Hartshorne as a student at Yale

Title: A church for a summer colony
Artist: Hartshorne
Date: c1933

Reid: Petraeus is a Liar

Sen. Harry Reid is in over his head and has possibly gone insane. His total detachment from reality is showing more each day. When will we see the complete meltdown?

BASH:He also said that General Petraeus is going to come to the Hill and make it
clear to you that there is progress going on in Iraq, that the so-called
surge is working. Will you believe him when he says that?

REID: No, I don't believe him, because it's not happening.

Who was it that referred to Conservatives by snarking "Hate is not a family value"? Reid's hatred of Bush and his lust for power, I believe, have unhinged him.

UPDATE: Sniper One thinks his problem is mere stupidity.
UPDATE: Thanks to the tube like magnificence of the Internet Bloodthirsty Liberal captures Rudy's thoughts on Dems in general.
Gateway Pundit reports that the San Francisco Treat will not meet with General Petraeus. That's leadership!
MVRWC has the audacity to think a soldier has an opinion worth listening to.
Red State says resignation now!
WMD brings Boehner in his A-Game showing true leadership. Read on-Matt nails Reid and the SFT as well.

Elysium by Brandon of Javajive

Ostroy, Harry Reid Groupie

Andy Ostroy, who believes the media and its writers have become whores for the right wing writes for the media. Now that we know what he is, what's he cost?

Sen. Harry Reid Is Right About Iraq War
OPINION by ANDY OSTROY
Last week Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., caused a ruckus in
Washington by saying that there is no military solution to the Iraq War. That
it's over and it's time to get out.

"I believe myself that the secretary of state, the secretary of defense —
and you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows — that
this war is lost, and that the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated
by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday," Reid said.

...

Bush and his war-mongering cronies took it upon themselves to invade a
sovereign nation under the guise of (a) retaliating against Sept. 11; (b)
protecting America and Britain from WMD "mushroom clouds;" and then (c) building a stable democracy in the Middle East. As we now all know, there were no WMD in Iraq, there was no connection to bin Laden and al Qaeda and true, sustainable democracy is but a fantasy. Failure, failure, failure. And the insurgents have been empowered and emboldened by this failure, not weakened. And Bush's desperate "troop surge" is not going to make one bit of difference in changing Iraq's military and political landscape.

...

Stop regurgitating all this BS about progress and success and show it to
us.

Ah, the usual Liberal restating what Reid didn't say to make it more acceptable.

Next in the Liberal litany of usuals;
Supporters of the GWOT are war-mongering cronies of Bush
Iraq was a good sovereign nation, just remember the flying kites and balloons
No WMD, i.e., Bush lied and got Congress to lie with him
No al-Qaeda connection, but anyway just imply Bush said bin-Laden
No sustainable democracy because everybody knows it should have happened by now

Ostroy is right about emboldening the terrorists (he lovingly calls them insurgents), he and Reid and their ilk empower and embolden them everyday and as long as they voice terrorism's daily talking points, the surge may not work.

Andy, stop regurgitating the Liberal BS about failure and regression and you won't be able to continue as a whore for the right wing media. Maybe the BS is your price.

e-mail chuckle

The old priest lay dying in the hospital. For years he had faithfully served the people of the nation's capital. He motioned for his nurse to come near. "Yes, Father?" said the nurse.

"I would really like to see Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton before I die" whispered the priest.

"I'll see what I can do, Father" replied the nurse.

The nurse sent the request to the Senate and waited for a response. Soon the word arrived. Kennedy and Clinton would be delighted to visit the priest.

As they went to the hospital, Clinton commented to Kennedy "I don't know why the old priest wants to see us, but it will certainly help our images." Kennedy couldn't help but agree.

When they arrived at the priest's room, the priest took Kennedy's hand in his right hand and Clinton's hand in his left. There was silence and a look of serenity on the old priest's face.

Finally Senator Kennedy spoke. "Father, of all the people you could have chosen, why did you choose us to be with you as you near the end?"

The old priest slowly replied "I have always tried to pattern my life after our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."

"Amen" said Kennedy.

