Fitna

The controversy over this movie is a little bit strange. The video clips that are used and the ideas that are hinted at there are fairly old news. David Spencer’s work and the film Obsession are prime sources of information that have been opening the West’s eyes to the dangers of radical Islam for a while now. Just to name a couple .

And to tell you the truth, you’d have to be living under a rock (or a liberal) to not know by now how pressing and urgent the Islamist issue is today.

An associate of mine pointed me to a website with a bunch of pictures of jackasses who claim to be “sorry” that the film was released. It’s the stupidest response anyone could have given the film.

Here’s how I feel about being “sorry”:

As if posting your stupid face on the internet and saying “sorry” is going to make Islamist psychopaths stop trying to kill us. Like bin Laden is sitting around in his cave right now telling his followers, “Well, I guess we were wrong about Westerners. They’re not all bad. Some of them are nice enough to apologize. Good for them, we’re on their side.”

It’s just astonishing how detached from reality people can really be.

But I guess for the record, parts of the film are extremely intense. I myself cringed at the sound of the page tearing. I do believe that it was in fact a phone book or something like the film said it was, but it’s an extremely potent suggestion nonetheless.

But there was a serious point to be made with that film and I applaud Mr. Wilders for having the courage to do it. After all, he’ll probably have to spent the rest of his days worried that he or his family will have their heads chopped off by lunatic fundamentalists. It’s unfortunate that more people in the West don’t have this kind of courage.

Some are mistaking the film for being racist or hateful or ignorant. This is simply not the case.

In reality, the racist and hateful ones are the Islamic terrorists. The ignorant ones are the liberals who turn a blind eye to their atrocities. And then there’s everyone else, normal people like (hopefully) you and I. End of story.

The Evidence Is Just Pouring In…

It just gets better and better these days. From the always subjective NPR: “The Mystery of Global Warming’s Missing Heat”.

So in short, the global warming zealots have again been confounded by scientific evidence that refutes their crackpot ideology. The ice core samples, atmospheric data, and solar activity weren’t enough for them, so it’s not likely that this new oceanic evidence will do anything to change their mind.

The perplexed tone of the article is endlessly amusing. I mean, can you even comprehend  the sentence, “

These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather.Or it could mean scientists aren’t quite understanding what their robots are telling them.

In other words, when scientific instrumentation disproves man made global warming theory, liberals like to tell themselves  that there is something wrong with the data, not the theory.

Not only have the oceans not warmed up in recent years, but they have in fact  cooled since scientists started measuring them. Just like global temperatures have dropped during the past year enough to undo virtually all of the warming for the last century.

Even when the evidence is so extensive and clear-cut -remember, this is 3,000 robots telling scientists the same thing- global warming cultists continue to insist that their ideas are “scientific” and well-founded. As far as any objective and informed observer can tell, man-made global warming theory is neither.

Gore flat-out lied over and over again in his propaganda science fiction film, and none of the recent scientific data confirms his ideas.

Temperatures are dropping across the board, and global warming proponents cite this as evidence of their theory. If the temperature rises, it’s covered by their theory. If the temperature drops, it’s covered by their theory.

That means that the theory is not falsifiable, and non-falsifiable theories are not scientifically legitimate. Marx and Freud are classic examples of theories that claim to explain everything, no matter what happens either way.  If you can’t disprove a theory, you also can’t prove it. A theory that claims to explain everything ends up explaining nothing.

Divided Dems

I continue to relish in the amazing divide that the Democrats are still experiencing. Do they choose the leftist establishment superbitch or the vacuous half-black-former-Muslim motivational speaker?

I swear, 20 years ago this would have been an SNL skit or something.

The pantywaists at DailyKos are fighting with each other. Cuomo talks about how “ruinous” the dynamic can be for the party if it continues into August, which means a lot for a former New York governor these days.

But the greatest thing ever is this:

 

Just look at those imbeciles! “Not ‘God bless America!’ God damn America! God damn America! It’s in the Bible!”

 

It’s just hilarious. Watch the Best of Rev. Jeremiah Wright here.

 

Meanwhile, McCain is resting up, getting his machinery in position. At this point, I don’t see how his election can be anything but inevitable. It just goes to show you how important party unity is.

