Unlike these 17 cut-and-run pussies (scroll down at link for the list).....

Posted by: caltechgirl at 09:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

An Open Letter to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi

Dear Sir and Madam:

You have said often enough that you don't believe in the war in Iraq and that you want to bring the troops home. Yet all you do is talk and sign non-binding resolutions which only goes to show that you really don't mean what you say about ending the war or that you're just playing political games and in doing so giving aid and comfort to a dedicated enemy.

Now if you're serious about ending the war you have the means and the votes to do just that. Simply cut off the funding for the troops, bring them all home and the American people can transfer the deed to this war and the ramifications of what you do to the Democrat party and you can live with the results.

You say you support the troops, but that has to be a lie. If you supported them and you truly think the war is wrong, you'd bring them home or either dispense with the poisonous rhetoric and get in behind them and help them get the job done.

You can't have it both ways. If you support the troops do something. Your party won a majority in both houses, so you have control so take the responsibility.

Of course, I think you should remember that when the terrorists follow us home from Iraq and start their attacks on American soil it's too late, so you'd better have a plan to deal with it. Do you have a plan?

And if Iran goes into Iraq and makes it a staging ground for Al Qaida to plan and carry out attacks all over the western world you'll need to deal with that. Do you have a plan?

And if Iran decides to go into Kuwait and cut off the oil flow from the Persian
Gulf, you'll need a way to make up for the shortfall. Do you have a plan?

The world would look at us as a country that has not finished a commitment to war since 1945. Do you have a plan for dealing with that?

The purpose of this letter is to call your bluff. I don't believe you have the guts to do anything but talk and talk is cheap. Oh you have no shortage of words but I seriously doubt the amount of backbone you have.

Do you really think that signing a non binding resolution is really fooling anybody into thinking you're anything less than career politicians trying to tip the scales of the O08 Presidential Election?

What you're doing is silly and dangerous. If you really don't like what's going on, chang

Pray for our troops.

What do you think?

God Bless America
Charlie Daniels
February 16, 2007

H/T Linda SoG

Posted by: caltechgirl at 04:58 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 476 words, total size 3 kb.

And it's not because of the ear pain.  Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Moonbattery at its FINEST:

I knew in that moment that this was what the future of teaching about justice would include: teaching war criminals who sit glaring at me with hatred for daring to speak the truth of their atrocities and who, if paid to, would disappear, torture and kill me. I wondered that night how long I really have in this so called "free" country to teach my students and to be with my children and grandchildren.

These military and mercenary terrorist-students are trained in terrorist training camps all under the USA, funded by American taxpayers. In fact, people under the USA are "sacrificing" their healthcare and their children's educations while donating their tax dollars to these terrorist training camps. These terrorist camps train money hungry working class stiffs to murder, steal and plunder for the power
hungry US corporate war lords.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 12:01 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 551 words, total size 4 kb.

This is why.

This is the SECOND rotavirus vaccine to cause these problems in young children and infants.  In 1999, the Rotashield vaccine caused the same problems.

Until we know FOR SURE that the Gardasil vaccine is safe, it is entirely irresponsible to mandate it for every female child.

Furthermore, Rachel makes a good point here:

"We (the collective) do not want the government to pass laws about our right to murder our unborn children, but we're not up in arms about the government forcing us to inject foreign matter into our little girls' bodies?"

Posted by: caltechgirl at 06:16 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.

I've been on record for years saying that I'd cross party lines to vote for him for President, but the left seems to be too stupid to realize that UNITING this country means appealing to all facets of the political spectrum, something Joe seems to do almost universally.  Sure, the wingnuts hate him because he's a socially liberal demotard, and the moonbats hate him because he's a hawk and anti-abortion.

But his is the only consistent voice of conscience on the Hill, and for that, I respect him.  For this statement made to the Senate on Feb. 5, I respect him even more:

It is altogether proper that we debate our policy in Iraq. It should be a debate that is as serious as the situation in Iraq and that reflects the powers the Constitution gives to Congress in matters of war.

But that, sadly, is not the debate that the Warner-Levin resolution invites us to have. I am going to speak strongly against this resolution because I feel strongly about it. I do so with respect for my colleagues who have offered it, but I believe its passage would so compromise America's security, present and future, that I will say so in the clearest terms I can.

...

What we say here is being heard in Baghdad by Iraqi moderates, trying to decide whether the Americans will stand with them. We are being heard by our men and women in uniform, who will be interested to know whether we support the plan they have begun to carry out. We are being heard by the leaders of the thuggish regimes in Iran and Syria, and by Al Qaeda terrorists, eager for evidence that America's will is breaking. And we are being heard across America by our constituents, who are wondering if their Congress is capable of serious action, not just hollow posturing.

This resolution is not about Congress taking responsibility. It is the opposite. It is a resolution of irresolution.

For the Senate to take up a symbolic vote of no confidence on the eve of a decisive battle is unprecedented, but it is not inconsequential. It is an act which, I fear, will discourage our troops, hearten our enemies, and showcase our disunity. And that is why I will vote against cloture.

If you believe that General Petraeus and his new strategy have a reasonable chance of success in Iraq, then you should resolve to support him and his troops through the difficult days ahead. On the other hand, if you believe that this new strategy is flawed or that our cause is hopeless in Iraq, then you should vote to stop it. Vote to cut off funds. Vote for a binding timeline for American withdrawal. If that is where your convictions lie, then have the courage of your convictions to accept the consequences of your convictions. That would be a resolution.

...