"Amen" said Clinton.

The old priest continued..."He died between two lying thieves. I would like to do the same."

Chuck Hagel Faces the Truth

This from High Plains Patriot via Gateway Pundit :

Monday, April 23, 2007
Bruning Polling Ahead of Hagel
From Jon Bruning's press
release today, 23 April. Polling funded by Bruning's exploratory committee, completed by experienced, reputable polling firm.

Ballot 1
If Chuck Hagel
decides he does want to pursue a 3rd term in the Senate, and the Republican
primary election for U.S. Senate were held today between Jon Bruning and Chuck Hagel, for whom would you vote?
**Jon Bruning
leads Chuck Hagle 47%
to 38% statewide
**Bruning leads Hagel among
conservatives 57% to 31%Bruning leads Hagel among Republicans in Congressional District 2
(53% to 35%)
**Bruning leads Hagel among
Republicans in Congressional District 3 (52% to 33%). Congressional District 3
represents 42% of the Republican primary vote
Bruning leads Hagel in Douglas
County (Omaha) 54% to 34%
Bruning leads Hagel in the
Lincoln-Hastings-Kearney media market 49% to 34%
Bruning leads Hagel in Lancaster
County (Lincoln) 48% to 41%
Bruning leads Hagel in the entire
Omaha media market 44% to 42%
Hagel leads Bruning in 3 GOP
primary subgroups:
Congressional District 1 by 46% to 37%
Moderates by 46% to 37%
Liberals by 46% to 32%

Ballot 2"
Now suppose you learned that many Republicans here in Nebraska are
dissatisfied with Chuck Hagel because of his unrelenting criticism of
President Bush and for voting with liberal Democrats for a defense bill that
calls for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq and is loaded with pork barrel
spending. They are also upset that Senator Hagel has suggested publicly that impeachment of President Bush is an option, saying "You can impeach him. And before this over, you might see calls for his impeachment." Knowing this, if the Republican primary for U.S. Senate were held today between Jon Bruning and Chuck Hagel for whom would you vote?"
**Support for Jon Bruning increases by 8 points statewide while
support for Chuck Hagel drops by 7 points - a 15 point net shift in
the Attorney General's favor.
**Bruning leads Hagel in
Congressional District 1 by 12 points (48% - 36%) and among moderates by 4
points (45%-41%). Only among liberals does Bruning trail Hagel (39% - 46%).
**Bruning
widens his lead over Hagel in Douglas County (Omaha) 57% to 33%,
Congressional District 2 (56% to 32%), and seniors 65+ (52% to 33%).
**Support for Bruning increases significantly among conservatives
(63% to 23%), voters under 50 years of age (56% to 33%), those over 50 (55% to
30%), those in Lancaster County (Lincoln) 55% to 38%, the
Lincoln-Hastings-Kearney media market (57% to 26%), the Omaha media market (50% to 35%), and Congressional District 3 (59% to 27%).

posted by Brian Bresnahan

Good, I hope they throw his arrogant tail out of office.

Time for Harry Reid to Vamoose

Reid is a reed in the wind, only without the reed's strength, suppleness and usefulness.

First.
The Democratic strategy to use the ongoing violence in Iraq to their
political advantage in the run-up to the 2008 elections requires some skill and
nuance. But it's growing harder to believe Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid --
Nevada's own -- actually possesses those skills.

The Democratic strategy is anything but straightforward.
Sen. Reid and his colleagues know there is much political hay to be made by
criticizing President Bush's planning and conduct of the post-war occupation.
But they also know that while "cut our losses and pull out" plays well in
Democratic caucuses, it failed in the Connecticut general election in 2006, when
Sen. Joseph Lieberman and his anti-surrender stance handily defeated end-the-war candidate Ned Lamont -- even though Sen. Lieberman had to run as an independent to pull it off.

That's the kind of "poll" that really counts.

Thus, the Democrats' careful strategy requires them to appear to oppose Mr.
Bush's ongoing occupation of Iraq (to please their pacifist base), without
taking any concrete, "binding" actions to change the status quo.
Enter Sen. Reid, flopping around in big red shoes like Bozo the
Clown.