Spitzer

I’ve avoided weighing in on this topic for a while, half out of laziness. But I also wanted to take my time with it, because the reaction that everyone would expect of me is not what I want to give.

I’d love to get all indignant and self-righteous about this, and use it to attack Democrats and make fun of liberals. But it’s just not working for me this time.

I am not particularly shocked by this, in part because he’s not my governor, but mostly because politicians get caught with this stuff all the time. And men all over the world visit prostitutes. Of course I don’t condone it, but it’s naive` to get all crazy about this.

The media loves it, but you shouldn’t.

It’s not like he got caught lying under oath about getting blowjobs from an intern on Easter Sunday or anything. And no one’s heard about any cigars yet. And he hasn’t been accused of rape by anyone and he didn’t ejaculate on anyone’s clothing.

Ann Coulter said, “Clinton’s scandal was hilarious; Spitzer’s is just depressing.”

It’s not political, it’s just a shame that this successful guy made bad decisions and will be known as “client #9″ for the rest of his life.

Which leads us to an interesting comparison. The reason why Lewinskygate was such a big deal concerned not only Clinton’s long history of sexual deviancy and infidelity and the fact that Monica was a White House intern.

It was because the scumbag lied about it to 300 million Americans under oath. He manipulated people around him to try to get out of it. And worst of all, he got away with it.

Spitzer on the other hand, got caught, came clean, and resigned, like any decent person would do in his position. In short, he made a mistake and did the right thing by fessing up to it and stepping down.

Spitzer will be paying for the mistake his entire life. Clinton is still regarded as a demigod by liberals. It’s funny how the Democratic Party works sometimes.

The Great, Great Grandfather of Conservatism

If Reagan was the father of modern conservatism, and Barry Goldwater was the grandfather, then William F. Buckley was it’s great, great grandfather. His activism and scholarship did more for American conservatism than perhaps any other non-politician in the twentieth century.

We lost Goldwater in 1998, Reagan in 2004, and now Buckley in 2008. As far as I see it, the last of the greats has died today.

While it is deeply saddening to know that these three giants of the American conservative movement have passed away, I am comforted by reflecting on how much these three were able to influence and shape the country’s political and intellectual atmosphere for the last half century.

I know that Buckley will continue to influence thought and politics in America for years to come. As Americans watch this November draw closer and closer with bitter apprehension or foolish excitement, Buckley’s words from 40 years ago are more pertinent and insightful than ever.

Watch both these videos (ignoring of course the second half of both featuring Gore Vidal), and marvel at the timelessness of Buckley’s assertions.

Scientific Consensus?

Here’s a new scientific consensus for you: all four major trackers of global temperatures, those being Hadley, NASA’s GISS, RSS, and UAH, have released new data that shows an incredible drop in global temperatures over the past year. Taken all together, the decrease in global temperatures is something between 0.65C and 0.75C.

Although to non “global warming” zealots this value may look miniscule, it is in fact large enough to undo all of the alleged warming that has taken place for the past 100 years. In fact, this is the most drastic global temperature change ever recorded in such a small interval.

Inevitably, the “global warming” dogmatists will scoff at this information. This is exactly the reason why the “global warming” enthusiasts of the 1990s have been (unsuccessfully) trying to spin their rhetoric as “climate change”. Because according to their twisted logic, any increase in global temperatures as well as any decrease in global temperatures represent a catastrophic symptom of an angry and vengeful Mother Earth. Oh, and let’s not forget that it’s all America’s fault. That’s the most important aspect of their ideology.

We’ve reached the point in this debate, or should I say lack of debate, where when temperatures inch up one year the Gore-heads shout, “See!?!?! We told you this would happen!”

Then when they inch down the following year, the Gore-heads shout, “See!?!?! We told you this would happen!”

Anyone who knows the first thing about climatology knows that global temperatures are fluctuating constantly. There have been enormous trends upward and enormous trends downward for thousands and thousands of years, indeed since the formation of the planet 4.5 billion years ago. They happen every single year.

Check out the graph of the past 20 years to see how pronounced the fluctuations in global climate are every year. There is no set global temperature, only a constantly changing value within a certain range.

“Global Cooling” was a crackpot theory popular in the 1970s, which apparently got some struggling scientists excited and some tree-huggers worried. Then the cooling trend reversed, and by the 1990s we were seeing a warming. So the new buzzword became “global warming”.

