We break into our regularly scheduled

Written by Paul Zannucci on 12:58 PM

procrastination for some funny jokes blonde.

It's easier than coming up with a real post.

MF's quick follow-up...

Written by Paul Zannucci on 9:50 AM

And to dovetail on Terry's views, I would argue that conservatives believe that - regardless of your personal religion or lack thereof - Judeo Christian moral values should dominate American society.

Take the issue of abortion. What middle ground is there? Can you be neutral on such an issue?
If abortion results in the death of an innocent human being, why should I allow someone to be able to make the "choice" to kill another human being?

The simple point of fact is that classic liberalism - the view that people have individual freedom and individual responsibility - is the unique byproduct of Judeo-Christianity. If it's something that comes out of the left, then the communists should have been doing it (you might notice they haven't and never even tried to do it). Human dignity only exists when the Imago Dei is a presupposition of a society.

MF's first response to the shot from TB

Written by Paul Zannucci on 9:08 PM

I'm not going to take my ball and go home over the "age of the earth" thing (and in fact I argue from the view of "old earth" when trying to convince someone of the Creator God of the Bible), but...

I look at the flat-out mockery that "science" has made of "the science of global warming" and compare it to the similar mockery that "science" made out of "the science of evolution." And I realize the IDENTICAL crap is going on with global warming that has gone on with Darwinian evolution for decades. It's not about "science"; it's about a philosophy or ideology that is IMPOSED onto science which is then itself then called "science."

I'm personally very open to a young earth view. I trust what the Bible says far more than I trust what the people who gave Al Gore a Nobel Prize for science say. I don't see one reason whatsoever anymore to allow "science" to dictate what I believe and what I accept to be true given the terrible history of deception and propaganda that way too many scientists have propagated in its name. They've pretty much forfeited all credibility in the "meta" issues.

To put it this way: Christians don't need the young earth view to be true to be Christians; neither do they necessarily need evolution to be false to be Christians. Atheists NEED the old earth view AND evolution to be true. So they must necessarily be entirely rabid and vicious on both fronts. Christians can and should be willing to argue with light rather than heat on the age of the universe.

Bottom line: none of us were there when God created all time, space, energy, and matter ex nihilo. And the biblical record of Genesis 1-4 is definitely open to interpretation.
I'm just sayin'.

About Webhosting and Neglecting this Site

Written by Paul Zannucci on 11:08 AM

Okay, I've been really neglectful of this blog. The reason is that I have too many projects going all at once, and unfortunately that's not going to change for at least a month. I'll get here as I can, but it's going to be really tough.

In the meantime, I want to share some important information about shared hosting for any of my readers who either host their own sites or are thinking about it. Most people who use Blogger at some point feel they are ready to go buy some hosting and try their luck with a "real" site, although I personally think that Blogger sites are just fine.

Anyway, hosting your own site can bring a lot of rewards, but if you wander around webmaster sites from time to time, what you find is hoards of people who are unhappy with their shared hosting companies. If you've been a frequent follower of this site, you'll know I've had my own share of problems with this. When we moved American Sentinel to Bluehost, for instance, we were simply kicked off for using too many server resources.

So, anyway, I figure that most folks who are hosting their own sites or who are planning to are probably in the same boat that I was in and really don't know how to get a site to run well on a shared host and all the dangerous things to look for, like being overwhelmed with spam bots. Can you believe that a site I am currently hosting was getting several THOUSAND spam bot hits per day? Spammers were using almost all of my server resources.

But I'm a lot more educated on these things now than I used to be, so I've created a site where I share what I've learned, it's called Hosting Website.

On that site, I've just put up about a 4000 word article (easily navigated with anchor links), that gives you most of what you need to know in order to make your site run smoothly on cheap shared hosting. I look at the major problems and then show you how to fix them. If you are interested, follow the link below:

Shared Hosting Servers

Good Conservative Christian Web Hosting

Written by Paul Zannucci on 9:07 PM

There's a great alternative to the traditional web hosts out there, a company that is run by someone who is both conservative and Christian. How do I know? Simple. It's mine. I felt like there was a place in the market for a patriotic American hosting company.

I bet you are asking, what the heck do I know about running a hosting company? More than you might think, but that doesn't matter because I've struck a deal to use GoDaddy's servers and 24/7 customer service. I'm sort of a wholesale supplier of domain names and web hosting.

Honestly, I can't always get the domain names below what GoDaddy offers them for. But I beat them on quality hosting plans. The least expensive comes in at $3.99 per month, and that's using their world-class servers. Plus it comes with a lot of extras.

