Along with the news the Media won't report, we have the best of the web with wisdom & insight.

Illegal immigration is simply 'share the wealth’ socialism and a CRIME not a race!


My Photo
Location: Pacific Northwest STATE OF JEFFERSON!, United States

William Wilberforce, the British parliamentarian and abolitionist, told his colleagues, “Having heard all of this, you may choose to look the other way, but you can never say again that you did not know.”

Wednesday, April 30, 2008


A soldier battles overflowing sewage in the Fort Bragg barracks shortly after coming home from Afghanistan.

CBS News, Wed. April 30, 2008

Army Shamed By Shoddy Barracks
The Army was publicly shamed after an outraged parent posted photos on Youtube depicting dilapidated conditions at the barracks of Fort Bragg. .

Take a look. This is nasty! I can tell you this, if we treated Mexico's citizen's like this they'd riot.....John McCain was right about that, at least.* Who is being mistreated? And WHO is doing all the bellyaching? Well, I hope the march of the illegal aliens is uneventful tomorrow. Our servicemen suffer while they march in the streets . Are we really willing to witness this kind of treatment of GOOD citizens and say nothing, while those who disrespect our laws and our citizens flaunt their 'rights'?


Groups Seek Shutdown of Illegal Immigrant Detention Center in Texas

Thursday, February 22, 2007

WASHINGTON — Immigrant families, many with small children, are being kept in jail-like conditions in Texas and Pennsylvania, according to advocacy groups that say the Texas facility is inhumane and should be shut down.(Immigrant...get bias there, Fox!!)

In a report being released Thursday, the groups seek the immediate closure of the T. Don Hutto Residential Center north of Austin, the Texas capital. The center, which opened in May, used to be a jail. [snip]

Compare this with the video of our servicemen's barracks!

A cell with a baby bed and children's toys that houses an immigrant family is shown at the T. Don Hutto Residential Center in Taylor, Texas.,2933,253699,00.html

Now get a load of this!

El Paso Service Processing Center - (illegal aliens, criminal aliens)

Operations Support consists of personnel tasked with providing recreation activities, food service, supply, budget, procurement, maintenance and computer support for the Service Processing Center. The processing center completed the construction of new Executive Office for Immigration Review courtrooms and offices, and processing, dining, medical, and laundry facilities--all of which are state of the art.

Accessibility for Individuals with Special Needs:
There are parking areas, entrances, and other necessary accommodations for any individuals with special needs.

We strive to provide quality service to people in our custody, their loved ones and friends, and to their official representatives. If we have not lived up to this commitment, we would like to know. If we have met or exceeded your expectations, please let us know that as well. To comment on the services provided at this office, please write to the Officer-in-Charge, El Paso Service Processing Center, ATTN: Service Feedback at 8915 Montana Ave., El Paso, Texas. 79925

If you feel you were mistreated by an immigration employee, or wish to make a complaint of misconduct by an immigration or contract facility employee:

Call the toll-free Joint Intake Center Hotline at 1-877-2INTAKE
FAX the JIC at 202-344-3390
Write to the JIC at P.O. Box 14475, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, D.C. 20044
Send an e-mail message to the JIC at or;
Contact the DHS/OIG by calling 1-800-323-8603, write to the
Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C. 20528
Attn:Office of Inspector General, Hotline; or
send an email to

But if you are a soldier, who ya gonna call??


* Recently this headline, “Obama Warns Of ‘Quiet Riot’ Among Blacks”, got some conservatives upset. Is that really so much worse than McCain telling us there will be civil unrest among Illegal aliens if his ‘comprehensive’ reform wasn’t passed?

John McCain: no amnesty for illegal aliens could lead to France-style riots

...The man wasn’t satisfied with McCain’s answer. He asked McCain why the U.S. couldn’t execute large-scale deportations, as he had heard they did in France and other countries. The question seemed to pique McCain.

“In case you hadn’t noticed, the thousands of people who have been relegated to ghettos have risen up and burned cars in France,” McCain said. “They’ve got huge problems in France. They have tremendous problems. The police can’t even go into certain areas in the suburbs of Paris. I don’t want that in the suburbs of America.”