Second.
Reid has instead given moral support to the terrorists. His "leadership"
has been to try to cut off our forces' war funding. Now he has told the
Islamofascists that victory is theirs if they can just keep blowing up U.S.
soldiers and Iraqi citizens a little while longer.

In aiding and comforting the enemy in wartime, Reid has betrayed the office
he holds, shamed the Nevadans he represents and made the Democratic Party he
leads synonymous with surrender. There is one way he can repair the damage he's done to the nation: step down.

Third.
…actively undermining our fighting men and women in Iraq. His legislative
efforts to starve our armed forces in the middle of a war are as contemptible as
anything I’ve witnessed in my 25 years in Washington. And yesterday he made a
statement that was so disgraceful and brazen that it could have been uttered by
Tokyo Rose during World War II or Jane Fonda during the Vietnam War. The difference, of course, is that Reid is the highest ranking Democrat in the
United States Senate.

And.
David Broder, the sagely insightful “dean” of the Washington press corps, attacked Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) today over his claim that the war in Iraq is lost.

Speaking on XM radio, Broder said that Reid should “learn to engage mind before mouth opens,” and suggested that Reid’s Senate allies “have a little caucus and decide how much further they want to carry Harry Reid” and his “bumbling performance.”

Asked if Harry Reid is “an embarrassment,” Broder said, “I think so,” since “every six weeks or so there’s another episode where he has to apologize for the way in which he has bungled the Democratic case.”

Hang up the gloves Harry. Even the ref is laughing at you.

(All emphasis mine)

"Screw the Troops" and Other Copperhead Methodology

Read this and imagine how our nation and our world would look today if the Reids, Pelosis and the New York Times of Lincoln's time succeeded. They were scum then and they are scum now. I say this as the great grandson of an officer with the Virginia 8th.

This is eerily like today.

Newspaper OpinionsThe Press and Army Morale
"'Spend Much Time in Reading the Daily Papers': The Press and Army Morale in the Civil War."

by James McPherson

...

News from the homefront as well as from other theaters of war affected army
morale. A soldier's conviction that he was risking his life for a worthwhile
purpose, a Cause with a capital C, was rooted in the support of his family and
community for that Cause. Some of that support, or the lack of it, was conveyed
to soldiers by the letters they received from home. But much of it came via the
press and the political process, which were intertwined institutions during the
Civil War. In both North and South, antiwar movements arose and flourished at
times when the war seemed to be going badly for one's own side. These movements
advocated an armistice and a negotiated peace. The governments in both
Washington and Richmond viewed such proposals as defeatist at best, treasonable
at worst. So did most soldiers. They labeled the peace proponents in the
Confederacy as "Tories" and in the North as "Copperheads." On both sides,
opponents of the war -- or more accurately, perhaps, opponents of their
governments' war policies -- made their case through the press as well as
through the political process.

After the triple disasters to Confederate arms
in the summer of 1863 -- Vicksburg, Gettysburg, and the Army of Tennessee's
retreat from its namesake state some Southern civilians began urging a
compromise peace. A nineteen-year-oid private in the 7th Alabama Cavalry
denounced what he called this "miserable class of men that now infest the
country," while another Alabamian, an infantry captain, deplored the lack of
"patriotism of a great many of the people at home. The army cannot be sustained
without the cooperation of the people." Even in South Carolina, a few Tories
seemed to surface after Gettysburg and Vicksburg, causing a nineteen-year-old
veteran from that state to cry out: "Shame for South Carolina! Go back into the
union, degraded despised dishonorable.... This is the way we are rewarded -- our
own people forsake us in the trying hour -- and after our all -- honour-and
everything else is at stake.... Degrading, wretched, unpatriotic, infamous
thought!"24

In 1863, peace sentiment manifested itself most powerfully in North Carolina. The
state's largest newspaper, the North Carolina Standard, edited in Raleigh by
William W. Holden, became an outspoken advocate of peace negotiations. So
incensed toward Holden were Confederate soldiers that on the night of September
9-10, 1863, several men of General Henry L. Bennings's brigade of Georgia
troops, passing through Raleigh on their way from Virginia to Georgia where they
would suffer heavy losses at Chickamauga ten days later, broke into the
Standard's office and wrecked it.25

