek-a-boo. Much the way that a baby thinks the parent has disappeared when his eyes are covered up, this interviewer can’t see the larger truth in a book when blinders are applied to his eyes in the form of a simple comment about CBS anchors.)

He says, “You make your point at my expense”, and then you realize the emotional impact that Harry is infected with. Ann’s larger point [and her entire book] HAS to be illegitimate because it is carrying along with it a smaller truth that CBS anchors are crazy, you see.

Harry can’t accept anything past the charge, “you’re crazy”. This prima donna put on his clothes this morning, being told that “you look so wonderful”, by all that surrounded him as normal. He wasn’t ready for the voice in the crowd that yelled, “You’re wearing no clothes, Harry.”

The Smug Left: WFMU's Terre T Shows Her Ignorance

Have you ever noticed that most people who can't support their claim usually rely on crutch phrases and drawn out effects as a defensive tactic? For instance:

ANNCR: Ok, there is a politician who is the RNC chairman who wants to run with his campaign theme song being, "Barrack The Magic Negro". And I'm just like, you want to be the head of the RNC and you...want to use...that song...as your theme song! And I'm just like...HELLO!

Ok. "Hello", what? What is your point? What is in the song, if we may push back the darkness a bit, here?

That is the equivalent of what happens in this exchange from a Terre T's Cherry Blossom Clinic program from Saturday, Jan 3rd, 2009. It was broadcast on WFMU public radio station, and you can listen to it here.

If you notice, this break is more or less a team break, with someone named Sue or something in the background adding her idiocy. They are both cackling about a parody song that first appeared on Rush Limbaugh's highly successful show. It was performed by the immensely talented Paul Shanklin, and you can listen to it here.

As you listen to the first stanza, you can't help but hear the singer ("Al Sharpton") say that "the LA Times called him that ["Barrack The Magic Negro"] 'cause he's not authentic like me".

Well, if you had even an ounce of objectivity and intelligence, you would realize that Paul Shanklin's song here, which is being shrieked at by the Left as a Republican statement, is no more than a parody of the very words from the African American Wing in the Democrat Party!

Read this original excerpt from a David Ehrenstein of the L.A. Times, in which he demonstrates a cognitive problem distinguishing real life from movies. He starts this article, which ran almost two years ago, by speaking of this new Senator from Illinois, claiming that Barrack is the Magic Negro of postmodern folklore:
"The Magic Negro is a figure of postmodern folk culture, coined by snarky 20th century sociologists, to explain a cultural figure who emerged in the wake of Brown vs. Board of Education. "He has no past, he simply appears one day to help the white protagonist," reads the description on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro .

He's there to assuage white "guilt" (i.e., the minimal discomfort they feel) over the role of slavery and racial segregation in American history, while replacing stereotypes of a dangerous, highly sexualized black man with a benign figure for whom interracial sexual congress holds no interest." (source)

The joke is on you, Terre T, and your troll-sounding partner, there. In a more perfect world you two might not be so ignorant, and you'd know what is really funny about this entire flap, but you're too smug and prejudiced in this life, caste to make these stupid comments for the world to hear.

"They can dish it out, but they can't take it". Just WHAT exactly can we not take??? We're the party of rock-ribbed discipline and sacrafice, theirs is the party of Dionysian excess, and that co-host says something like that? In fact, it seems like quite the non-sequitor. The claim is that when protested about using a parody as a campaign song, that we come back with the explanation, "Oh come on, take a joke. It's funny!"

Yet the charge from that annecdote is that "they can dish it out but they can't take it." According to the dizzy claim made by Ms Politically Stupid, Terre's reporting of the Republican response makes the GOP retort sound like a mature consideration of the charge, then a simple, understandable explanation: It's a JOKE.

How does 'Lighten up, it's a joke', qualify as "Not being able to take it"? Frankly, Ms Politically Stupid #2, or, "Sue", sounds like she's seen her better days. Isn't it ironic that she can sneer and condescend against Republicans for perceived racism, yet blithely cackle and mock the hip-hop culture as a white girl who, tee-hee, has been given the Wu Tang Clan nickname of "Antagoniza", just to prove how "down with the struggle" she is. In truth, the closest she's ever come to black people is when she has to ride the subway.

She's so stupid that she doesn't see her own racism while decrying the racism in an entire half of America.

But, she's on the public station of fame in New Jersey, WFMU, carrying on as most of the smug, self-assured, know-it-all punks in college do. They hear existentialism, nihilism, and postmodernism all day from the Lords Of Your Future, known as professors, who forget just how artificial and surreal their surroundings, their job, and their work really is. Too many of them take themselves way too seriously, and the propoganda of Leftist collectivism spreads like a cancer, manifesting in class envy, victimism, and general hate of The American Way.

The two women on this break are quintessential Leftists I've run into at college and elsewhere in life: Worshipping secularism as their moral authority, proclaiming cultural relativism as the optimum formula for mankind, while ridiculing anyone who follows the traditions of this country. 'Smugness' best describes it for me, and it seems to me that one day these people will be made to answer for their mockery.

Now, Why, Exactly, Was Sarah Palin NOT Suited For High Office? George Bush?

Saying Goodbye: Bush/Cheney & The Troops

President Bush meets retired Army Sgt. Neil Duncan (left) and Army Spc. Max Ramsey for an impromptu jog

The Drudge headline linking to the story where this picture appears reads, "President Bush has written to family of every single fallen soldier". The article, from The Washington Times, is worth reading here, but the basic fact is worth noting by itself.

