The infamous IPCC report

It is quite obvious how deeply concerned our media is with the Global Warming situation. They use their powerful platforms to press the issue on the public, to raise awareness. They have made it their duty to educate everyone about this troubling matter.

But, I wonder. In the midst of their doomsday predictions, are they deeply concerned with absolute truth on the issue? If they were, you would expect them to be even-handed in their presentation of the facts. I mean, if they are truly an “objective” source, they wouldn’t hype certain facts and ignore others, just to forward their own agenda. Would they?

For instance, if the media heralded the IPCC report as, “Case Closed,” and then evidence was discovered that the report was flawed, do they have a responsibility to report the new evidence? I would certainly think so. But, bear in mind, I have no illusions that our media is the slightest bit “objective.”

The Courier-Mail, a news source out of Australia, ran an article by Bob Carter. Carter had interviewed Kevin Trenberth, one of the leading advisors of the IPCC. Here are just a few bits from the article:

A New Zealander by birth, Trenberth has had a distinguished career as a climate scientist with interests in the use of computer General Circulation Models (GCMs), the basis for most of the public alarm about dangerous global warming.

When such a person gives an opinion about the scientific value of GCMs as predictive tools, it is obviously wise to pay attention.

In a remarkable contribution to Nature magazine's Climate Feedback blog, Trenberth concedes GCMs cannot predict future climate and claims the IPCC is not in the business of climate prediction. This might be news to some people.

Among other things, Trenberth asserts “. . . there are no (climate) predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been". Instead, there are only "what if" projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios.

According to Trenberth, GCMs “. . . do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents".

“None of the models used by IPCC is initialised to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate.”

GCMs “assume linearity” which “works for global forced variations, but it cannot work for many aspects of climate, especially those related to the water cycle . . . the science is not done because we do not have reliable or regional predictions of climate”.

So, I guess the case isn’t closed after all. Interesting. But, there’s more:

In a paper being presented at the 27th International Symposium on Forecasting in New York this week, Scott Armstrong and Kesten Green audit the relevant chapter in the IPCC's latest report. They find that “in apparent contradiction to claims by some climate experts that the IPCC provides 'projections' and not 'forecasts', the word 'forecast' and its derivatives occurred 37 times, and 'predict' and its derivatives occur 90 times” in the chapter….

Having analysed the IPCC's approach in detail, Armstrong and Kesten conclude that “because the forecasting processes . . . overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the IPCC forecasts of climate change are not scientific.”

Ouch. That has to hurt.

But, these guys weren’t the only ones to question the misinformation surrounding the contents of the IPCC report. The IPCC, itself, has called into question the comments being made about the report. The Heartland Institute issued a press release concerning the IPCC’s review.

On June 28, in an historic move the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released the expert review comments and responses to its latest assessment of the science of climate change. The IPCC report is the primary source of data for Al Gore's movie and book titled “An Inconvenient Truth.”

Many of the comments by the reviewers are strongly critical of claims contained in the final report, and they are directly at odds with the so-called “scientific consensus” touted by Gore and others calling for immediate government action. For example, the following comment by Eric Steig appears in Second Order Draft Comments, Chapter 6; section 6-42:

In general, the certainty with which this chapter presents our understanding of abrupt climate change is overstated. There is confusion between hypothesis and evidence throughout the chapter, and a great deal of confusion on the differences between an abrupt "climate change" and possible, hypothetical causes of such climate changes.

“It is now abundantly clear why Al Gore will not accept our debate challenge. The supposed scientific consensus on global warming is pure fiction. Hopefully, the public release of comments and responses will enable the debate over global warming to turn to facts and less fiction,” stated Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute, a national nonprofit think tank based in Chicago.

So, we have several of the IPCC’s own scientists and expert reviewers who are saying that much of the media hype surrounding the IPCC report is just that. HYPE! I would say that this is very important information if there is to be truthful discussion about Global Warming.

I wonder if the media will report it.


Yesterday was a day full of victories! The past several weeks have been quite frustrating, so it’s a nice change of pace.