Union soldiers did the same to so-called "Copperhead" papers in the North. And judging from the volume and bitterness of soldiers' denunciations of homefront
"traitors," the Copperhead press in the North was far more extensive and
outspoken than the Tory press in the South. Especially during the early months
of 1863 and again in the summer of 1864, the drumbeat of defeatism and anti-war
editorials in Copperhead newspapers caused morale problems in Union armies. A
captain in the 8th Connecticut complained in January 1863 that "the papers (many
of them) published at the North & letters rec[eive]d by the soldiers are
doing the Army an immense amount of evil." From Grant's army in the Western
theater came similar testimony from a captain in the 103d Illinois: "You can't
imagine how much harm these traitors are doing, not only with their papers, but
they are writing letters to the boys which would discourage the most loyal of
men. . . . I put in a great deal more of my time than I would wish to, in
talking patriotism at the boys ... to counteract the effect of these letters
[and papers] ... and doing good solid cursing at the home cowardly vipers." An
enlisted man from Iowa believed that the Copperhead press not only discouraged
the boys in blue but also encouraged the enemy. "The Rebels in the South well
know how we are divided in the North," he wrote in March 1863. "It encourages
them to hold out, with the hopes that we will get to fighting in the North, well
knowing that 'a house divided against itself cannot stand."26

At the same time, however, a backlash against the Copperheads' anti-war rhetoric
forged a bond of unity among Union soldiers that actually improved their morale.
"Copperheadism has brought the soldiers here together more than anything else,"
wrote a corporal in the 101st Ohio in April 1863. "Some of the men that yoused
to be almost willing to have the war settled in any way are now among the
strongest Union soldiers we have got." Many Northern soldiers lumped the Rebels
and Copperheads together as twin enemies who deserved the same treatment. "My
first object is to crush this infernal Rebellion," wrote a Pennsylvania infantry
captain in March 1863, "the next to come North and bayonet such fool miscreants
as [Clement] Vallandigham" the foremost Copperhead political leader. A private
in the 49th Ohio told his sister in June 1863 that "it would give me the
greatest pleasure in the world to be one of a regiment that would march through
Ohio and Indiana and hang every Copperhead in the two States."27

When Northern homefront morale plunged to perhaps its lowest point in the summer of 1864 because of horrendous casualties in the Army of the Potomac without much apparent progress toward victory, Union soldier morale remained higher than it had been in the spring of 1863 because of this bond of unity against the Copperheads. As a New York captain wrote to his wife, "it is the soldiers who
have educated the people at home to a true knowledge ... and to a just
perception of our great duties in this contest."28

That is one reason why many Union regiments established their own camp
newspapers at various times and places during the war -- at least one hundred
such newspapers, most of them short-lived. (There seem to have been few if any
counterparts in Confederate camps.) They bore such names as Stars and Stripes,
Whole Union, Banner of Freedom, New South, Free South, American Patriot, and
other such patriotic titles. Many Union soldiers (and some Confederates as well)
also served as army correspondents for their hometown newspapers. Perhaps the
most famous of these was Wilbur Fisk of the 2d Vermont, whose dispatches have
been published in book form in two modern editions. Fisk signed his letters with
the pen name "Anti-Rebel," which pretty much sums up their dominant theme.29

That is why almost 80 percent of the Union soldiers who voted in 1864 cast their
ballots for Abraham Lincoln on a platform of conquering a peace by military
victory, compared with 53 percent of the civilian vote for Lincoln. As one Union
officer put it in August 1864, at the low point of civilian morale, "We must
succeed. If not this year, why then the next, or the next. And if it takes ten
years, then ten years it must be, for we can never give up, and have a Country
and Government left."30

...

The Copperhead's grand children and great grand children are alive and well today. They're just as scummy.

Jane's not Dead!!!!!

