Global warming skeptics are finally coming out of the darkness into the spotlight, bringing their claims of insufficient study, disarming alarmist predictions and verifying what was suspected all along: no one really knows what conditions will be like in 20, 50 or 100 years, and never did.

I’m assuming Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio and company will become vegans, not vegetarians, immediately, considering there’s no time to lose and flooding up to the third floor of the Empire State building in New York is a serious matter. After all, since we now know cow flatulence causes more greenhouse gas than all motorized vehicles worldwide, doesn’t it make sense to eliminate all meat eating? But, I suspect nothing along these lines will occur because the fraudulent nature of the catastrophic climate change hoax is known all too well by it’s perpetrators.

Don’t expect a rapid backpeddling by eco-religionist’s any time soon, because the faith-based enviro-movement is about Socialist ideology, not science and not facts.

The sheepish, slave-like mentality of this movement’s adherents is shocking. Pride is an ugly thing, and letting go and admitting aligning with a falsehood, being duped, and investing emotionally in this big lie is a step that will only lead to relief and healing.

Just do it. has a great post with plenty of solid informational links.



Iranian manipulation and subversion of Iraqi national interests, and fighting a war against the US by proxy through funding and arming both sides of the sectarian violence, has it’s natural conclusion in attempts at financial dominance as well. Read about this intrusion into Iraq’s business.

Another natural extension of this theme brings to mind the recent revelations about Bank of America offering credit cards to illegal aliens, with no social security numbers. What’s the signifigance? Well, for starters, surrender to change most often occurs incrementally. Little by little, step by step and one day, you look up and your kids are grown, your wrinkled and gray, your life has flown by.

America’s life changing event’s are flying by, and we’re too busy shopping to notice. By 2050, with current proposals to manage illegal immigration becoming law, the current alien population will swell from 12-20 million to 100 million, including relatives brought in legally and sheer demographical realities. A decidedly spanish speaking, unassimilated, poorly educated underclass will be inhabitating the United States in the near future.

Who is at work in favor of this monumental, radical change to America? They are myriad, and motivation to perpetrate this reduction, or elimination, of sovereignty varies from group to group. Government needs tax receipts, primarily social security funds. Business needs warm bodies to man heavily labor intensive positions. Politicians need votes, and although most illegals are Catholic, and not supporters of abortion on demand and homosexual marriage, Democrats hope handouts will woo support. Radical, socialist open border types support any movement aiding in weakening and diluting American cohesion. Not to mention political efforts of Mexican nationalist groups like LaRaza (The Race), among others.

Creating a North American Union to compete with the EU is underway. Allowing Mexican trucks to move freely throught the US has altered commerce and represents one more incremental change toward the ultimate goal of North American consolidation. Allowing transfer of cash to Mexico from American banks, again without SS numbers, and very cheaply amounts to another baby step to ending America as we know it.

Surrender to forces that will eliminate America sovereignty, borders, and authority has taken place in some quarters of society. In spite of illegal status, profiting is underway, refusal to stop the flow is self evident, and it’s obvious the average citizen doesn’t waste time fretting the change.



Speaking of undocumented illegal aliens, check this out.

Check this out: America, Melting pot? or Chef’s salad?


Nothing’s changed since 2004…

In case this story got by you:

John Leo
Sins of Omission
Newspapers clam up about race, religion, and politics.
28 February 2007

Don’t identify people in the news by race unless race is important to the story: that’s the policy of most newspapers. But in practice, outbreaks of sensitivity in the newsroom often lead reporters and editors to withhold racial identification even when police are seeking a suspect after a major crime. Newspapers mention all details that might help the authorities find the perpetrator—except skin color.

A current example is the so-called “second rape case in Durham,” an eerie mirror image of the Duke lacrosse case: here the suspect is black and the alleged victim is white. North Carolina’s News & Observer described the suspect as “in his late teens or early 20s, about 6 foot 1 and wearing a do-rag, a gray sweatshirt and blue jeans.” That’s word-for-word from the police description, except that the police said that the suspect was black. The newspaper deleted the reference. It also couldn’t bring itself to mention that the attack allegedly took place at an African-American fraternity at Duke.