Conservatives all over the country have been baffled to see their Republican representatives in Congress and the White House support a bill which amounted to nothing more than amnesty for criminal aliens. Constituents began calling their representatives, demanding that this bill be defeated. But, the Republicans cozied-up to the Democrats, and ignored their voting base. Earlier in the week, many Republicans even voted for cloture, effectively ending all debate on the bill. At that point, Conservatives around the country became certain that this pitiful excuse for immigration reform would become law.

But, yesterday was a bright day. Perhaps, some of the Republicans finally came to their senses. Perhaps, they finally became concerned about their own reelection. Perhaps, they actually took time to read the ridiculous bill that they were about to pass.

Whatever the reason, the outcome was a victory. The Amnesty bill was defeated yesterday in the Senate by a vote of 53-46!

If that was the only bit of good news yesterday, that would be more than enough to bring a smile to my face. But, there was more.

In the House of Representatives, Congressman Mike Pence proposed an amendment to the Financial Services Appropriations bill. His amendment would prohibit FCC funds from being used to enforce the Fairness Doctrine. If there is no money, there is no Fairness Doctrine.

Apparently, even many of the Democrats view the Fairness Doctrine as a clear violation of the First Amendment and the free market. The amendment passed by a vote of 309-115. It wasn’t even close!

Of course, Congress could always find a way to revive funds for the Fairness Doctrine. Politicians are slick like that. But, Mike Pence is also proposing a bill to the House of Representatives which would stop the Fairness Doctrine FOREVER!

It’s called the “Broadcaster Freedom Act.”

You’d think that we wouldn’t need a bill like this. After all, we already have a law on the books that covers this issue. What’s that thing called again? It comes near the beginning of the United States Constitution. Oh…what is that thing called?

Oh, yeah. THE FIRST AMENDMENT. It forbids the Government from abridging the speech of American citizens. But, apparently, that’s not clear enough for some people. So, Pence is pushing the “Broadcaster Freedom Act.” According to Pence:

The Broadcaster Freedom Act will prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from prescribing rules, regulations, or policies that will reinstate the requirement that broadcasters present opposing viewpoints in controversial issues of public importance. The Broadcaster Freedom Act will prevent the FCC or any future President from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.

I am all for that.

We’ll just have to wait to see how that legislation turns out. But, nonetheless, June 28, 2007 was a day of victory. It’s important to have those moments when your hope in our system is reinvigorated.

Yesterday was one of those moments.


What if...

Here’s a hypothetical situation. Let’s just say that Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate Majority Leader, was accused of violating some very serious campaign finance laws. Perhaps, he was even indicted by a grand jury for his part in the crime. He resigns his leadership position, and eventually his Senate seat. But, he maintains his innocence throughout.

After the accusation and subsequent indictment, I’m sure that the media would be all over the story. It’s a scandal. Even, their left-wing bias wouldn’t keep them away from a political scandal like that.

Oh, wait…I forgot about the William Jefferson scandal.

Anyway, the media would probably give some coverage of Reid’s indictment and the trial to follow. But, what if Reid was cleared of all charges? What if the charges against him were dismissed by two separate courts? Would the media report it?

You can bet your entire life-savings, and that of your great-great-great-grandchildren, that the media would cover the exoneration of Harry Reid 24/7. It would completely overtake the coverage of Paris Hilton and Global Warming. No other story would even be on the radar. We would be saturated by this new development in the “Reid scandal.”

But, what if this exact same scenario happened to a Republican? What if Republican Senate Majority leader, Tom DeLay was indicted on similar charges? The scandal would receive wall-to-wall coverage.

In fact, it did. DeLay was forced to resign his leadership position, and eventually his Senate seat due to the scandal. The media had a field day with this story. It was even on the front lines during the 2006 elections when Democrats charged the Republicans with a “Culture of Corruption.” The DeLay scandal was referenced over and over and over.

So, what would happen if DeLay was cleared of these charges by two separate courts? Would the mainstream media notice?


Yesterday, a local Texas newspaper reported:

The state’s highest criminal court today affirmed the 2005 dismissal of a felony indictment against former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and two associates.