YouTube - Army Barracks conditions in 82nd Fort (ft) Bragg

Copy of the popular video on the net right now showing how soldiers are living. I am a Fort Hood solider and can confirm that conditions like these are

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Bigger isn't always better.....Words from the Reagan Administration


I've just spent some time reading the following article written in 1994.
I checked the date several times. Yes, 1994.
Read it.
This could have been written today, and as you will see, Reagan and his people saw this coming.
he demise of conservatism, the problems of a newly defined 'economy', pandering to illegal immigration and the results it brings. Limiting immigration, especially illegal immigration would do more than any single thing we could do for 'energy' policy.

First a quote from Reagan. "Our country and state have a special obligation to work toward the stabilization of our own population so as to credibly lead other parts of the world toward population stabilization." Ronald Reagan, Governor, State of California, Hearings before Subcommittee on Census and Population, 1974.

Fred Charles Ikle a Distinguished Scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, served as under secretary of defense for policy in the Reagan administration and as director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency in the Ford administration.


Fred Charles Ikle (1994)

That capitalism is the best engine for economic growth is now understood throughout the Third World, the former Second World, and—save for some Marxist sects huddled in academia—even the First World. Also, it is universally understood that capitalism can do its good work only where, and as long as, governments follow conservative economic policies. From Shanghai to Prague, everyone now comes to us conservatives for the Rx on economic growth. Clearly, today we enjoy a strong wind in our sails.

But if we don't know where we are sailing, every wind will take us there. To be growing is not a destination—emphatically not a conservative one. Conservatives who propagate economic growth as mankind's highest and overarching goal place themselves in bad company. Benito Mussolini decreed that Fascists must keep expanding Italy's productive capacity. And all Leninist regimes kept promising abundant economic growth; a goal of such supreme value to them that they constantly fabricated—with mind-numbingmendacity —statistics on the growth allegedly accomplished. Hurray, a fifty percent increase in steel production, a hundred percent increase in the potato harvest!

Means don't justify the end. Had communist economies grown vigorously everywhere, would that make communism the desired system for all peoples? The fabulous success of conservative economic policies has seduced many in our midst to mistake economic growth as the defining attribute of conservatism. These brethren now believe that conservative policies can and must make all good things in society grow, and that this good growth can and must continue indefinitely. They act as if conservative thought were nothing but the philosophy of perpetual good growth. Yet, the intended consequences of growth—getting more of all the good things in life— are held in favor by almost any political philosophy. It is the unintended consequences that these conservatives ignore.
The Arrow of "Progress"

Looking at the world through the wrong end of the economist's telescope, our growth enthusiasts regard the standard measures of economic increases (such as in the nation's Gross National Product or in average per capita income) as the sovereign yardstick for evaluating all change in society. Growth in these measures is the arrow of progress; it is the compass needle that shows whether any correlated social change is good, bad, or indifferent.

This way of evaluating society's progress or decline has been elaborated and enriched to create an ideology of truly metaphysical sweep—the Utopia of Perpetual Growth. This ideology holds that continuing population growth, for example, is a good thing if it correlates with economic growth. Likewise, growth in population density is to be welcomed if it is associated with increases in GNP or per capita income. The same, of course, holds true for an increasing flow of immigration. And growth in international travel, increases in global communications, growth in the number of automobiles or television sets per capita, longer vacations, an increase in the average length of life—all these changes represent "good" growth to be cheered along, provided they are more or less correlated with the standard measures of economic growth.

For any social change to be exempt from this rule requires a compelling case. Violent crime normally qualifies as an exception. Even if violent crime rates were perfectly correlated with economic growth, few conservatives would claim that, therefore, crime is a good thing. But for lesser irritants that may correlate with economic growth—such as traffic congestion or pollution of beaches—the growth utopianism has two things to say. First, these irritants must be tolerated as a price worth paying for economic growth. Second such tolerance will be richly rewarded—as if by divine justice—because further economic growth, precisely, will eliminate the squalor and congestion. Indeed, only economic growth can overcome these irritants.

The idea that economic growth is the arrow of progress sounds superficially plausible because many historic examples suggest that, within reason, it holds true. Economic growth brought by the Industrial Revolution and by capitalism's triumphant march through the 1 9th and 20th century has vastly bettered the conditions of human existence. This march of triumph overcame Dickensian squalor in London, the threat of famine in Ireland, widespread poverty in Japan, and in recent decades brought new prosperity and greater freedom from South Korea to Turkey.