Nor has Jane been ill. She's back tomorrow and my coffee will taste all the sweeter for it!

I will not make any bad'ems, like I have Jane's Addiction. oops.

Now, my vast audience...., we need to get Tom Blogical to post more! He's good and if you're so smart, why didn't you come up with Blogical Conclusions for your masterpiece?

Dr. Helen

Just saw Instapundit's better half, Dr. Helen Smith, on a true crime show. Pretty cool. So is she.

Hey. I was just flipping through the channels to find some news.

I'd Bitch-Slap Harry Reid

Following up on his the war is lost , the Liberal Minister of Myopia, Harry Reid sinks to a new low.

Reid: Congress Will Pass Withdrawal Bill Despite Veto Threat
Reid noted disapprovingly that in a speech last week, Bush repeatedly said
there were signs of progress in Iraq in the wake of a troop increase he
ordered last winter.

"The White House transcript says the president made those remarks in the
state of Michigan. I believe he made them in the state of denial,'' said
Reid.

Here in Ohio we have the Buckeyes to offset the bad taste of Dennis Kucinich. I guess Nevada can say they have whorehouses to offset the bad taste of Reid.

Of course, we have to pay more to enjoy the Buckeyes, but it lasts longer.

Dead White Guys

I'm sure you've read this, as I have, but it is good to remind one's self of what these dead white guys stood for, against and by.

"Our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor."

Our Founding Fathers paid the price for the United States of America.

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe
ColumnistCopyright 2000 Boston Globe

On July 2, 1776, the
Continental Congress voted 12-0 -- New York abstained -- in favor of Richard
Henry Lee's resolution "that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to
be, free and independent States."

On July 4, the Declaration of Independence drafted by Thomas Jefferson -- heavily edited by Congress -- was adopted without dissent. On July 8, the Declaration was publicly proclaimed in Philadelphia. On July 15, Congress learned that the New York Legislature had decided to endorse the Declaration. On Aug. 2, a parchment copy was presented to the Congress for signature. Most of the 56 men who put their name to the document did so that day.

And then?

We tend to forget that to sign the Declaration of Independence was to commit an act of treason -- and the punishment for treason was death. To publicly accuse George III of "repeated injuries and usurpations," to announce that Americans were therefore "Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown," was a move fraught with danger -- so much so that the names of the signers were kept secret for six months.

They were risking everything, and they knew it. That is the meaning of the Declaration's soaring last sentence:

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on
the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives,
our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

Most of the signers survived the war; several went on to illustrious careers.

Two of them became presidents of the United States, and among the others were future vice presidents, senators, and governors. But not all were so fortunate.

Nine of the 56 died during the Revolution, and never tasted American independence.

Five were captured by the British.

Eighteen had their homes -- great estates, some of them - looted or
burnt by the enemy.

Some lost everything they owned.

Two were wounded in battle.

Two others were the fathers of sons killed or captured during the
war.

"Our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor." It was not just a
rhetorical flourish.

We all recognize John Hancock's signature, but who ever
notices the names beneath his? William Ellery, Thomas Nelson, Richard Stockton,
Button Gwinnett, Francis Lewis -- to most of us, these are names without
meaning.

But each represents a real human being, some of whom paid dearly
"for the support of this Declaration" and American independence.

Lewis Morris of New York, for example, must have known when he signed the Declaration that he was signing away his fortune. Within weeks, the British ravaged his estate, destroyed his vast woodlands, butchered his cattle, and sent his family fleeing for their lives.

Another New Yorker, William Floyd, was also forced to flee
when the British plundered his property. He and his family lived as refugees for
seven years without income. The strain told on his wife; she died two years
before the war ended.

Carter Braxton of Virginia, an aristocratic planter who
had invested heavily in shipping, saw most of his vessels captured by the
British navy. His estates were largely ruined, and by the end of his life he was
a pauper.

The home of William Ellery, a Rhode Island delegate, was burned to
the ground during the occupation of Newport.