In 1998 the temperatures began falling again, and enviro-wackos were confused.

Convinced that their original misanthropically apocalyptic theory must have been correct, and desperate for a scientific basis for their left-wing ideology, the environmental movement began trying to use the phrase “climate change”. But most have not caught on to this new style of propagandizing, so everything we hear about in the media is about still about warming.
I wonder if the liberal mainstream media will catch on before science proves their bogus ideas wrong once and for all. After this new data has come out, get ready for more “climate change” as opposed to “global warming” rhetoric. Their obnoxiously misleading mediaspeak will only last them so long, I guess.

But, back to this new data. Some of you may be asking, “but why is the Earth getting cooler, and is this something to worry about?” The answer to both of these questions involves that big bright thing in the sky, the cause of just about everything that happens on Earth, the source of all life: the sun.

This is the most interesting aspect of this new data: it is linked with current solar activity. What’s more, anyone who has studied the topic or gotten a chance to see “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, knows that fluctuations in climate have an indisputable connection with solar activity. See this graph.

Global warming fans, please. Give up this foolish quest! Do not embarrass yourselves by trying to explain how C02, a greenhouse gas, has made the Earth cooler.

You need to convince people and governments to take care of the environment without resorting to blatantly false junk science. It will only hurt your cause in the future.

Global temperatures change constantly, and both upward and downward trends are explained beautifully by solar activity. CO2 offers a scientifically illegitimate explanation for warming, and in no way can it explain global cooling. End of story.

P.S. Read “Nobel Peace Dies” for further devastation of the theory of manmade global warming.

Warming to McCain?

 

 Well, two pieces of news have warmed my icy opinion of John McCain recently. Say it ain’t so. First, I got a huge kick of McCain’s  comment Tuesday about Obama…”I will work hard to make sure Americans aren’t deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change.”       Loved it. I couldn’t have said it better myself; Obama is nothing but eloquent emptiness. His tactics are disturbing, making grandiose promises after embellished platitudes while systematically avoiding any concrete policy suggestions. Not even a comprehensive ideological platform…just a host of positive “hope” statements tailored to make everyone think he’s a moderate leader.             You know, that’s how Hitler came to power as well. A nation of hopeless idiots rallying around a charismatic leader who promises nothing but paradise.  And, like Hitler, Obama is likely to throw the rule of law out the window and the United States Constitution with it.            I don’t know if invading Poland is going to be included in his first 100 days, but giving away half of Iraq and a nuclear arsenal to Iran sure will be. OH, and let’s not forget his planned invasion of Pakistan.  

 

          

 

 Item number 2. The New York Times has finally turned their back on McCain. They’ve opted to run the story tomorrow, which Drudge let us know about in December, about this phony oldperson drama about McCain being romantically involved with some middle-aged lobbyist.

 

Even if we ignore that this doggdamn story is a decade old, I doubt anyone will be able to discover any true scandal here. What is this article even about?

 

Although, back in December McCain seemed pretty peeved by it. So maybe I’m missing something. Let me know.  

 

Point is, he’s no longer the darling of the mainstream media. And that scores major points in my book.  

The Democrats’ Crap

 

  Well, I’ve had it. I’m done talking about the sorry state of the Republican Party, at least for now. Ann Coulter’s column last week sure makes the idea tempting. But one needs to look no further than the stupid ruckus going on with Hillary and Obama to feel proud to be a Republican.   First off, you’ve got the Clinton crew hurling wild accusations of plagiarism at Obama. It turns out Obama hasn’t been plagiarizing Dr. King ["With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope"] or JFK ["this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers"] all this time.    What was actually happening was Obama was stealing a section of a speech from Deval Patrick, who was stealing quotes from Dr. King and Kennedy to give himself a little pizazz. (In case you don’t know, Patrick is the no good governor of my surrogate home state of Massachusetts, a.k.a the Democrat who took over after Romney.)  But as it turns out, Obama and Patrick are friends, so it’s all good for Obamaphiles.  No one seems to notice that to begin with Obama has stolen his silly rhetoric from two of the most notable and influential American leaders of the 1960s.   And by now it’s just degenerated into a childish back and forth, as Obama accuses back Clinton for taking his phrases. I know that you’re relatively inexperienced in real politics Hillary, and I know you’ve never done anything remotely like this Barack, but grow the hell up. 