What gives the Utopia of Perpetual Growth its veneer of cheerfulness is that it asserts there is no end to this progress, no limit to all this good growth. The utopianism holds that economic growth—together with correlated growth in other social phenomena (such as population size or density)—is a grand historic process; a process that can be perpetual thanks to the laws of nature and rules of history, and that must be made perpetual by dint of man's efforts.

Any limits deliberately imposed on growth by government or private groups are a perversion—a suicidal twisting around of the arrow of progress to point it against our own hearts. Limits that nature might impose are nothing but temporary hurdles, challenges to be overcome by—you guessed it—further growth. Oh yes, in the blue mist of cosmology a misanthrope might descry some ultimate limits; yet even those should be regarded as highly speculative. After all, who can know whether for mankind the planet earth proves to be a finite homestead, or whether all limits will dissolve in a universe that is forever expanding.

The utopianism also asserts that perpetual growth will benefit everyone. A rising tide lifts all boats. If you are one of those who is worried about taxes you are told that the process of perpetual growth will bring relief. A growing economy enables the government to feed its expanding appetite without raising taxes; indeed, if growth is brisk, tax rates can be lowered. Or better yet, we can anticipate these benefits by lowering taxes first, which will accelerate economic growth and in turn make it easy to lower taxes further.

If you are one of those who is worried about the deficit, perpetual growth is also your answer. Economic growth will expand government revenues until they balance the budget. Or, if the deficit should then expand again—as seems likely—further economic growth will come to the rescue. Like the golden pot at the end of the rainbow, the solution is always waiting for us at the horizon.

More Growth, More Government

The strong growth in the US economy during the Reagan years did a great deal of good. Americans in need of jobs found employment, those holding jobs came higher wages, many people on welfare received better benefits, and the nation regained its self-confidence. As Martin Anderson put it in his splendid book on the Reagan Revolution: "It was the greatest economic expansion in: history. Wealth poured from the factories of the Unite States and Americans got richer and richer."

And the government grew and grew. "Spending on social welfare programs," writes Martin Anderson, "increased surely and steadily, perhaps more than Reagan would have liked." Government support for agriculture experienced the biggest percentage increase far higher than defense and at a far steeper rate than the national economy. "In 1980 the federal government paid US farmers and ranchers $8.8 billion", recalls Anderson; seven years later it "was doling out over $31 billion a year." The role of the Federal government; as provider of health care also grew dramatically in this period. So did the amount of taxpayer's money spent on non-military space flight (demanded by some for scientific experiments by others as entertainment, and by NASA as its entitlement). And Congress—always mindful of itself—increased sharply the tax dollars spent on Congress.

Evidently, the law of unintended consequences must have been at work here. (That is, unintended by Ronald Reagan and those who supported his philosophy about big government). George Will may have been a bit too generous when he wrote, in his recent book Restoration, that conservatives do not merely take this law seriously, "they often are conservatives largely because of it and all that it intimates about political life." Would that this were true for some of the most articulate American conservatives today, who cheerfully keep praising the glories of economic growth. Yet, like the little boy who angrily kicks the table after banging his knee against it, they invariably blame bad government for all the evil consequences that growth may entail.

A rising tide, yes, lifts all boats. It lifts the tax collector's boat. It enables every Congressional committee to spend more of the people's money. It "forces" every bureau chief within the Federal bureaucracy to expand his staff and offices "just to keep up with growth". The rising tide also helps governments to cover up gross malfeasance; the citizenry may have to wait for the ebb tide of a recession to see it exposed. At that point, when the body politic is deprived of the spoils that can flow so generously from continuing growth, it may at last be goaded into starting a clean-up. In Japan, it was the recent recession—not "the rising tide"—that has helped to reform, and perhaps save, the democratic system. In Italy, it was the cessation of economic growth that provoked the scrutiny and political discontent which emboldened Rome to take on the mafia. In the United States, it was the ebb tide in real estate that brought action against the S&L crooks. A halt in economic growth of course, will not necessarily expose corruption or help shrink government. The steep economic decline after 1929 ushered in one of the largest government expansions.