In the 5-4 decision, the court affirmed Judge Pat Priest’s decision to throw out an indictment accusing DeLay and his associates, Jim Ellis and John Colyandro, of conspiring to violate state election laws.

I’m sure that ABC, NBC, and CBS started off their nightly newscast by reporting this. It’s a big story! And, it’s one that the media helped to fuel. Surely, the networks would cover DeLay’s absolution!

Of course they didn’t. Last night, every single one of the major networks was silent on the issue. Not a word was mentioned about it..

They probably just forgot.


The Fairness Doctrine

I have mentioned the Fairness Doctrine on several occasions. But, I wanted to take the time to elaborate on the topic.

The Fairness Doctrine was a Government regulation enacted in 1949 and repealed in 1987. Basically, it gave the FCC the power to “balance” the political viewpoints that are broadcast on the radio. For instance, if a right-wing talk show host such as Rush Limbaugh (the main target of the Fairness Doctrine) has three hours of air time, an opposing left-wing radio host must be given three hours of air time.

However, there are two major problems with this. The Fairness Doctrine flies directly in the face of the free market and the First Amendment.

Let’s look first at its violation of the free market. Radio stations are like any other business in a free market. They produce a product and offer it for sale. Of course it doesn’t cost anything to listen to the radio, so what are they selling? Advertising. Companies buy advertising spots based on the popularity of the particular radio station. The popularity of the radio station is decided by their ratings (i.e. number of listeners). How do they get good ratings? They offer programming that people want to listen to. So, that is their product.

So, how does the Fairness Doctrine interfere with this? It has been proven time and time again that left-wing radio shows are not marketable. The general public that listens to talk radio is not interested in listening to Al Franken, Janeane Garofalo, or Randi Rhodes. They have their niche markets. But, their shows fail on a national scale.

Air America went bankrupt because its shows did not generate successful ratings. Advertisers weren’t buying what Air America was selling. It didn’t provide a good product, so it failed. That’s how the free market works.

But, leftists have never been a fan of the free market, so they resort to their most powerful weapon. They use the power of Government to rescue them.

The Fairness Doctrine would essentially force radio stations to broadcast these talk shows that have been rejected by the national audience. It would force them to buy failed products.

Fairness Doctrine supporters like Dennis Kucinich love to say that the Fairness Doctrine protects the “public airwaves.” They believe that the taxpayers own the airwaves. Thus, the public’s best interest is served when the Government “balances” what is broadcast.

Uhh…what? How does the public own the airwaves? What document did we sign that gives us that ownership? What taxes have we paid that make the airwaves possible? Airwaves are not owned by anyone. It’s kind of like owning oxygen. You can’t.

So, does the public own the radio towers which harness the air waves? No. Private radio stations own those. Do we own the buildings where the broadcasts are made? No. Again, private radio stations own those. So, how do we own them?

We don’t. Radio stations own the means to harness those intangible airwaves via their radio towers. It is their property. They can broadcast whatever they want. We own the radio receivers. We can listen to whatever we want. Amazing, isn’t it?

Now, let’s also look at the Fairness Doctrine’s violation of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.

1. To reduce the length of; condense.
2. To cut short; curtail.

In a 24 hour day, talk radio schedules are chalked full of right-wing talk shows and a few left-wing talk shows. Without a doubt, the right-wing talk shows are much more prevalent due to their popularity and marketability.

Let’s just assume, on a given day, that the ratio of right-wing shows to left-wing shows is 5:1. If the Fairness Doctrine was enacted, what happens to that ratio? It becomes 5:5 (or 1:1). Wait a minute. What happened to the other 4 right-wing shows? The FCC would either cut them short to make time for a left-wing counterpart, or they would cease being broadcast all together.

Currently, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity (the #1 and #2 talk show hosts in the country, respectively) each have 3 hour shows. But, there is only so much time in the broadcast day. In order to make room for left-wing talk shows, their broadcasts would have to be cut in half.

Ergo, their speech is being abridged by a Government regulation.