We cannot have it both ways. We cannot vote full confidence in General Petraeus, but no confidence in his strategy. We cannot say that the troops have our full support, but disavow their mission on the eve of battle. This is what happens when you try to wage war by committee. That is why the Constitution gave that authority to the President as Commander in Chief.

Cynics may say this kind of thing happens all of the time in Congress. In this case, however, they are wrong. If it passed, this resolution would be unique in American legislative history. I contacted the Library of Congress on this question last week and was told that, never before, when American soldiers have been in harm's way, fighting and dying in a conflict that Congress had voted to authorize, has Congress turned around and passed a resolution like this, disapproving of a particular battlefield strategy.

I ask each of my colleagues to stop for a moment and consider this history carefully. Even during Vietnam, even after the Tet Offensive, even after the invasion of Cambodia, Congress did not take up a resolution like this one.

Past Congresses certainly debated wars. They argued heatedly about them. And they clashed directly with the Executive Branch over their execution. But in doing so they accepted the consequences of their convictions.

This resolution does no such thing. It is simply an expression of opinion. It does not pretend to have any substantive effect on policy on the ground in Iraq.

But again, I ask you: what will this resolution say to our soldiers? What will it say to our allies? And what will it say to our enemies?

We heard from General Petraeus during his confirmation hearing that war is a battle of wills. Our enemies believe that they are winning in Iraq today. They believe that they can outlast us; that, sooner or later, we will tire of this grinding conflict and go home. That is the lesson that Osama bin Laden took from our retreats from Lebanon and Somalia in the 1980s and 1990s. It is a belief at the core of the insurgency in Iraq, and at the core of radical Islam worldwide. And this resolution "by codifying our disunity, by disavowing the mission our troops are about to undertake" confirms our enemies' belief in American weakness.

This resolution also sends a terrible message to our allies. I agree that we must hold the Iraqi government to account. That is exactly what the resolution Senator McCain and I have offered would do. But I ask you: Imagine for a moment that you are a Sunni or Shia politician in Baghdad who wants the violence to end, and ask yourself how the Warner-Levin resolution will affect your thinking, your calculations of risk, your willingness to stand against the forces of extremism. Every day, you are threatened by enemies who want nothing but to inflict the most brutal imaginable horrors on you and your loved ones. Will this resolution empower you, or will it undermine you? Will it make you feel safer, or will it make you feel you should hedge your bets, or go over to the extremists, or leave the country?

And finally, what is the message this resolution sends to our soldiers? I know that everyone here supports our troops, but actions have consequences, often unintended. When we send a message of irresolution, it does not support our troops. When we renounce their mission, it does not support our troops.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 01:08 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1126 words, total size 7 kb.

The words of a REAL CLIMATOLOGIST, which has nothing to do with inventing the internet.....

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

-- Thirty years ago many of the same scientists raising a ruckus today were DEAD SURE we were headed for a man-made ice age FROM THE SAME CAUSES (greenhouse gasses, etc.)

--Consensus is different from fact: 95% of 4 year olds believe in Santa, but this doesn't make him REAL, does it?  So why should we believe something just because a majority of pinheads with PhDs do?

And yes, for the record I too have a PhD.  So what?  But I'm not a pinhead.  Doesn't make me a sheep, either.

Please read all of Dr. Bell's article (yes, there is more. A lot more.),  It is a fascinating look at how popular politics colors even the most rigorous of disciplines.

h/t Q and O via RWV

Posted by: caltechgirl at 12:19 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 674 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Excellent post.

Posted by: Ith at February 05, 2007 12:24 PM (1ZrPC)

2 wait... what do you mean Santa isn't real?

Posted by: wRitErsbLock at February 05, 2007 12:42 PM (+MvHD)

3 You take that back, Santa is real. I've writen him a letter each year for the past 27 years. He hasn't responded yet because he's very busy keeping those elves in line, trying to keep things warm at the north pole. It's hard to relax with a lemonade when they drink freezes immediately.

Posted by: Bill at February 05, 2007 02:43 PM (bpbQx)

4 Exactly... I remember the global cooling (they called it "nuclear winter") phase very well. It was as idiotic then as this is now. As to the "why do these people all jump on the bandwagon without tangible facts?" well, that's easy... always follow the money. There's money in the global warming scare - lots and lots of lovely cash. Facts be damned - it's who gets the paid the most and has the most money to lose... they fight the hardest for their position.

Posted by: Teresa at February 05, 2007 04:10 PM (gsbs5)

5 good one CTG

Posted by: Jane at February 06, 2007 05:25 AM (YadGF)

6 LOL at Beth!! This is a great article. "As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted. Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention. Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information." True scientists must be appalled by what's going on. From what I understand, the sun's temperature has increased too (not that you'd know it in the northeast right now). I'm no scientist, but who are we to think that our tiny little speck in the galaxy is experiencing climate change thanks to us? Aren't there at least a gazillion other variables to consider? Why does that idea seem to be rocket science? (Snarky aside: Oh, and did you see the IMDB rating on Gore's film? 8.2/10 Ooooh. Peace-prize worthy, huh?)

Posted by: Marie at February 06, 2007 07:06 AM (keaCm)

7 I don't know, that global cooling sure would explain about the local temps of late.

Posted by: Contagion at February 06, 2007 03:38 PM (72Ov0)

8 Thanks for the "ammo" for my debates.

Posted by: Crassus at February 07, 2007 05:40 AM (8RyYg)

9 When you pull your collective heads out of the sand, you'll be baked at just the right temperature. You're all idiots.

Posted by: googoodolly at February 09, 2007 10:44 PM (B4coE)

Hide Comments | Add Comment