Cause and effect are hard to trace in human affairs. Those of us who wish to proffer policy advice need to ponder about circuitous routes of causation. Yet, the message from our growth utopians that most voters will hear is that this forever unfolding cornucopia depends not on how wisely they live and how hard they work, but on how they vote. Or to put it more crudely: the promised:, gratification depends on the government. The people thus become conditioned to regard all good things that come with economic growth as an entitlement owed to them by the government. They will have become hooked on the big-government addiction.

So the fix is on. The addiction is bipartisan. Few of our conservative lawmakers enjoy enough support among their voters to disappoint all those who have been seduced by the growth utopia. Republicans will have to join Democrats to vote for government programs—not because of their merit but because canceling them would deny some group its growth entitlement. Hence, government must give away grazing and mineral rights on Western lands, bestow perpetual benefits through the Rural Electrification Administration, subsidize rich peanut farmers and the sugar industry, and so on. Behold —the left and the right are agreed that big government is good for growth!

Decimating our own Ranks

It is bad enough if some conservatives demand more government just to have government disperse more economic growth. It is folly, if they also drive many of our potential supporters into the enemy camp merely to humor their growth utopianism. [snip]

Folly likes company. The growth utopians in our midst are not only kicking conservation-minded citizens into the enemy camp, but with their advocacy of high levels of immigration, they are also alienating many traditional conservative voters. A great many Americans of conservative persuasion do not regard their country's borders as merely an obstacle to global free trade, an obsolete "protectionist" contraption that must be done away with. They value the borders as a breakwater that will protect their—yes, their— nation's social fabric and political culture in a stormy world.

Yet, our Jacobins insist on open borders and "free immigration". Whoever disagrees is a "racist"'; never mind that among American blacks, whose forefathers helped build this country, many also disagree. And whoever proposes that the United States should regain control if its borders will be derided as wanting a "Berlin Wall". (Erich Honecker must have been mighty pleased to see distinguished Americans confirm what he always asserted about his wall: that it was never meant to imprison his people, but to keep out "undocumented" Westerners.)

The extreme Left in America is delighted. Like their soul mates in Europe, they have long pined for a split among conservatives that would create a faction they could attack as "fascist", thus forcing all other conservatives to spend their entire time proving that they, by contrast, are not fascist. This stratagem worked in France and Germany, until, the conservative parties at last began to cope with immigration, and thus sharply curtailed their loss of votes to "anti-immigration" splinter parties.

The Bovine Rebuttal of Malthus

Economic growth and population growth are closely intertwined, both entangled in a dense web of social, political, demographic, and economic forces. Does population growth stimulate economic growth, or is it the other way around? Do increasing population densities negate the benefits of economic growth, or are they the very engine for a growing economy?

To disentangle this knurly twist of cause and effect takes more than a simplistic statistical correlation. Yet, our growth utopians, to prove that high population densities bring prosperity, invariably introduce their favorite success story—Hong Kong. According to a Wall Street Journal editorial, the physical limit to the number of people that Hong Kong could absorb "in a short time" has "not even been approached"; more immigration would help since Hong Kong "continues to suffer a labor shortage."

Higher population densities, to be sure, can help economic growth—by permitting a more efficient division of labor, stimulating trade, and enhancing financial markets. But more often than not, higher densities will lead to more government. More crowding means more people will bump into each other; and to mitigate these bumps, people nowadays demand—unfortunately—that government interfere ever more. The more populations are culturally and linguistically divided, the more irritating the bumps will be—hence the louder the demands for government-determined outcomes. To be sure, we conservatives know that we want less government, not more. But many in our midst fail to see that an unintended consequence of all the good growth they are advocating will be more government.

Conservatives addicted to the Utopia of Perpetual Growth, nonetheless, tell us not to worry: an ebullient free market economy (such as in Hong Kong!) will provide taller apartment buildings and larger sewer pipes to accommodate an ever-growing population. To worry about population growth, they tell us, is incorrect thinking, called Malthusianism. Thomas Malthus had this theory that population tends to grow faster than the food supply, pushing mankind toward misery. But since the end of the 18th century when Maltus wrote his book, food supplies grew easily as fast as population— unless foolish government policies interfered.