 

In any event, then you’ve got Bill Clinton continuing to fly off the handle, with his continuously truculent support of his wife’s campaign. He apparently got all “irate” and allegedly hit some idiot Obama supporter in the face.   The Clintons of course deny any physical contact, but their word is about as good as…well, as Bill Clinton under oath. On the other hand, I don’t believe the moron shooting his mouth off for Obama, so its kind of a tossup.  

 

Then to top it all off yesterday, there was the ridiculous comment by Michelle Obama that she hasn’t been proud of her country until her husband started running for president. I’m not even going to begin on the idiocy of this comment…here’s Jonathan V. Last from the Weekly Standard:

Do these comments provide a glimpse of her general political worldview–one that is surprisingly critical of America for the wife of a presidential candidate? Or do they suggest a certain narcissism about the Obamas and their view of themselves? Or both?           

And J-Pod at Commentary:

It suggests, first, that the pseudo-messianic nature of the Obama candidacy is very much a part of the way the Obamas themselves are feeling about it these days. If they don’t get a hold of themselves, the family vanity is going to swell up to the size of Phileas Fogg’s hot-air balloon and send the two of them soaring to heights of self-congratulatory solipsism that we’ve never seen before.Second, it suggests the Obama campaign really does have its roots in New Class leftism, according to which patriotism is not only the last refuge of a scoundrel, but the first refuge as well — that America is not fundamentally good but flawed, but rather fundamentally flawed and only occasionally good. There’s something for John McCain to work with here.     

Both writers conclude that her impressive biography alone should make her proud of her country. But apparently not, apparently she feels that she owes 0% of her success to living in the greatest country in the world. What a nice attitude for a potential First Lady.     Leave it to the Democrats to make Republicans look cool and collected right now.  

Jonah Goldberg on McCain and Bush

Jonah Goldberg’s commentary is always accurate, succinct, and insightful. He had a good article this past week in USA Today: Should Conservatives Back Mac? Needless to say, I thought the article was interesting. He presents a strong case for why conservatives should back McCain, but I think it deserves some dissecting.

 

Goldberg’s overall point is that conservatives who continue to criticize and oppose McCain’s nomination are really just frustrated with the last eight years of Bush , and are taking out that frustration out on McCain. About this he’s right, but the fact of the matter is that Bush-fatigue is a good reason to oppose McCain, not a bad one. 

 

Basically, you’ve got amnesty for illegals, uncertainty on judges, big government, and McCain-Feingold. Goldberg is largely right; McCain’s faults are almost identical to Bush’s faults.But this is precisely the whole point of opposing McCain! What conservative can truly say that they are 100% satisfied with Bush in all areas of his policy? I venture to say, none! 

 

Taken on the whole, Bush has been excellent in certain areas, and just terrible in others. So why shouldn’t conservatives oppose a candidate with at least as many faults as Bush? Defend another semi-conservative for president because we’ve had to grit-and-bear through eight years of another semi-conservative? This doesn’t make sense. 

 

How about conservatives start electing conservatives for once? Why do we keep electing semi-conservatives that inevitably put real conservatives into a position where we’re defending and apologizing for them constantly? Yes, conservatives are sick of defending Bush for being an incompetent liberal. So why would they elect another Bush, who is going to need the same tiresome defending? 

 

The Republican Party keeps making the same mistake over and over again. The “moderate, experienced” George H.W. Bush defeated by Clinton in 1992. The “electable war-hero” Bob Dole defeated by Clinton in 1992. The “compassionate conservative” George W. Bush is somehow elected twice, but brings the above mentioned liberal policies with him. 

 

And now we’ve done it again.The “electable-experienced-war-hero-compassionate-conservative” McCain. Even if he does win the presidency, it’s going to be more of the same. And conservatives don’t want more of the same, they want someone conservative. Conservatives believe that liberals, moderates, semi-conservatives, and the like simply don’t have the answers our country needs. They just don’t. 

 

I don’t know what any of this means, I remain torn about the whole thing. All I know is that in a few years, regardless of who’s in the White House, conservatives and most Republicans are going to be regretting what happened this primary.

…