Vice President Dick Cheney, an avid fly-fisherman, practices his cast with wounded troops from Walter Reed Army Medical Center during one of the half-dozen barbecues he's hosted at his Naval Observatory home. (White House photo)

What will this next president do for the combat cause? Will he just make photo ops with Tami Duckworth and other anti-Bush veterans who tug at our heartstrings? Will he show his hate and immature understanding of the right-wing military-types in their midst at the White House, turning these uniformed officers into waiters for parties as the Clintons did?

I remember that his much-ballyhooed visit to Europe and subsequent snub of one of our military hospitals while there was barely addressed by the Tom Brokaws of our 5th column, not even a memory only weeks later, when Brokaw remarked to Charlie Rose, "I don't think we did a good enough job of getting to know Obama".

The Tale Of Two Wannabes: Burris & Franken

Appointed by the tainted Blagojevich, Illinois State Attorney General Roland Burris is doing all he can to separate himself from the provincial governor, seemingly breaking his neck to jump into the seat vacated by Barry. At present, the Senate Democrats plan to lock arms in order to physically bar his attempt to enter the chambers. (source)

Al's real-life comedy skit is ending just like his always did-with a fizz. He continues to fight and claw his way into our hearts because, gosh-darnit, people like him.

How much can Hollywood celebrity, 30 years worth of name recognition, and employment on Air America get you these days? Not even 50% in Minnesota, apparently. After 2 months of shinanigans like denying military absentee ballots, Al is starting to fall apart, apparently. He's lashing out, threatening to claw the eyes out of any Republican he can find.

Fearful of contracting rabies, the Senate Republicans are vowing to fillibuster any attempt by Al to seat himself in the chambers. (source)

When More Ice=Global Warming

What you're looking at is a comparison between satellite pictures of Antarctica and all of the ice that resides there (in grey). The top two pictures are from 1979, when we first started collecting satellite images of polar caps in this fashion.

Don't be surprised if the grey areas in the top two photos look exactly the same as the two in the bottom pics, which were taken in November of 2008. In fact, there is 4.4% greater ice now than there was 30 years ago. (source)

What?

But I thought that mankind and George Bush were melting the polar caps!!! I thought Al Gore told us that we were only a few years away from global catastrophe, involving sea levels rising to unsustainable levels, polar bears going extinct, and marine life being boiled alive thanks to the way US citizens use 25% of the world's resources!

The reasons we use one quarter of the world's resources are simple:
1) We pay for them
2) The nations which have them can't use them as well as the US, and need our money for them
3) Supporting the world's poor takes that much energy

Every paycheck we make in the US has a portion extracted in order to give to developing nations to the tune of 15 billion dollars a year. That isn't even including the money we pay to the UN (we are only 1/190th of the UN's total membership, yet we pay 1/4 of their monstrous budget), and all other multinational organizations who tell us that we are gluttons while holding out their hand for more dollars.

The reason we are using this much energy is because we work harder and longer than any other nation. We get up every day, on time, and show up for work; we don't take siestas, or repeated days off without explanation; when we loose one job, we take on two until we find the one that pays the same; we don't sit on our asses, complaining that the rice field is flooded, therefore we can't do anything else.

To hear the Al Gore's of the world tell it, we Americans are all joyriding every day in Jalopys which get about 4 miles to the gallon. In Al's eyes, conditioned to seeing life through the prism of his Watergate Hotel in his formative years, gasoline consumption means only one thing: cruising in limosines, yachts, or jets.

He's never driven an old work van every day for a living. He's never been a small businessman who can't afford to just run out and buy a brand new vehicle. For Al, getting behind the wheel is an an impulsive act of exuberance, excess, and greed. He thinks he's latched onto "an inconvenient truth" simply because that's the way he was raised.

As the data pours in, finding that the natural cycle of global warming is ebbing, we see that even the US Senate Committee On Environment And Public Works has grown a spine, and is publishing undeniable facts that refute the main thesis of Al Gore and his rabble. The latest report dealing with AGW (anthropogenic [human-caused] global-warming), is here.

What the rabid Gore crowd like to do, I've noticed, is to try to shut down the conversation by ad-hominem attacks, ranging from "you're just too stupid to understand science", to "you're just too greedy to admit the truth because you're accepting money from the polluters".

That's great. They remind me of my 4 yr-old niece when you tell her that she can't have something: "You just hate me."

"The amount of scientists we have who agree on AGW is incontrovertable", they have been telling us, lately. Unfortunately for Al Gore and his kool-aid drinkers, only 52 scientists signed their names to the highly-respected United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore.

52?

And we're all just supposed to follow this lemming called Gore over...52 scientists?

Twelve times that number of scientists came forward to sign the report from the Senate (linked a few lines above), all ready to sign their names as dissenters of Al Gore's team of scientists who claim AGW. Here are just a few comments from the report:

•“I am a skeptic.... Global warming has become a new religion.” — Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever. •“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp.... Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” — Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

•“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil.... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” — South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

•“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” — Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

•“All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.” — Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology).

•“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense.... The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” — Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

•“Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC.... The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium ... which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” — Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.

•“I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” — Dr. G LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO.•“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly.... As a scientist I remain skeptical.... The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” — Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

•Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history.... When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” — UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

•“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds.... I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” — Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

Besides these international scientists, more than 31,000 American scientists have signed onto the Global Warming Petition Project, a petition that urges “the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.”