Because of this history, the pros and cons of population growth continue to be debated as an economic question and, adnauseam, as a question of accommodating more people by feeding them. One might call this the bovine rebuttal to Thomas Malthus. Given capitalist agriculture, it is said, an ever growing human herd will always have enough fodder. Yesterday's world population was two billion people, today's is five billion, tomorrow's will be ten. As the global economy becomes more and more integrated, we will all blend into one growing family, it is said. The happy whirligig will go round and round, faster and faster, more people and more things, at home and abroad, more things and more people, abroad and at home.

Man, however, does not live by fodder alone. Nor can one measure human progress by the growth in per capita income alone. William J. Bennett's Index of Leading Cultural Indicators shows this all too clearly. Measured by many of these indicators, America suffered a cultural decline even during the fabulous economic growth of the 1980s, "the seven fat years" as Robert Bartley's engaging book calls them. For some of these indicators that correlate nicely with past economic growth, even the most dogmatic believers in the growth utopia would agree the trend was bad. Example: illegitimate births quintupled since 1960. Other Bennett indicators, however, they might regard as desirable correlates of "good" growth; for example, the increase in average daily TV viewing. Economic growth brings better TV sets, cheaper TV sets, more TV programs, more leisure, and hence, more time spent in front of the tube.

Conservatives ought to focus less on the bovine interpretation of population growth and pay more attention to its cultural and political implications. Never mind that a growing world economy can feed all the people. The right question for us conservatives is whether cultural values can keep up with this multiplication, and whether the pressures for more government can be kept in check.

Population growth is the paramount, the most elemental anti-conservative force. It unleashes a flood of social change that will cascade onto every level of society. It creates irresistible pressures for farflung, and usually irreversible government interventions, allegedly to cope with all the social changes that rapid population growth has unleashed. It thus helps the radical left to garner political support for its social engineering schemes. It dilutes the reach of religious institutions that seek to preserve society's moral fiber. It empowers the unprincipled and the rootless to tear down vastly more civilizing traditions and riches of culture than they will ever create.

Till Growth Devours Us

Some conservationists have it wrong: an imminent scarcity of raw materials is not the reason why we need to be concerned about population growth. Throughout this century, predictions have been made that mankind faced calamity because it was running out of anthracite or copper, petroleum or fresh water, or some other vital resource for which there could be no substitute. These alleged "limits of growth" were foolish.

The growth utopians in our midst delight in mocking this foolishness. It is of course easier, when confronted by a vexing question to ridicule silly answers others have given than to search for the right answer oneself. But the question will not go away. Either we cling to the belief that the growth of all good things in our society can be perpetual, or we must address the question of limits. As John Gray wrote in his timely book Beyond the New Right (1993), "the project of a social order that does not rest on the prospect of indefinite future betterment creates problems for policy that have as yet been barely addressed by conventional thought, including the mainstream of conservative philosophy."

A stable population would be a critical component of the social order that John Gray refers to. Many population experts see such stability come about through the "demographic transition"—the decline in birth rates often associated with growing prosperity. (How soon this transition might be completed, whether it can take hold in all cultures, and whether it will not be reversed, are open questions.)

Nothing in the growth ideology is more indicative of its utopianism than what it says about the demographic transition. On the one hand, it holds that an increasing population is a godsend for economic growth. On the other hand, it promises that economic growth, all by itself, will usher in the demographic transition and thus halt population growth. Yet, utopianism ignores the cultural conditions that are necessary for the transition to take hold. On the contrary, as soon as a rich country's birth rates have declined enough to keep its population stable, the utopia's high priests condemn such "stagnation", warn of economic and moral decline, a crippling labor shortage, and an aging nation, and insist that population growth must promptly resume—by admitting large numbers of immigrants.

Thus, the utopianism is unmasked as a gigantic, global Ponzi scheme, where each generation can collect its growth entitlement only if a compliant and larger generation steps into the queue behind it. Should we conservatives let this utopianism dominate our movement, no body would be left to stop the fraud and the whole pyramid would eventually collapse, engulfing everyone in vast misery. The cause of this collapse would not be a shortage of material goods but the destruction of society's conservative conscience by our Jacobins of growth.Link

Approximately 2/3 of U.S. growth is a result of immigration (1.6 million immigrants + 800,000 births to immigrants out of annual growth of 3.3 million), therefore reducing immigration is the single most effective policy to slow U.S. growth and SAVE ENERGY!

