Sean Hannity interviews the country’s mayor, Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani frankly explains his positions that are contrary to the republican ‘base.’
All posts by Ross
What Color Is Articulate?
There’s always somebody waiting to be offended, and today it is a college professor who objects to the President using the word ‘articulate’ when describing Sen. Barack Hussein Obama. There was one such example on Fox tonight when O’Reilly had a guest (a black professor at Temple U.) who accused the President of making a racist comment toward Obama when being interviewed by Neil Cavuto the other day.
CAVUTO: How do you think the troops would feel about a President Obama?
BUSH: Oh, I don’t know. He, let’s — he hasn’t gotten elected yet. He hasn’t even gotten the party’s nomination.
(LAUGHTER)
BUSH: He’s an attractive guy. He’s articulate. I have been impressed with him when I have seen him in person. But he’s got a long way to go to be president.
CAVUTO: All right.
To turn Bush’s statement into a racial slur of some sort is bigoted in and of itself and smacks of someone with a big chip on their shoulder.
The liberal racial template is at work. When black conservatives come into public awareness, (Thomas, Powell, Rice, Steele, Swann, and Blackwell) the knee-jerk liberal response is that they are Uncle Toms. You don’t hear the left calling them bright and articulate and fine examples for our youth, especially our black youth. No, none of that. Instead, they say the black conservatives are on the republican plantation. So much for coming together.
Democrats apparently look at themselves as the gold standard on race relations. How else can you explain this double standard? Joe Biden gets a pass with his description of Obama, who added ‘clean’ to his attributes. So when a republican, or the President, would say a black democrat is articulate, when he IS, then he is being racist? Just ridiculous. That professor sounds to me like the Johnny Cochran of politics.
In my mind, it would be bigoted to call Colin Powell an Uncle Tom, just as it would be if one were to say Sec. of State Rice sounds ‘white’. Both have racial meaning and are equally destructive. ‘Articulate’ is race neutral, as is ‘bright’, ‘intelligent,’ and ‘clean.’ The time to remove that chip has past.
Republicans Encourage Debate On Iraq
Title correction for Susan Cornwell, the Reuters reporterette. Despite the fact that the MSM calls it the opposite, such as “Republicans block Senate debate on Iraq.’ The measure that is being blocked is the one that allows for no debate, no opposing points of view, no coming together.
Questions About Global Warming
This seems to be ‘global warming day’ as far as the news is concerned, what with the release of a summary of the doom and gloom as regards to ‘global warming’ and (most importantly) it is caused by us, and from which there is no recovery. Serve us up some fear please.
Neal Boortz was on this subject this morning and had a great observation about reasons to doubt this global warming crap as relates to human beings.
The United Nations is anti-American and anti-Capitalist. In short .. I don’t trust them. Not a bit. The UN would eagerly engage in any enterprise that would weaken capitalist economies around the world.
Because after the fall of the Soviet Union and worldwide Communism many in the anti-capitalist movement moved to the environmental movement to continue pursuing their anti-free enterprise goals. Many of the loudest proponents of man-made global warming today are confirmed anti-capitalists.
Because the sun is warmer .. and all of these scientists don’t seem to be willing to credit a warmer sun with any of the blame for global warming.
The polar ice caps on Mars are melting. How did our CO2 emissions get all the way to Mars?
It was warmer in the 1930s across the globe than it is right now.
It wasn’t all that long ago that these very same scientists were warning us about “global cooling” and another approaching ice age?
How much has the earth warmed up in the last 100 years? One degree. Now that’s frightening.
Because that famous “hockey stick” graph that purports to show a sudden warming of the earth in the last few decades is a fraud. It ignored previous warming periods … left them off the graph altogether.
The infamous Kyoto accords exempt some of the world’s biggest CO2 polluters, including China and India.
The Kyoto accords can easily be seen as nothing less than an attempt to hamstring the world’s dominant capitalist economies.
Because many of these scientists who are sounding the global warming scare depend on grant money for their livelihood, and they know the grant money dries up when they stop preaching the global warming sermon.
Because global warming “activists” and scientists seek to punish those who have different viewpoints. If you are sure of your science you have no need to shout down or seek to punish those who disagree.
What happened to the Medieval Warm Period? In 1996 the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a chart showing climatic change over a period of 1000 years. This graph showed a Medieval warming period in which global temperatures were higher than they are today. In 2001 the IPCC issued another 1000 year graph in which the Medieval warming period was missing. Why?
Why has one scientist promoting the cause of man-made global warming been quoted as saying “we have to get rid of the medieval warming period?”
Why is the ice cap on the Antarctic getting thicker if the earth is getting warmer?
In the United State, the one country with the most accurate temperature measuring and reporting records, temperatures have risen by 0.3 degrees centigrade over the past 100 years. The UN estimate is twice that.
There are about 160,000 glaciers around the world. Most have never been visited or measured by man. The great majority of these glaciers are growing, not melting.
Side-looking radar interferometry shows that the ise mass in the West Antarctic is growing at a rate of over 26 gigatons a year. This reverses a melting trend that had persisted for the previous 6,000 years.
Rising sea levels? The sea levels have been rising since the last ice age ended. That was 12,000 years ago. Estimates are that in that time the sea level has risen by over 300 feet. The rise in our sea levels has been going on long before man started creating anything but natural CO2 emissions.