So if you want to find a hosting company that you fell comfortable supports your conservative, Christian values, give mine a try:

UShosts.us

The shot heard around the world

Written by Paul Zannucci on 5:49 PM

And here is where it started to get really ugly. TB decided to elaborate on why he rejected the "young earth" theory.

I reject the young earth hypothesis on several grounds.

First, carbon dating has been demonstrated in a variety of contexts not related to arguing the age of the earth. Given its reliability, it's difficult to sustain a young earth theory unless one also posits a God who intentionally misleads humankind. I have heard the argument made that that's exactly the case, and one way God tests our faith: will we believe God's Word or our own eyes? But I reject the "trickster God" approach to theology. God's purpose in the Bible is self-revelation - telling humans truth about God. The moment we hypothesize that God would tell us truth in scripture but a lie in His creation, we are in the position of not knowing when or how to trust God. And that ultimately puts us in a no-win situation, because we would not be able to trust our own God-given senses and intelligence. No; start down that path and we're very quickly stuck in a briar patch with no safe exit.

Mike is right that science as we know it grew out of the Judeo-Christian worldview. It was the conviction that the creation is also God's book of revelation, when rightly understood. Scientific inquiry is intended to reveal God's majesty, not obscure or deny it. It assumes the world God created is consistent with God's truth. If verifiable evidence contradicts biblical revelation, there is a misunderstanding on our part; it cannot be because God is testing, fooling, or otherwise playing with us. That notion is distinctly unbiblical.

The issue in global warming is that science has been perverted to serve a political agenda. There's plenty of scientific evidence to disprove most of what global warming enthusiasts assert. That is to say, the science against global warming is as potent as, or more potent than the science favoring global warming. All we need is time for the truth to win out - which is what algore and friends don't want, and why they are pushing so hard for quick action.

But the dishonesty in the global warming debate is not transferrable to the age of the earth issue. There is no science to contradict the old earth proposition; only faith claims and rather tortured logic on the part of people who want to place certain biblical evidence against science. To me, this is a misuse of the Bible. The Bible does not argue for a young earth proposition. The mistake made is this: some Christian teachers and theologians argue for a young earth on the basis of counting up the generations from Adam to Jesus. Their assumption is that the Bible provides the entire history of Israel. It doesn't. The Bible tells the salvation history of Israel. It makes no effort to be comprehensive of all of Israel's history.

The Bible is a record of the saving work of God as he made the Hebrew people and called them out of the world to serve His purpose in the world. Hebrew scholars and teachers have taught for more years than there have been Christians that the Torah is God's Word to the People, recounting what the People need to know in order to know that God's Hand is upon them, and that they prosper when obedient to their Lord.

Modern readers are sometimes guilty of an anachronism: they apply modernistic and scientific approaches to ancient oral histories told by people who did not have a modernist's view of the world or a scientific approach to history. We get things mixed up by assuming numbers are just counting symbols in the Bible, when in fact we know that numbers can also be used purely symbolically, distinct from their counting function. We do that today; it was more common in pre-modern, pre-scientific cultures; it was most certainly common in ancient Israel, as well as in early Christianity. Jesus' 12 baskets of leftovers from the feeding of the multitude is most certainly an example: it is a statement about the theology of Christ being able to feed all the tribes of Israel the miraculous stuff of life, if we will only put ourselves into his hands.

I don't want to go deeper into this topic, or I won't quit writing. My point is that (1) the number of years people lived and the counting of generations in the Bible was never meant to be taken in the modern, scientific, literal way modern readers want to take it; it was literal in a different, pre-modern way: it pointed to a literal belief in a direct linkage between Adam and Abraham, Abraham and Jacob, Jacob and David; and for Christians it was extended to make a literal, direct link from David to Jesus. The point, though, was not to count generations, or to add up years since creation. It was to make the faith statement that God created the world, created the first couple, and created each of the major Jewish figures; and that Christ was the last in that sequence, all of whom, together, articulate the ongoing presence of God in human history, the history that matters, which is the history of God's saving work among His people. That's all. For the Jews, and for Christians who are no longer of this earth, human history, and geological history don't really matter - except as matters of intellectual curiosity. All we really care about is the history of God's actions in the world to save humankind, and that's what the Bible illustrates and records. Only that.