Senator Gaylord Nelson, Founder of Earthday:

“In this country it’s phony to say ‘I’m for the environment’, but not for limiting immigration.”

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Illiterate peasants....Don't speak the truth!

More about this nonsense at Lars Larson. This fiasco is worse than reported. He started to give his speech, and was immediately interrupted by Ms.Kathleen Curry who informed him this had NOTHING to do with immigration or aliens.....duh!!!!

This ‘lady’ needs to be gone!

Full interview with Rep. Bruce, here.

Bruce Told To Leave Podium After Mexican Comment (Note he never said a word about MEXICANS!) /FR^ | 04/21/2008 | Steven K. Paulson

Posted on Tue Apr 22 13:13:22 2008 by Oshkalaboomboom

DENVER (AP) ― Rep. Douglas Bruce was ordered to leave the podium of the Colorado House of Representatives on Monday after calling Mexican workers "illiterate peasants."

Bruce, a Republican with a history of provoking controversy with his statements and actions, made the comment during a debate on a bill designed to ease a farmworker shortage in Colorado.

It drew an audible gasp from the House.

"How dare you," said Rep. Kathleen Curry, a Democrat who was serving as chairwoman during the debate. She told Bruce he was no longer recognized to speak.

The bill under discussion would allow the state to help immigrant workers get temporary visas.

Bruce said the bill was about "having more aliens coming into Colorado" from Mexico.

"I would like to have the opportunity to state at the microphone why I don't think we need 5,000 more illiterate peasants in Colorado," Bruce said.

Rep. Mike May of Parker, the House minority leader and head of the GOP caucus, said legislative leaders were trying to determine what action to take against Bruce.

And just because...............

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Breaking News: Scientists call on UN Climate Committee to admit they are wrong and renounce Global Warming claims and policies

This was sent by Lars Larson . Yesterday, one of the scientists involved was on his radio show with news of this new information. Please pass it around! Tell the president and McCain, since they seem to be out of the loop!

Please circulate as widely as possible, thank you

Mon, 14 Apr 2008 06:10:37 -0700
Hans Schreuder
Piers Corbyn of WeatherAction long range forecasters

The UN's Climate Committee leadership and policies were today challenged by four scientists, including one Nobel Peace Prize winner, from around the world to admit that CO2 centred Global Warming theories are now disproved by observations and to renounced that theory and associated 'devastating policies' which are weakening the world economy and increasing food shortages and destruction of forest across the planet.
Their bombshell letter includes a graph by Joseph D’Aleo, (Certified Consultant Meteorologist, Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), and Executive Director based entirely on official figures which shows that while CO2 has risen dramatically for the last ten years world temperatures have been falling contrary to the UN (IPCC) predictions.
The writers directly challenge the IPCC to produce observational evidence for the UN's CO2 driven Global Warming theories which are now being used to justify anti-CO2 measures and taxes all over the world: "If you believe there is evidence of the CO2 driver theory in the available data please present a graph of it" the scientists challenge.
Media are welcome to publish the graph and letter and extracts therefrom.
The letter:
Dr. Rajendra Pachauri
Chairman Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
c/o World Meteorological Organization
7bis Avenue de la Paix
C.P. 2300 CH- 1211 Geneva 2,

14 April 2008

Dear Dr. Pachauri and others associated with IPCC

We are writing to you and others associated with the IPCC position – that man’s CO2 is a driver of global warming and climate change – to ask that you now in view of the evidence retract support from the current IPCC position [as in footnote 1] and admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures or climate change.

If you believe there is evidence of the CO2 driver theory in the available data please present a graph of it.

We draw your attention to three observational refutations of the IPCC position (and note there are more). Ice-core data from the ACIA (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment) shows that temperatures have fallen since around 4,000 years ago (the Bronze Age Climate Optimum) while CO2 levels have risen, yet this graphical data was not included in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers (Fig. SPM1 Feb07) which graphed the CO2 rise.

More recent data shows that in the opposite sense to IPCC predictions world temperatures have not risen and indeed have fallen over the past 10 years while CO2 levels have risen dramatically.