Like Antarctica, the interior of Greenland is gaining ice mass.
Over the past 3,000 years there have been five different extended periods when the earth was measurably warmer than it is today.
During the last 20 years — a period of the highest carbon dioxide levels — global temperatures have actually decreased. That’s right … decreased.
Why did a reporter from National Public Radio refuse to interview David Deming, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma studying global warming, after his testimony to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee unless Deming would state that global warming was being caused by man?
Why are global warming proponents insisting that the matter is settled and that no further scientific research is needed? Why are they afraid of additional information?
On July 24, 1974 Time Magazine published an article entitled “Another Ice Age?” Here’s the first paragraph:
“As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.”
No Allies, No War Hillary
In an attempt to show an about-face on the Iraq war to Code Pink the other day, Sen. Hillary Clinton said this “[w]e should not go to war unless we have allies.” In my world, just an enemy is required before going to war.
Vietnam Flashback, Democrats Today
Taking the first opportunity to show distrust and disdain of the military, democrats top-off their first 100 hours by kicking off the their second Vietnam campaign. That is to say, the democrat leaders today have turned the war on terror into a political battle with a penchant for sharing the Commander in Chief responsibilities.
Vietnam was lost hugely because of politicians running the war from Washington instead of generals running the war in theater. Today, right out of the box, democrats’ first position on the war was to ignore the advice of the general in charge, Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, and proceed with playing politics with our troops and the war with their ‘non-binding’ resolution.
Dems Rebuke Military In First 100 Hours
According to the ‘democrat clock’, the ‘first 100 hours’ is not over yet. Here’s the addendum to the 100 hour blitz of 
democrat legislation. In the first 100 hours, Democrats rebuke the military.
Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the President’s pick to implement the new Iraq strategy, was lauded by all the democrat leaders in the house and senate. Within a day or two of the big welcome and confidence expressed for Gen. Petraeus’ record and judgement, democrats in the house ignore his advice and have their Iraq plan ‘no confidence’ resolution anyway.
Asked by Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) whether those resolutions would give encouragement to the enemy by exposing divisions among the American people, he replied: “That’s correct.”
So when people like Hillary Clinton chastise Bush for not listening to his generals (their spin), Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Murtha, Kucinich and the like are doing the same, to the real general, the one charged with the responsibility of prosecuting it, despite the fact that they know full well that the ‘unintended’ consequence of such a rebuff would give hope to the enemy. Giving hope to your enemy is not a way to win the war.
Ahmadinejad Says US And Israel Will Soon Die
“Iran: Israel, US will soon die” Now there’s a headline you won’t see in your newspaper. I wonder how much help we will give Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should we leave Iraq prematurely? I haven’t seen or heard anyone demanding that Mahmoud ‘negotiate’ with the US, have you? Mahmoud is on a mission and negotiations is but a sideshow to his mission.
Yaakov Lappin Published: 01.23.07, 22:24
Ahmadinejad: Be assured that the US and Israel will soon end lives
Israel and the United States will soon be destroyed, Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday during a meeting with Syria’s foreign minister, the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) website said in a report.
“Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad… assured that the United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives,” the Iranian president was quoted as saying.
Resolution Hurts War Effort, Helps Enemy
With the democrats proposing to have a resolution, ‘non-binding’ they’ll be sure to say, for the purpose of expressing their ‘no confidence’ on the President’s ‘surge’ plan, one wonders what the effect of such a vote would have on our troops, the war effort, and on our enemy if it were to occur? Simply, it would hurt the morale by showing non-support of and for the troops, and, it would offer hope to our enemy that they can prevail if democrats would have their way.
As a legislator, does it make any sense whatsoever to do something that would in one fell swoop, harm our troops and our war effort and help our enemy?
How about a resolution to win the war and defeat al-Qaeda and other terrorists around the world? Unity in fighting this war is more important to this country than whoever is in the White House. A concept which the current democrat leadership does not endorse.
100 Hours on ‘Democrat Clock’
Back to the point of not hearing anything from the MSM on the first 100 hours of the Democrat congress, here it is. Well, no it isn’t. AP calls it ‘Six for ’06’, which is the Democrats’ six-bill, 100-hour legislative agenda. Now there is an article, but none of the six legislative actions were listed. Here is what it is, and why it’s not being explained.
- Remove incentives from and increase taxes on the oil industry. Add dis-incentives (conservation fee) to oil production and exploration in the Gulf of Mexico.
- Raise the federal minimum wage.
- Implement some 9/11 commission recommendations.
- Expand embryonic stem cell research.
- Empower Medicare to ‘negotiate’ prices with the pharm industry.
- Lower interest rates on student loans.
Today, Democrats stood united to say that we have kept our promise to the American people, said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California.
She’s not referring to her promise of being partners, not partisans, with the minority. They were shut out of 100% of the 100 hours as far as input goes. There is this Democrat Clock that worked like this. . .
The Democrats’ clock, which counted only the time spent directly on the six bills, showed that 42 hours and 15 minutes had elapsed when the roll call ended on the last bill, energy legislation that would reimpose billions in fees, royalties and taxes on the oil industry.
What’s missing in the Democrats’ agenda?