The reality is, if the Fairness Doctrine was enacted, talk radio would lose much of its luster. Failed left-wing talk shows would be forced into markets where they were previously rejected. Talk radio ratings would drop, as they did with Air America. Advertising dollars would slow down, and radio broadcasters would turn to less controversial radio such as home-fix-it or gardening shows. It would be a return to the AM radio days of the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s and 80’s.

That is the true plan of politicians like Kucinich. They know that the Fairness Doctrine would destroy talk radio, not “balance” it. That is their true goal.

Leftists can’t beat Limbaugh, Hannity, and Boortz in the free market. So, they use the Government to do their dirty work.

It’s disgusting.


Wonders never cease

Surprise, surprise, surprise. MSNBC did a little investigating into the political donations given by so-called “objective” reporters. Guess what they found: identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.

Do the math. Of the 144 journalists that they identified, 87% of them gave to left-wing political causes. You can imagine my shock.

Now, do I have a problem with them donating money to politicians? Not really. They are free individuals with their own opinions and world views. They can give their money to whomever the want.

However, do I believe that they can donate all of this money to political causes and still maintain any essence of objectivity? No I do not.

With all of the evidence of left-wing media bias, can you honestly say that they are keeping their personal feelings and beliefs out of the story?

FYI – I am, in fact, shocked that it was MSNBC who conducted this study and actually reported it. After all, this is the network of Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and the Today Show. But, I give credit where credit is due. In this case, they deserve it.


Solution to the problem

Yes, it’s true. I complain about the current illegal alien problem. I, and many others like me, don’t want 12 million people who have violated our borders, broken our laws, and continue to break our laws every second that they remain in this country, to simply get a pass from the Federal Government. And, the current Amnesty Bill amounts to nothing more than a pass for these criminals. It’s quite frustrating.

But, at the same time, what good does complaining do? Many would say that unless you have a better idea of how to solve the problem, you really shouldn’t whine like an adolescent. Join the intellectual debate with real ideas, instead of incessant complaints.

I think that is a fair criticism. Opponents to the current Amnesty Bill should come up with better ideas. I’ll admit that I am not smart enough to construct an intelligent solution. However, one man, whose views I consider highly credible, has developed his own 10 step process. Newt Gingrich has released what he believes to be a working solution to the illegal alien problem. And, it makes perfect sense to me:

Ten Simple, Direct Steps to a Legal American Immigration System

1. Keep the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli commitment and control the border. In The Reagan Diaries (HarperCollins, May 22, 2007), President Ronald Reagan wrote that he was going to sign the Simpson-Mazzoli bill because "it's high time we regained control of our borders and [this] bill will do this." For national security reasons, it is vital we regain control of our border. Congress should pass a narrowly written emergency border bill to finish the necessary fence in less than a year and to have complete border control within two years.

2. Announce an immediate shift of Internal Revenue Service resources to audit companies that are deliberately hiring people illegally. We do not have to focus on deporting those who want to work. We need to focus on the Americans who are getting richer by deliberately breaking our laws, hiring people illegally and failing to pay taxes. These people are cheating their own country. We should focus on fining and making it economically impractical for Americans to deliberately encourage law breaking. Economic penalties for knowingly hiring someone who is illegal should rise dramatically with each employer (including subcontractors) conviction, making it simply too expensive to cheat. This will eliminate the magnet of illegal jobs, will begin to diminish the flow of new illegal workers and will lead some illegal workers to return home voluntarily.

3. Outsource to American Express, Visa or MasterCard the job of building a real-time verification system so that honest companies can confirm the legal status of all workers and identify people with forged papers before they hire them as fast as your automatic teller machine identifies you and gives you money in a matter of seconds. We must distinguish between companies that deliberately hire illegal workers and companies that hire people who they believe are legal. It is the government's duty to help this second group of companies by providing a real-time verification system for identifying the legal status of all workers so that it is possible to screen out those with illegal documents. The government should outsource the creation of this system so that it is easy, fast and accurate.