The up-dated temperature measurements have been released by the NASA’s Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) [1] as well as by the UK’s Hadley Climate Research Unit (Temperature v. 3, variance adjusted - Hadley CRUT3v) [2]. In parallel, readings of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have been released by the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii [3]. They have been combined in graphical form by Joe D’Aleo [4], and are shown below.

These latest temperature readings represent averages of records obtained from standardized meteorological stations from around the planet, located in both urban as well as rural settings. They are augmented by satellite data, now generally accepted as ultimately authoritative, since they have a global footprint and are not easily vulnerable to manipulation nor observer error. What is also clear from the graphs is that average global temperatures have been in stasis for almost a decade, and may now even be falling.

A third important observation is that contrary to the CO2 driver theory, temperatures in the upper troposphere (where most jets fly) have fallen over the past two decades. [Footnote 2]

IPCC policy is already leading to economic and unintended environmental damage. Specifically the policy of burning food – maize as biofuel – has contributed to sharp rises in food prices which are causing great hardship in many countries and is also now leading to increased deforestation in Brazil, Malaysia, Indonesia, Togo, Cambodia, Nigeria, Burundi, Sri Lanka, Benin and Uganda for cultivation of crops [5].

Given the economic devastation that is already happening and which is now widely recognised will continue to flow from this policy, what possible justification can there be for its retention?

We ask you and all those whose names are associated with IPCC policy to accept the scientific observations and renounce current IPCC policy.

Yours sincerely,

Hans Schreuder Piers Corbyn Dr Don Parkes Svend Hendriksen

Analytical Chemist Astrophysicist UK Prof. Em. Human Ecology Nobel Peace Prize 1988 (shared)

mMensa Dir. Australia Greenland

Cc: IPCC’s

Tim Yeo MP (Chairman Environmental Audit Committee) Lord Martin Rees (President Royal Society)

Gordon Brown MP David Cameron MP Nick Glegg MP

Footnote 1: Two heavily publicised quotations which emerged from your organisation, respectively in February and December last year, are:

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica) (Figure SPM.4).{2.4} [6] and

The 2007 IPCC report, compiled by several hundred climate scientists, has unequivocally concluded that our climate is warming rapidly, and that we are now at least 90% certain that this is mostly due to human activities. The amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere now far exceeds the natural range of the past 650,000 years, and it is rising very quickly due to human activity. If this trend is not halted soon, many millions of people will be at risk from extreme events such as heat waves, drought, floods and storms, our coasts and cities will be threatened by rising sea levels, and many ecosystems, plants and animal species will be in serious danger of extinction. (Summary statement, Bali Conference.) [7].

Footnote 2: “Data over the past two decades indicates that temperatures have actually declined in the upper troposphere, even though there has been some minor upward trends in temperature at sea level and lower altitudes. This completely contradicts conventional global warming models. Before we radically rearrange the political economy of the world because some scientists claim anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of climate change, it might be worthwhile for anyone taking a position on the topic to consider whether or not this is indeed “well settled science.” Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT, March 2008.





4. Joseph D’Aleo, Certified Consultant Meteorologist,

Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), Executive Director




Sunday, April 13, 2008

How I feel about this election......

Saturday, April 12, 2008

Gasoline?? We don't need no steenkin' gasoline!

I went into the gas station today and
asked for five dollars worth of gas.....

The clerk farted and gave me a receipt. (Thanks Blackie)

Friday, April 11, 2008

American Legion tackles immigration!

A Strategy to Secure Our Borders

If you do not have a copy of The American Legion’s latest booklet on illegal immigration, download it here! If you would like a free booklet sent to you, email your address to

“The American Legion Policy on Illegal Immigration: A Strategy to Address Illegal Immigration in the United States” is a must-read for voters and political candidates alike. The impact illegal immigration has on crime, terrorism, employment, wages and even public health are all addressed in this comprehensive booklet. More importantly, The American Legion’s common sense strategy to deal with this important issue offers not just a look at the problem but a solution as well.

