Global Warming Alarmists are Insignificant (in the Big Picture)

We often work ourselves into frenzies over political issues such as global warming. The Chicken Little’s of the world are screaming the sky is falling because of SUVs, light bulbs, and ultimately – YOU. The cry is that WE are the problem. Consider Al Gore’s statement in an Inconvenient Truth:

We are dumping so much carbon dioxide into the Earth’s environment that we have literally changed the relationship between the Earth and the Sun.

Note the use of the word WE. The problem with Al Gore and every other alarmist out there is a question of perspective. WE – humans – are truly insignificant in the big scheme of things.

Consider the earth as compared to other planets (click on pictures for closer view):

Now consider the earth as compared to Jupiter:

Next, mull over the earth as measured up to the sun for a REAL perspective on what causes global warming:

But let’s not stop here. Reflect on the sun as compared to Arcturus:

Finally, compare the sun to Antares. The sun is only one pixel in size compared to Antares:

Remember the earth? Consider yourself on this earth and your SUV or light bulb. Are we truly so egotistical as to think we are anything but an insignificant speck in the big scheme or things? Do you really believe your light bulb and SUV are of greater importance than the sun (or Antares which, incidentally, is only the 15^th largest sun). So, the next time somebody comes to you sanctimoniously preaching that YOU are the problem, you will know THEY are insignificant.

Source for photos: http://www.rense.com/general72/size.htm

Technorati : climate change, conservative, global warming, science

Is Ron Paul Truly a Conservative?

“The American people now have a real conservative in the race for president they can support,” stated Kent Snyder, chairman of the Ron Paul 2008 committee after Ron Paul announced his intentions to jump into the 2008 race. But in reality, is Ron Paul really a Conservative?

We can find that information at Project Vote Smart (vote-smart.org). According to the website, Ron Paul’s Conservative ratings range from 62% to 100% on any given year. His liberal ratings, however, are more telling. They range from 40% to 50%. They are the highest of any Republican presidential candidate. As a comparison, John McCain’s liberal ratings have ranged from 10% to 35% in recent years. Most Conservatives do not view John McCain as a true Conservative.

So where is Ron Paul’s liberal bent?

• Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism.
• Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests.
• Claims the War on Drugs has abused the Bill of Rights.
• He’s for legalizing medical marijuana and has a 30 rating by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.
• Rated “A” by VOTE-HEMP, indicating a pro-hemp voting record.
• He supported the interests of the National Organization for Women 57%.
• Paul supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 50% in 2005 (the latest data).
• Ron Paul has voted closer to Democrats on military issues than Republicans.
• He has a 29% approval rating on national security issues by the Center for Security Policy (closer to Democrats than Republicans do).
• In 2006, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave Representative Paul a grade of “F”.

Ron Paul is NOT a Conservative any more than Hillary Clinton is a Conservative. Despite his adoring fans on the web (and only the web), Ron Paul, who was suppose to have surged after his “victory” over Giuliani, is in second to last place in the national polls.

Technorati : 2008, Ron Paul, conservative, politics, president

Liberal Guilt: The Reason for Indulgences, Protests, and Policies

What do The Dave Matthews Band and Coldplay have in common with the likes of Al Gore and John Edwards? They all suffer from liberal guilt. Coldplay, for example, funded 10,000 mango trees in India to make amends for their emissions in the production of their CD. The Dave Matthews Band has said it will offset 100% of the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from all of its touring activities since 1991. It is comparable to the medieval practice of buying indulgences to eliminate guilt. Al Gore and John Edwards are not only buying offsets but espousing guilt-based policies.

Shelby Steele describes this liberal guilt well in his piece “White Guilt”:

They struggle, above all else, to dissociate themselves from the past sins they are stigmatized with. When they behave in ways that invoke the memory of those sins, they must labor to prove that they have not relapsed into their group’s former sinfulness.

Here lies the root issue of liberal policies and actions. In other words, we have program after program of government funded “guilt offsets” to help relieve liberals of their shame-ridden past. Consider the war on poverty, social security, affirmative action, global warming, universal health care, and the countless other guilt-based agendas.

Guilt leads to blame. Their need to correct some perceived injustice means they must amend others actions as well—the louder the better so the world will know they are doing something about their supposed disgrace. Consider protests of the following: the Iraq war, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, the Patriot Act, Kyoto, “undocumented workers,” Bush policies, and so many more. Guilt, blame, guilt, blame—the same pattern over and over.

It is cognitive dissonance. Liberals assign guilt to oneself or, worse yet, to others who disagree with them. This allows them to circumvent feeling bad about themselves, or in terms they recognize—having a negative self-image. This, unfortunately, manifests itself into the myriad of government programs costing taxpayers trillions of dollars.