And (2) modern scientific inquiry is not at odds with that very Jewish purpose of history. The earth does not have to be young to make that history true; therefore to make the Bible true. The age of the earth is irrelevant to the relevant issue: that it is God who created it, and created it as a Garden for humankind; and has been at work to restore us to the edenic state since the beginnings of human recollection. As for evolutionary theory: I think it's fair to say, on the basis of competing science, competing interpretations of the gathered data, and gaps in scientific evidence, that it is only a theory. It has gaps that some say suggest evolutionary theory better shows how creatures adapt within their niches than how creatures jump from one niche to another. We're still looking for the evidence, without ruling out the possiblity of some kind of periodic "quantum leaps" from one state of createdness to another more complex state of createdness. If we ever demonstrate that those leaps have taken place, I'd likely argue that those leaps are further evidence of God acting miraculously and outside the ordinary rules of nature. I won't rule out God turning water to wine; I won't rule out God turning an ape into a human. We have yet to produce evidence that makes the case airtight, though. And it seems to me that any evidence of "quantum leaps" would be food for the Intelligent Design type of argument.

On the matter of science emerging from Christianity: I think that's pretty well established. And there's no question that the advances in science have come from decoupling science from faith. Faith requirements were a drag on the scientific examination of the world - as in modern Islam, medieval Christianity required scientific exploration, examination, and conclusion accord with human interpretations of scripture. That's bad science, as well as bad theology. So the decoupling was important in order for science to develop into a mature field of human inquiry. Along the way, it's also provided us some tools by which we can correct our understanding of scripture's message - if we're willing to use those tools, and explore the sometimes uncomfortable conclusions they force.

But the scientific method has advanced to the point that we now discover the relativity of the scientific method. In other words, in a a way Mike is right to say that knowledge is faith. We find over and over again that our presuppositions influence the "objective" results of scientific inquiry. It begins to look as though the scientific method is also subjective, though in a different way than is faith.

It strikes me, then, that the scientific method can lead us down any road we are predisposed to travel. In other words, our worldview will determine what we discover is "objectively" true. If that's the case, then at some point we have to reunite scientific method and Christian worldview. More properly, Judeo-Christian worldview, since Christians are (Paul assures us) but an engrafted branch on the stump of Jesse. I have been wondering if the discovery of relativity theory and the quantum world wasn't the real purpose of, the highest peak available to, decoupled science; and the next set of mountain ranges will not really be seen, let alone climbed, until science and the worldview of God revealed in the Bible (both testaments) and in the life of Jesus are joined.

I wonder what we will discover when we engage scientific inquiry with a Christian worldview? I don't mean in the pre-modern sense of requiring that science conclude what faith wants it to, but in the post-modern sense of a recognition that the assumptions one brings to the scientific enquiry help determine the discoveries one makes. Literally, that how we think determines what we can see. So if we are fully and completely the People of the Book, not anticipating a struggle between science and faith, but anticipating and looking for the ways that seeing as Christ sees, valuing the way God has disclosed He values, reveals new scientific truths that bring the world more into harmony with God's intention for creation, and enables us to do more with less negative impact on creation; in fact, enables us to do more while also ennobling God's earth. What will society, technology, human life look like when we are fully engaged in that exploration? I think, pretty good.

Back and forth, FF and me

Written by Paul Zannucci on 11:56 AM

Just a joke that occurred in the midst of an argument, with the ever affable FF as the instigator:

From FF:

Old joke:
A scientist giving a public talk about the cosmos is interrupted by someone in the audience screaming hysterically. He rushes to where the person is sitting and asks what is wrong. "What you just said," she replies, "about the sun going nova and burning the earth to a cinder." "But I said that won't happen for a billion years," says the scientist, "there's no need to worry about it right now." "Oh," says the woman, regaining composure, "forgive me; I thought you said million."

From Me:

re your joke...Sometimes the strangest things are depressing to me for no good reason. I was watching something on the death of the ever-expanding universe (I don't know what the latest thoughts on that is), and I actually found myself becoming melancholy over it--as though collapsing in upon itself would have been better for me personally.

From FF:

The reason I remember that joke, which is really old, from the sixties, is that I get depressed thinking the earth might have only a million years left.
Like it matters.

An Attaboy from a New Voice and a Response

Written by Paul Zannucci on 10:28 PM

FF lends his voice in this first email simply as an attaboy sort of thing for MF, who then responds anyway. I put them both in this same post...

From FF:

MF: Well said, as usual.
Science is knowledge; faith is belief. No matter what you know or think you know, the critical moment in religion is when you take "the leap of faith."
Or look at it this way: Jesus doesn't care how old you think the Earth is; He does care how you treat your neighbor now.