Download brochure below:

PDF DocumentPolicy on Illegal Immigration

Listen to Legion audio related to immigration

MP3 Audio FileImmigration child victims
MP3 Audio File
Immigration enforcement
MP3 Audio File
Immigration and the Iraq war
MP3 Audio File
Immigration and national security
MP3 Audio File
Immigration remedies
MP3 Audio File
Immigration US Code

Just some of the information in this comprehensive bulletin from Pg. 8:

Money Wired to Mexico Since Jan. 2006 $42,363,149,000

Cost of Social Services for Illegals Since 1996 $397,480,946,017

Children of Illegal Aliens in Public Schools 4,184,824

Cost of Illegals in K-12 Since1996 $14,828,106,397

Illegal Aliens Incarcerated 351,087
Cost of Incarceration Since 2001 $1,477,239,843

Illegal Alien Fugitives 663,347

Anchor Babies Since 2002 2,148,175

Skilled Jobs Taken by Illegal Immigrants 10,232,441

Saturday, April 05, 2008

In an ABSOLUT world.......

That's more like it! Thanks SeafoodGumbo

Thanks Eddie01 (Freepers don't let Freepers get spun)

Friday, April 04, 2008

ABSOLUT Responds - Adds insult to injury!

ABSOLUT responds to the outrage expressed by customers in the USA about their unfortunate pro Mexican reconquista ad. (see yesterdays post!)

We have received many comments on an ad showing what an ABSOLUT world would look like from a Mexican point of view. We are sorry if we offended anyone. This was not our intention. We will try to explain. Though you may not agree, I hope you understand......

.....The In An Absolut World advertising campaign invites consumers to visualize a world that appeals to them -- one they feel may be more idealized or one that may be a bit "fantastic." As such, the campaign will elicit varying opinions and points of view. We have a variety of executions running in countries worldwide, and each is germane to that country and that population.

This particular ad, which ran in Mexico, was based upon historical perspectives and was created with a Mexican sensibility. In no way was this meant to offend or disparage, nor does it advocate an altering of borders, nor does it lend support to any anti-American sentiment, nor does it reflect immigration issues. Instead, it hearkens to a time which the population of Mexico may feel was more ideal.

As a global company, we recognize that people in different parts of the world may lend different perspectives or interpret our ads in a different way than was intended in that market. Obviously, this ad was run in Mexico, and not the US -- that ad might have been very different.
(emphasis mine :<)

Now THIS is more like it! (Thanks dead!)

Other brands from the parent company- Pernod Ricard:
1. Ricard
2. Ballantines Scotch
3. Chivas Regal
4. Kalhua
5. Malibu
6. Beefeater
7. Havana Club
8. Stolichnaya
9. John Jamesins
10. Martell
11. Glenlivet
12. Jacob’s Creek
13. Mumm Champagne
14. Montana
15. Perrirer Jouet
16. Seagram’s gin
17. 100 Pipers
18. Amaro Ramazzoti
19. Clan Campbell
20. Imperial
21. Pastis 51
22. Ararat
23. Wild Turkey
24. Royal Salute
25. Tia Maria
26. Suze
27. Royal Stag
28. Ruavieja
29. Wyndham Estate
30. Powers
31. Campo Viejo
32. Hiram Walker
33. Passport
34. Café de Paris
35. Becherovka
36. Don Pedro
37. Olmeca
38. Aberlour
39. Wisers
40. Montilla
41. Presidente
42. Soho/Dita
43. Pernod
44. Wyborowa
45. Something special.

Thursday, April 03, 2008


Absolut Reconquista Update: Coming to a billboard near you?

By Michelle Malkin • April 2, 2008 09:55 PM

Scroll down for updates…

The beverage of open-borders used to be Miller Light. Now, it is Absolut Vodka. The vodka maker’s latest ad redraws the map of North America to please Mexican consumers. (Hat tip - Snapped Shot and Jim Hoft).

Reconquista? What reconquista? Oh, yeah. That reconquista:


I hear McCain campaign advisor Juan Hernandez and Hillary campaign advisor Dolores Huerta both approve.

Bottoms up!


The “In An Absolut World” ad campaign site is here. It's a straightforward, classic appeal to Mexican machismo - "Drink Absolut and you'll be the kind of man who will win back for Mexico the lands the gringos stole from you."

Tell "Absolut" what you think here:


Mr. Reconquista, Show me yours and I'll show you mine!

Wednesday, April 02, 2008

Just Because....