4. Focus deportation efforts on criminals. Those who claim that opponents of the Bush-Kennedy-McCain bill support mass deportations are simply wrong. We want a system in which honest work is available for law-abiding workers and in which the natural attrition of declining job availability will reduce illegal behavior. However, there is one group that should be deported immediately, and the law should be modified to make it easy to do so. Criminals have no future in America. In every major city and increasingly in small cities and even small towns, gangs have become a problem and people feel a rising sense of insecurity. There are at least 30,000 illegal gang members now in the United States. The system should focus on deporting criminals so that people who are here illegally understand that breaking the law will get them deported immediately.

5. Cut off all federal aid to any city, county or state that refuses to investigate if a criminal is here illegally. These so-called "sanctuary cities" are in effect abetting the violation of American law and increasing the risk to honest, law-abiding Americans. They should be cut off from all federal aid if they refuse to help enforce federal law.

6. Offer intensive education in English to anyone who wants to learn English, and make English the official language of government. This will begin to reassert the commitment to assimilation and Americanization that has historically been part of legal immigration to America.

7. Ensure that becoming an American citizen requires passing a test on American history in English and giving up the right to vote in any other country.

8. Within the context of these proven changes, establish an economically driven temporary worker program like the Krieble Foundation proposals. Any temporary worker would have to pass a background check to ensure they are not a criminal, would have to give biometric information (retinal scan and thumbprint) for a special card that would be outsourced to American Express, MasterCard or Visa so it would be harder to defraud and counterfeit, and would have to sign a contract committing them to pay taxes and obey the law or be removed from the United States within two weeks without recourse to long court processes.

9. Create a special open-ended worker visa for high value workers who bring specialized education, entrepreneurial talent or capital that will grow the American economy and make America a more prosperous country.

10. Workers who came here illegally but have a good work relationship and community ties (including family), should have first opportunity to get the new temporary worker visas, but instead of paying penalties, they should be required to go home and get the visa at home. This way they are beginning their new career in America by obeying the law. It is amazing that those who advocate a large fine and the new Z visa, which would be administered in a hopelessly expedited manner, suggest that going home to get a new legal admission to the U.S. is somehow too complicated. If people can break the law by entering the county illegally, they should be able to obey the law and enter America legally.

These 10 steps would lead to a controlled border, a profound revitalization of the core values of American civilization, a renewed respect for the law and an economically driven system of legal temporary workers in an orderly and controllable manner.

This program would work vastly better than the dishonest and hopelessly complex Bush-Kennedy-McCain proposal now being pushed so hard by the establishment against the wishes of most Americans.

Newt Gingrich, June 18, 2007
(c) 2997 Eagle Publishing Company


The debate is over? Really?

The Church of Global Warming has stated that the debate is over. Man is causing the earth to warm to the point of global catastrophe. No credible scientist debates this.


What about…oh, I don’t know…the widely recognized Father of Scientific Climatology? His name is Reid Bryson. He has written more than 200 articles and five books ranging over the fields of geology, limnology, meteorology, climatology, archeology, and geography. Look him up. It’s an impressive resume.

He was recently interviewed by a local paper in Wisconsin about his position on the issue of Global Warming. Here are a few excerpts from the story:

Reid Bryson, known as the father of scientific climatology, considers global warming a bunch of hooey.

The UW-Madison professor emeritus, who stands against the scientific consensus on this issue, is referred to as a global warming skeptic. But he is not skeptical that global warming exists, he is just doubtful that humans are the cause of it.

There is no question the earth has been warming. It is coming out of the “Little Ice Age,” he said in an interview this week.

However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We've been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It's been warming up for a long time,” Bryson said.

“The Little Ice Age was driven by volcanic activity. That settled down so it is getting warmer,” he said.

Just because almost all of the scientific community believes in man-made global warming proves absolutely nothing,” Bryson said. “Consensus doesn't prove anything, in science or anywhere else, except in democracy, maybe.”

So, if global warming isn't such a burning issue, why are thousands of scientists so concerned about it?

“Why are so many thousands not concerned about it?” Bryson shot back.

There is a lot of money to be made in this,” he added. “If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, ‘Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.’”