Thomas Heyward Jr., Edward Rutledge, and Arthur Middleton, three members of the South Carolina delegation, all suffered the destruction or vandalizing of their homes at the hands of enemy troops. All three were captured when Charleston fell in 1780, and spent a year in a British prison.

"Our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

Thomas Nelson Jr. of Virginia raised $2 million for the patriots' cause on
his own personal credit. The government never reimbursed him, and repaying the
loans wiped out his entire estate. During the battle of Yorktown, his house,
which had been seized by the British, was occupied by General Cornwallis. Nelson
quietly urged the gunners to fire on his own home. They did so, destroying it.
He was never again a man of wealth. He died bankrupt and was buried in an
unmarked grave.

Richard Stockton, a judge on New Jersey's supreme court, was
betrayed by loyalist neighbors. He was dragged from his bed and thrown in
prison, where he was brutally beaten and starved. His lands were devastated, his
horses stolen, his library burnt. He was freed in 1777, but his health had so
deteriorated that he died within five years. His family lived on charity for the
rest of their lives.

In the British assault on New York, Francis Lewis's home
and property were pillaged. His wife was captured and imprisoned; so harshly was
she treated that she died soon after her release. Lewis spent the remainder of
his days in relative poverty.

And then there was John Hart. The speaker of the New Jersey Assembly, he was forced to flee in the winter of 1776, at the age of 65, from his dying wife's bedside. While he hid in forests and caves, his home was demolished, his fields and mill laid waste, and his 13 children put to flight. When it was finally safe for him to return, he found his wife dead, his children missing, and his property decimated. He never saw any of his family again and died, a shattered man, in 1779.

The men who signed that piece of parchment in 1776 were the elite of their colonies. They were men of means and social standing, but for the sake of liberty, they pledged it all -- their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

Which politicians of today would be this resolute?

Architecture as Politics

I have been reading a most excellent site, veritas et veustas, which posted a piece concerning the traditional architecture school at Viseu, Catholic University of Portugal.

I am merely a self-taught designer (Fine Arts background), not an architect and I am married to an absolutely wonderful woman who is Catholic (Either I or my Episcopal Church has fallen), but I am not Catholic, so I cannot adequately address the two issues of Catholicism or architecture with much force. What struck me as an appalling parallel though was a piece referenced in the above Massengale piece by Nikos A. Salingaros that speaks to the fight between traditional and modern architects by quoting Andres Duany.

"The problem with countering the avant-gardists (they are not modernists, and we cannot grant them that position) with Reason is that they have set up a field of
combat that explicitly devalues the light of reason and privileges the raw force
of unreason. In other words, they are set to fight by rolling us into the gutter
in the night. By proposing to counter them with reason we are proposing to
counter them with 18th Century gentlemen's dueling rules. They will continue to
trounce us. Reason is but one weapon to be used in the appropriate
circumstances. Power is another -- and the only one they play by.

Check out the details of the coup! Classic! Perfect! Can anybody not now see what utter sons-of-bitches we are up against? Have I not been saying that we need to learn to attack, like them? What are we prepared to do now? Well ... how about some more moral superiority discussions?...”

I have come to respect all of the people referenced here and I hope I do not cause them consternation by using their work in an improper way, but if you replace Traditional Architecture with Republican/Conservative and replace avant-gardists with Democrat/Liberal, you have the same argument with the same problems.

Modernist Liberals/Progressives speak in non-sensical circles stating that their new “reality-based” reason is actually more reasonable than reason itself because theirs is the only reason.

This “reality-based community” has gained much power by debasing not only reason, but the language of reason. Today, a patriarchal relationship is not a tradition or a choice, but is an evil. Our Global War on Terrorism is lost, not based on reason or military wisdom, but it is lost based on polls.

Our future is not to be built on the strength of reason, but on an innovation idea of what they think our future should look like.

“…they spend their time learning how to design and build sensitive and adaptive
buildings. By contrast, the "other side" spends all of its time in mastering the
arts of war and propaganda. Their main (phony) argument is that they are being
innovative; never mind that they are religiously following cult dogma.”