Because liberals are repeatedly offsetting their guilt, this leads them to be sanctimonious. P.J. O’Rourke puts it best:

The principle feature of American liberalism is sanctimoniousness. By loudly denouncing all bad things — war and hunger and date rape — liberals testify to their own terrific goodness. More important, they promote themselves to membership in a self-selecting elite of those who care deeply about such things. It’s a kind of natural aristocracy, and the wonderful thing about this aristocracy is that you don’t have to be brave, smart, strong or even lucky to join it, you just have to be liberal.

So, the next time you hear liberals espousing the “need” for a policy or program to “help the poor,” “save the environment,” or “help the children,” understand its root cause. It is their own inability to move beyond their own guilt-ridden self image.

Women and the American War Effort

(Updated 01/30/09)

I was recently asked to help with a local project, by locating photos of women involved in the various American war efforts, including soldiers and nurses in combat as well as women who remained at home in various roles. Thanks to Google Images, this task was quite easy, but I was struck by the differences in the images seen the published photos over the years.

The photos of the women in service have more similarities than differences through the years. Only the styles and, in some cases, the duties have changed. For example (please click photos for source):

Dr. Mary Walker, the only Woman Recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor (Civil War)

Medal of Freedom Recipient Genevieve de Galard-Terraube (WWII)

Pvt. Lori Piestewa, 1^st Native American woman to die in combat on foreign soil. (Iraq)

Likewise, published photos of nurses through each war have highlighted their serene sense of purpose, grace and class:

1^st documented Army Nurses of American Indian (Sioux) heritage (Spanish-American War)

Military Nurses (Vietnam)

U.S. Army Lt. Col. Betsy Myhre, a nurse practitioner assigned to the Cooperative Medical Assistance Team on Bagram Air Field, looks at children from a nomadic Kuchi tribe before a medical engagement in Dah Khawak, Panjshir, Afghanistan, May 29, 2008

It is the differences in the published photos of the women that stayed at home that struck me.

Clara Barton, 1^st Pres. of the American Red Cross (Civil, Spanish-American Wars)

Factory Riveter in Texas (WWII)

Members of a Women’s Club in the 1940’s (WWII)

Members of a Women’s Organization in the 1960’s (Vietnam)

Member of a Women’s Organization, early 21^st Century (Iraq)

???

Yes, every war has had its protesters and subversives, as well as its patriots..both male and female…and much of the difference may not actually be individual women over the centuries, but in the type of behavior and attitudes that are glorified in the media. These images, however, speak volumes regarding the roll of women in supporting the American war effort, then and now.

FHK Fighting-Women Archive

Time to Stop The Carnage?

It is forecast there will be 548 fatalities and over 28,000 non-fatal injuries for this past weekend. This is the period that began May 25 and went through May 28. The Government could have prevented this…

It is unconscionable that we let this slaughter continue. The death rate in 2005 was 38.1 per 100,000 population.

Let me put it in perspective for those of you who are wailing, gnashing your teeth, wringing your hands and screaming now for the head of George W. Bush. The facts above deal with traffic deaths for the Memorial Day Weekend not the Iraqi War. During the same period there was one American death reported in Iraq.

As of May 25, 2007 10 A.M. EDT there was a reported 3433 deaths, a fact you see blasted at you by the media constantly. What they fail to mention are 624 of these were not hostile related. Imagine a war zone safer than our highways.

There were 58,169 deaths as a result of the Vietnam War. The casualty rate forVietnam was 14.8 dead Americans per day. The rate in Iraq is 2.3..

You can’t fight a war without bloodshed. Freedom was won with blood. Freedom is preserved with blood. That’s what the red in Old Glory Stands for.

Liberty is life. Our servicemen and women are fighting there so that you don’t have to experience the war on your front doorstep. They ration their water, ammunition, fuel, and food, so some fat cat congressman can pump a pork project drug lab into his area and bad mouth them and their leaders while threatening and arm-twisting others because of his “power.”

Throw off your sackcloth and ashes. REJOICE that we have men and women willing to defend freedom and fight the enemy. REJOICE that their training and equipment increase their chance of living. And that means they continue to fight. Be thankful that they are not cowards who run at the sight of the latest news poll. Be thankful they believe in this country and its tenets more than your elected politicians who only want to be re-elected so they can stuff their pockets and their cronies. Be thankful they don’t hate and despise the cowardly anti-war protesters who denigrate their daily mission or the congressmen who would prefer to see them lose yet another war.

Government Is Not The Answer

Government is not the answer to our problems, government is the problem. — Ronald Reagan.