Speaking out against global warming is like being a heretic, Bryson noted.

"There is very little truth to what is being said and an awful lot of religion. It's almost a religion. Where you have to believe in anthropogenic (or man-made) global warming or else you are nuts."

I think this is my favorite part:

Bryson didn't see Al Gore's movie about global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth."
"Don't make me throw up," he said. "It is not science. It is not true."

Question: Why is Bryson only being interviewed by a local newspaper? Why is the Father of Scientific Climatology not on NBC, CNN, CBS, or ABC? Why are his views not juxtaposed against those of Al Gore, Laurie David, Cheryl Crow, and Leonardo DiCaprio to provide some objective journalistic balance?

Wait…I know the answer.

At least they're being honest

You know, I can point to multiple examples of mainstream media left-wing bias. But, some people still refuse to recognize the truth. Perhaps one of these media outlets should come right out and admit it.

Well…one has.

It’s interesting that many on the political left point to foreign news agencies as truly reliable. After all, they aren’t a part of the “Corporate Media” that only looks out for the interests of the evil rich. Of course, the “Corporate Media” line doesn’t hold up to the slightest bit of scrutiny when you turn on the news and hear story after story after story demogoging the wealthy. But, I digress.

Many on the left put their utmost faith in foreign media outlets like the BBC. They can be trusted!

Well, the BBC decided to do a little internal investigating. It attempted to measure its own objectivity in its reporting practices. Guess what they found:

The BBC has failed to promote proper debate on major political issues because of the inherent liberal culture of its staff.


The report claims that coverage of single-issue political causes, such as climate change and poverty, can be biased - and is particularly critical of Live 8 coverage, which it says amounted to endorsement.

It warns that celebrities must not be pandered to and allowed to hijack the BBC schedule.

The report concludes BBC staff must be more willing to challenge their own beliefs.

A staff impartiality seminar held last year is also documented in the report, at which executives admitted they would broadcast images of the Bible being thrown away but not the Koran, in case Muslims were offended.

During the seminar a senior BBC reporter criticized the corporation for being anti-American.

So, the BBC investigated itself and found blatant attempts to promote left-wing causes, a lack of honest reporting on huge political issues such as Global Warming, pandering to celebrities with an agenda to push, disregard for anti-Christian messages while simultaneously avoiding any appearance of anti-Muslim messages, and anti-Americanism.

Yep. That sounds like left-wing bias to me. Now, I would never expect the American media to run similar investigations of their own reporting practices. But, if they did, I’m sure that the results would be strikingly similar.


Al Gore said what?

I almost hate to make this post, because I have grown weary of the never-ending debate about the lead-up to the war in Iraq. My fatigue can mainly be attributed to self-contradicting statements made by two-faced politicians.

But this self-contradictory rhetoric has become exceedingly vicious. Thus, when a politician who engages in such vicious commentary, it bears repeating their previous statements to the contrary.

Once again, I give you Al Gore. Recently, he has made very mean-spirited remarks concerning President Bush and the war in Iraq.

“He betrayed this country! He played on our fears!”

“How dare they subject us to such dishonor and disgrace! How dare they drag the good name of the United States of America through the mud of Saddam Hussein's torture prison!”

“[Bush] has exposed Americans abroad and Americans in every town and city to a greater danger of attacks by terrorists because of his arrogance, willfulness and bungling at stirring up hornets' nests that pose no threat whatsoever to us.”

Now, contrast those statements with these:

“Bush deserves heavy blame for intentionally concealing from the American people the clear nature of Saddam Hussein and his regime and for convincing himself that friendly relations with such a monster would be possible, and for persisting in this effort far, far beyond the point of folly.”

“Throughout this period, Saddam's atrocities continued. In March, Saddam used poison gas on the Kurdish town of Halabja, brutally murdering some 5,000 innocent men, women, and children, and none of us can ever forget the pictures of their bodies, of parents trying to shield their infants, even in death, that were in our news media and around the world.”