This squeamishness brought the expected hoots of derision. The blogger Confederate Yankee ran the mock headline RACELESS FEMALE RAPED BY RACELESS MALE AT A PARTY HOSTED BY A RACELESS FRATERNITY IN THE SAME CITY WHERE RICH WHITE BOYS RAPED A POOR BLACK STRIPPER. Later, the News & Observer posted a police sketch of the alleged rapist, clearly indicating a dark-skinned male, next to its original online story, thus implying that it hadn’t really suppressed racial information.

Sometimes news stories omit important religious and political identifications, too. In Nashville last week, readers of the Tennessean were probably able to deduce the religious affiliation of a cabbie who tried to run over two Christian students after a heated discussion of religion. His name: Ibrahim Sheikh Ahmed. The paper reported: “Metro police spokeswoman Kris Mumford said one of the students is Catholic and the other is Lutheran. Mumford said that Ahmed’s religion was not known.” Maybe so, but many readers probably wondered: if the driver had been a conservative Christian trying to run down a Muslim, wouldn’t the newsroom have summoned the energy to find out, and to confront Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the evils of Islamophobia?

The mainstream press is also notably coy in identifying anyone as a member of the Communist Party, possibly because in many newsrooms almost any use of the C-word, no matter how relevant, is still deemed McCarthyite. Giuliana Sgrena, the Italian journalist whose vehicle was fired on in Iraq by American troops, said that the troops were lying when they claimed that her vehicle had attempted to crash through a checkpoint. Much of the news media delicately failed to mention that Sgrena is notably anti-American, identifies with the insurgency, works for a communist newspaper, and is a communist herself. The New York Times called her employer, Il Manifesto, a “leftist” daily. A more detailed description of her opinions and commitments might have helped readers trying to judge her credibility.

The Times also worked hard to avoid mentioning communism in profiling Leslie Cagan, leader of a big antiwar demonstration in New York in February 2003. Cagan is a prominent old-line communist who left the party only in 1991, and only because it underwent an ideological split. In the Times, however, she was merely “one of the grande dames of the country’s progressive movement.”

More candor, please.

Read this when you have the time.

And, talk about slanted reporting.

stop_the_aclu.jpgIn America, every person arrested for violating the law is considered innocent until proven guilty. Each person also has the right to remain silent and to have an attorney appointed to them if they cannot afford one.

But, what if your already an attorney, assuming your the kind of attorney familiar with criminal law? And, what if your breaking federal law, the same federal law that you had worked for years to resist as a defender of the accused? What if you willingly acted to thwart, or ignore, that law for your own personal interest? What if you were a former president of a chapter of the ACLU, an organization that dreams, and works, among other unsavory things, for virtually no control of pornography availability and consumption? Pornography of any kind.

I suspect a great deal of minimizing and overlooking the gross details of this case will take place. I would add shame and embarrassment, but i’m not sure that’s part of the lexicon of, just so you know, a group of lawyers founded by communists. No hyperbole here, communists.
Here’s their pornography policy:

Why does the ACLU support pornography? Why are you in favor of child porn?

The ACLU does not support pornography. But we do oppose virtually all forms of censorship. Possessing books or films should not make one a criminal. Once society starts censoring “bad” ideas, it becomes very difficult to draw the line. Your idea of what is offensive may be a lot different from your neighbors. The ACLU takes a very purist approach in opposing censorship. Our policy is that possessing pornographic material should not itself be a crime. The best way to combat child pornography is for the government to prosecute those who exploit children by making pornography and we strongly agree with the enforcement of such prosecutions.

I’m not going to overplay the blindingly obvious here. The man was arrested after an international investigation caught him downloading the worst kind of child porn, pre-pubescent girls, some tied down, subjected to forcible, violent rape. The next step in severity is to kill the victim.

What I’m waiting for are the psychoanalysts and victimologists to invent a defense. Don’t be surprised.

“Your idea of what is offensive may be a lot different from your neighbors”. Yes, that seems to be the problem here.

I’m not kidding.

Another ill-advised ACLU muscling out of religious freedoms. Thanks Kathy