Immigration, stem cell research, health care, and the listings go on and on. These are the proposals put forth by the Democratic front runners and Congressional Democratic leaders. Inevitably, Democrats are calling on government to solve the problems of the American people. Have they forgotten the words of one of the most famous Democrats?

My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. — John F. Kennedy

People have asked me, “Why are you so opposed to government run social programs?” Would not I, as a minority, be more sympathetic to such schemes? To understand the reason behind my opposition, you have to understand my background.

I grew up on welfare. I was your typical at-risk child—broken home, parents with no education, minority, living in subsidized housing, gang infested schools, and plenty of government handouts. You would think I would be a cheerleader for the Democratic Party. Far from it. I lived in poverty and I came to realize that those handouts were not hand-ups. I saw those around me “gaming the system”—figuring out every possible angle to milk the local, state, or federal government out of more benefits. But for what? For nothing! I never saw one government program (and I was part of dozens) ever lead any friend, neighbor, or acquaintance out of poverty. It had the opposite effect…it kept them there…dependent…a welfare drug.

What changed in my life? One day I heard Ronald Reagan. He said:

We should measure welfare’s success by how many people leave welfare, not by how many are added.

and…

There are no constraints on the human mind, no walls around the human spirit, no barriers to our progress except those we ourselves erect.

It was then that I realized that the only thing keeping me destitute was ME. Government programs do not instill hope and promise, they instill rules and regulations. Ronald Reagan was and still is right, “Government in not the answer.”

What Happens When Web 2.0 Meets Illegal Immigration?

Web 2.0 “refers to a perceived second-generation of Web based communities and hosted services such as social networking sites, wikis and folksonomies that facilitate collaboration and sharing between users” (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0). Illegal immigration is a huge issue with some 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants in the United States. What happens when Web 2.0 meets illegal immigration? It is called WeHireAliens.com.Jason Mrochek is managing a website that posts the names, address, and phone number of companies that allegedly hire illegal immigrants. He explains his website this way:

The biggest incentive for illegal aliens to come to the United States is to find work. If there are no employers willing to hire the illegal aliens, then the flood of illegal aliens will subside. So the purpose of this website is to expose “alleged” employers of illegal aliens. In this effort we need your help. First, if you know of a suspected employer of illegal aliens report them here.

Whatever you may think of this website, it fits the definition of Web 2.0. It is a network for collaborating and sharing of information in an interactive approach. In this situation, it invites reports by citizens who “out” employers hiring illegal immigrants. The site then lists the details of that employer and allows the user to search information by name, location, and a variety of other means.

It also has its critics. According to an article by The Arizona Republic:

The site was launched in February 2005 out of frustration with the federal government’s lack of worksite enforcement. Its goal is to pressure employers to stop hiring undocumented workers and, therefore, reduce a main incentive of illegal immigration. The site, funded by donations, now averages 750,000 to 1 million hits a month.

Love or hate, agree or disagree, WeHireAliens.com, it is one clear example of Web 2.0 crossing into the world of illegal immigration issues. What political hot button is next on the horizon? Stem cell research? Abortion? Gun control? Only time will tell.
Listen to NPR’s take on WeHireAliens.com.

Americans Are Lazy

As the Illegal Alien Invasion Amnesty Bill got a major push by the Senate today it became obvious that Americans were too lazy to make a phone call to their representatives before this reported debacle took place.

From the Washington Times: The Bush administration, trying to win an immigration agreement with Democrats, is backing away from safeguards designed to target businesses that hire illegal aliens and to prevent a repeat of the rampant fraud that resulted from the 1986 amnesty. [end]

You won’t find much information from the liberal media on how this affects the Illegal Aliens with a Islamic backround. They would prefer it if we would forget all about Fort Dix. Instead you can expect to be buried in propaganda about all of the America loving hispanics who just want to have a chance at a better life. You also won’t see the signs from the ILLEGAL Alien demonstrations claiming that California and Texas belongs to Mexico. Instead what you can expect is …

Immigration Compromise Reached by Senate Negotiators

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 17, 2007; 2:42 PM

A bipartisan group of senators reached a delicate compromise today on what could be the biggest overhaul of immigration law in more than 40 years. The measure, which has the backing of the Bush administration, offers the nation’s 12 million undocumented workers a route to legal status. [end]

Now we know that bipartisan means traitors working to overthrow America.

The White House comment line is being flooded with unhappy citizens. Good. If you haven’t gotten in a call, yet, please do. 202-456-1111

Also, if you haven’t called your Senator, please do. The Capitol Hill switchboard, will direct you to the correct office. (202) 224-3121.

Hat tip: Ameripundit.com