“Saddam's attacks created, in addition to the wave of deaths, a flight of about half a million Kurdish refugees. The effect of these events on the public and on Congress was electrifying. The outrage and disgust sparked action and ignited an intensification of efforts in the Congress to pull the plug on US support for Saddam Hussein. I, myself, went to the Senate floor twice demanding tough action, but these efforts were resisted to the bitter end.”

Iraq continued to cooperate with terrorists, that it was meddling in Lebanon, that it was working hard at chemical and biological weapons and new missiles.

“In April, a nuclear proliferation expert from the Department of Energy reported intelligence indicators that Iraq had begun a crash program to build an atomic bomb. In June, the Defense Intelligence Agency reported that Iraq was running a major European network to procure military goods that were not supposed to be sold to Iraq. In August, the FBI rated the Atlanta branch of the Italian Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, or BNL, and seized evidence of over $4 billion in illegal loans to Iraq, as well as the use of about $2 billion of those funds to buy nuclear and other military technologies.

“And most significant of all, in the same month, the CIA reported to Secretary of State Baker and other top Bush administration officials that Iraq was clandestinely procuring nuclear weapons technology through a global network of front companies.

Did all of this make any impression at all on President Bush? Did his judgment on foreign policy come into play when he was told that this nation, with a record of terrorism continuing, was making a sustained, concerted effort to acquire weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical, and biological?

Well, evidently not, because in the midst of this flood of highly alarming information…President Bush signed a document known as NSD 26, which established the policy toward Iraq under his administration.

NSD 26 mandated the pursuit of improved economic and political ties with Iraq on the assumption that Iraqi behavior could be modified by means of new favors to be granted. Well, perhaps so, if this were a state not under the complete control of a single man whose ruthlessness had already been totally apparent. And the text of NSD 26 blindly ignores the evidence already at the administration's disposal of Iraqi behavior in the past regarding human rights, terrorism, use of chemical weapons, the pursuit of advanced weapons of mass destruction. Instead, it makes an heroic assumption of good behavior in the future on the basis of an interesting theory, namely that Iraq would suddenly and completely change its ways out of a fear of economic and political sanctions.

To the contrary, Saddam had every reason to assume that Bush would look the other way no matter what he did. He had already launched poison gas attacks repeatedly, and Bush looked the other way. He had already conducted extensive terrorism activities, and Bush had looked the other way. He was already deeply involved in the effort to acquire nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, and Bush knew it, but he looked the other way.

Well, in my view, the Bush administration was acting in a manner directly opposite to what you would expect with all of the evidence that it had available to it at the time. Saddam Hussein's nature and intentions were perfectly visible.

Confused? I don’t blame you. Al Gore said all of this during a press conference in 1992. He was talking about the first President Bush’s response to Saddam Hussein in the aftermath of the Gulf War.

Read it closely. He was criticizing President George H. W. Bush for NOT BEING TOUGH with Saddam Hussein. He blasted the first Bush administration for trying to play nice with Iraq while Saddam supported terrorism, attempted to procure biological and chemical weapons, and sought to possess nuclear weapons.

In this same speech, Gore stated:

“In the months preceding this meeting, Iraqi oil exports to the US had increased dramatically and on favorable terms. That point raised the question of a quid pro quo sought by the Iraqi officials: cheap oil in return for, quote, ‘freer export licensing procedures for high tech.’”

We’ve all heard the leftist ranting that the current President Bush went to war in Iraq for oil. Well, in 1992, Gore was saying that President H.W. Bush REFUSED to remove Saddam from power because he wanted Iraq’s oil.

If you go to war, it’s because of oil. If you DON’T go to war, it’s because of oil. It’s really a no-win situation.

So, this was Gore in 1992. He made the case that Saddam could not be trusted in power. Well, he and Clinton occupied the White House for 8 years. What did they do about the problem?

They made it a United States policy to remove Saddam from power.

Did they carry that policy out? No. The current President Bush did. And, he did it with the authorization of 373 members of the United States Congress, 17 U.N. resolutions, and the stated policy of the previous Presidential administration.

Al Gore himself has made the case. He passionately made that case in 1992. But, the political wind has shifted. And, Gore moves right along with it.