In many cases, architecture is a reflection of the moral health of a society. To Liberal/Progressives, the architecture of the Soviet built slums is their architecture. So to is the “modernistic” architecture of communist China, of Castro’s Socialist paradise and the ruined plans of Hitler’s Germania.

Theirs is not a future in which I would like to live. Hell, the here and now requires rejuvination to counter their shallowness and constant (non)moralizing.
.

Sheryl Crow Discriminates Against Prisoners

I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in
any one sitting. Now, I don't want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her
God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can
make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on
those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required.

Normally, prisioners get three squares per day. What if they need a fourth? ACLU?

Go Green. The Lie will Make You Rich. Hopefully

Go green because it's cold. Go green because it's warm. No matter.

Impact of global warming looms on the horizon

... The letters were ignored.

They were ignored because in the 1970’s Newsweek, the Christian Science
Monitor, the New York Times and countless books and articles were warning of the dangers of global cooling.

Things have changed. Global warming is now being noted, and I in the
meantime have become a little skeptical about some of the claims being put
forth. I’m skeptical despite the fact that “everybody knows that the science is
in.” The science isn’t even close to being in.

Be aLgore and produce (not really) a film that you directed (not really) to show how man has created a nightmare for man. The end of the world.

The Greenies have no clue, but they have a retail and an emotional product to sell.

Cold, hot, man made, natural?

Who cares when YOU can change the world.

Who cares when you can make big money.

What if their change makes things worse?

They won't discuss that. It would be like calling Sheryl Crow an airhead.

Faux pas.

Why Were Dead Soldiers OK When Clintons Were in Charge?

Go to Gateway Pundit to read more, but ask why are Reid, Pelosi, Schumer upset now. Because we are freeing over 50 million people and bringing democracy to the region? Because we have Iran in a pincher move from the east and the west? Because Hamas is pissed off? Probably.

al-Qaida's Cucumber Fetish

American commanders cite al-Qaida's severe brand of Islam, which is so extreme that in Baqouba, al-Qaida has warned street vendors not to place tomatoes beside cucumbers because the vegetables are different genders, Col. David Sutherland said.

Architectural Garden III by Thea Schrack

Juan Williams Dumbfounds Fox Sunday News Panel

Juan Williams finally did it. Using all the savvy and intelligence he possesses, Juan pontificated that Senator Harry Reid was right, that supporters of the GWOT were incapable of seeing the truth and that we should be fighting al-Qaeda, but not al-Qaeda in Iraq. Juan made this argument with all the passion and knowledge he could muster.

The pregnant pause that followed showcased the incredulity of the panel. The silence highlighted the looks of the stunned and embarrassed cast. Even Mara Liaison, normally an ally had to take a moment before she could ask, meekly, "What do we do after we leave?" (paraphrased)

savvy - (no) check
intelligence - (no) check
passion - (no) check
knowledge - (no) check

Now I think I know who is writing the scripts for the Reid Schtick and Stupid Show.

Obama Demeans Seung-Hui Cho, Calls Him Crazy

Obama hears from Aunt who's nephew enlisted within the last year knowing he would probably go to Iraq.

Obama Hears Tearful Plea to End Iraq War

but even though Obama doesn't think terrorists are crazy, he calls Seung-Hui Cho crazy .

"We're still selling handguns to crazy people," Obama said. "We're supposed to
have a system that these people are screened out. What's clear is the background
check system in this case failed entirely."

Personally, I am shocked. SHOCKED that Obama is so insensitive. Throw him out of the Presidential primaries. Immediately. Right now. What an insensitive lout.

Rosalynn Carter is gonna kick his ass, as is proper.

Ending Discrimination

Just take a look, he says, at the words that are still used to describe those with mental illnesses—crazy, psycho, loony, insane. “Demeaning terms are no longer socially acceptable when describing other disabilities. Why are they still applied to those with a mental illness?”

Impeach his candidacy. Obama offended and cannot be defended. If the straight jacket does not fit, you must acquit.

We, as a nation, need a sensitive man, er, a sensitive person as President. Like Hillary is when she is massaging Bill's head with a lamp or an ashtray.

Electing such an insensitive lout would be, well, loony.