Here come the Government mandates

This will be short, because the idiocy contained in this news story lends itself to nothing more than brief commentary.

A local Denver news outlet is reporting that the city Government is preparing to take major steps in fighting the all-consuming Global Warming. The author of the piece, Stuart Steers, decided to begin his report by lying. Here is the opening paragraph:

Denver is gearing up to fight global warming, and residents may soon be asked to make personal sacrifices to help save the planet.”

If the Government officials in Denver, Colorado are going to do nothing more than “ask” their citizens to make personal sacrifices, then I’m Jack Bauer. They will NOT be asked. They will be forced. That is how Government works.

Now, I have no problem with alternative fuels and sources of energy. But, those new technologies should be brought to the public through the free market, not Government mandates. If the technology is affordable, efficient, and solves a perceived problem, then it will succeed. If it is highly expensive, inefficient, and offers questionable benefits, then it will not succeed. It is that simple.

And, there’s really nothing more infuriating than the Government sticking its dirty little finger into the free market and swirling it around:

"Denver may ask voters to approve higher rates for "excessive" use of electricity and natural gas. The plan also floats the idea of using insurance premiums to penalize people who drive long distances."

So, the Government wants to set prices in the market, enact draconian measures and mandates for private companies, and arbitrarily decide how much of a commodity you are allowed to use.

You know, we used to be a country that believed in the free individual and the free market. But, that was before the foundation of the Church of Global Warming. It is a religion based on manipulated models, biased conclusions, and blind assumptions.

Yet, it has become powerful enough to make people HATE the idea of freedom.


Arrested Development

A few months ago, our drama team at Lakewood Baptist Church was approached by the pastor to develop some skits to go along with his next message series. The topic was being a good steward with your finances.

I have been a huge fan of the TV show “Arrested Development,” and really wanted to do something in the same vein. For those of you who have seen the show, you will understand that a sermon series about money is the perfect opportunity to pay homage to “Arrested Development.”

So, I started writing some scripts. Before long, we had produced three episodes of a show we called “Common Sense.” We played one episode each week to introduce the sermon. The response that we received was very positive, even from people who had never seen “Arrested Development.”

I have uploaded the videos onto YouTube, and embedded them below. They are all very short, so check them out:

Episode 1

Episode 2

Episode 3


The enemy that we face

In America, we have what I refer to as ridiculous Kindergarten graduations. I just don’t get it. The kids make their own graduation caps out of cardboard, they put on their miniature graduation robes, and they march down the aisle. Overly emotional parents videotape and photograph their every movement. Tears are shed, and tissues are passed around. WHY? It’s not as if these children have actually accomplished anything. So, why are they receiving a diploma? Because they learned to color inside the lines? It just strikes me as a little odd.

It is odd. But, it is admittedly harmless. It’s all just good, clean fun for the parents and the kids.

This, on the other hand, is not. In case, you have forgotten the evil that we face in the War against Islamic Terrorism, here is a reminder.

During a children’s graduation ceremony in Gaza, the children put on a different kind of show for their “proud parents.” You can see the video here.

Dressed in Islamic Terrorist attire (complete with ski masks, flak jackets, and Hamas headbands), the children took the stage. Here is a transcript of what they chanted:

Allah Akbar. Praise be to Allah. Allah Akbar. Praise be to Allah. Allah Akbar. Praise be to Allah. Allah Akbar. Praise be to Allah. Who is your role model? The Prophet. Who is your role model? The Prophet. What is your path? Jihad. What is your path? Jihad. What is your most lofty aspiration? Death for the sake of Allah. What is your most lofty aspiration? Death for the sake of Allah.

This is the enemy that we face. Rosie O’Donnell once said of the terrorists that, “they are just mothers and fathers.” They are, in fact, mothers and fathers. But, these are mothers and fathers who strap bombs onto their children, and convince them that their life’s goal should be to engage in holy wars against the infidels. They train their children to believe that their highest aspiration should be to die for the sake of Allah.

Explain to me again how diplomacy is the proper path of engagement in the War against Islamic Terrorism.