Follow-up from MF:

I'd have to add a couple of provisos about the statement that "science is knowledge and religion is faith."

For one thing, I would argue that faith IS a form of knowledge. I may not be able to scientifically validate that I love my mother, but I know I do anyway. And I may not be able to scientifically demonstrate that the Living God of the Bible is a real and constant actor in my life, but I still know it's true.

On the other hand, science is very often NOT "knowledge" at all. Think again about global warming and the crap that has been presented as "science."

I wrote an article about the how the limits of human knowledge impact upon the scientific project from a study I did on Immanuel Kant: (address of paper deleted)

Some basic things to realize are that science came out of Judeo-Christianity. Christianity provided the worldview necessary for science to derive its essential presuppositions. And it is no accident that the founder of the scientific method, and the discoverers of every major branch of science, were publicly confessed Christians.

There is no conflict between religion and science, when both "religion" and "science" are properly understood. Institutional religion (including Christianity) have gone quite wrong and off the track in the past, but it is now institutional science that is thoroughly and terribly off track today.
And both the scientist and the theologian should have some ultimate level of humility that he/she doesn't have all the answers about all the questions. God has told us quite a few things, but if I knew EVERYTHING I'd basically BE God.

A quick and dirty two-step theology:
1) There is a God
2) I am not Him.

We interrupt the email argument...

Written by Paul Zannucci on 9:21 PM

We interrupt our regularly scheduled posting of my email argument to bring you the following administrative notices.

First, at Annuit Coeptis, we have endorsed our first candidate, Michael Williams. Supposedly we'll have an interview from him soon.

Also, we've redesigned our Conservative Shirts site, but we don't have all the product put in yet.

Domain Name For Sale:

And, lastly, I have decided to roll the Win Congress, where we are pushing for victory in the 2010 congressional elections, into Annuit Coeptis, so there really was no reason to keep our domain name. We now have it listed for sale on Sedo. You can check out the parked domain here: Win Congress

Now back to the regularly scheduled argument.

Young Earth Creationism Argument Part 3

Written by Paul Zannucci on 6:25 PM

This is a response I missed when posting the earlier ones. This is from someone we'll call TB:

Just to mix it up a bit: I don't think social conservatives want to force behavior; maybe define - or at least argue for - some social boundaries. Not the same thing. American conservatism is, imo, oriented around personal responsibility, personal autonomy, minimalist government, and a deep recognition that this is the one place in the world where those elements can be practiced to the benefit of the individual. That last is the 'essential' we need to all agree upon, and needs to be at the heart of what it means to be patriotic. And that kind of patriotism ought (and once did) guide all of our other personal, social, and political decisions: if we don't preserve this country as the one place where the individual is sacrosanct, it will exist nowhere in the world. I think it is the 'feeling' that we're losing that commitment to the welfare of the country first, because it directly provides our individul welfare, that moves political and social conservatives toward legalisms (what Paul is calling forced behavior).

Calvin Coolidge: "Patriotism is easy to understand. It means looking out for yourself by looking out for your country" (1923 Memorial Day speech). That's pretty close to the view of the founders, imo. It seems to be the connection between the individual and the society that modern liberalism can't make. Seems to me liberals reverse it: patriotism means looking out for your country by looking out for yourself. The conservative puts primacy on the country's good, even at personal harm, because that's how we keep a free place for individuals in the world. The liberal puts primacy on the individual, even at harm to the country, because they don't think they are free unless all authority is removed.

Both are ranges, of course. But I think trend in those two directions.

Really, I guess originalist patriotism was most closely like modern libertarianism. But infused with biblical morality - made civic. It was simply assumed that people were christianized in outlook if not outrightly Christian, and our founders' passion for individual liberty was based on the assumption that private and public appetites would be constrained by Christian moral commitment, infused as it was into the culture.

On the other hand, there is pretty good evidence the signers of the Declaration were pretty worried about what their noble experiment became. All or nearly all expressed some sense of disappointment before they died - generally feeling that the aristocratic sense of disinterested political and social leadership they felt they represented had been overrun by plebian capitalism, which they felt was just plain crass. They ended up disappointed utopians, really, fearing the future of the Republic might be a fractious dystopia. (I think the jury is still out on that.)

Young-Earth Creationism Part 4

Written by Paul Zannucci on 6:23 PM

Note: I'll hook all these together once they are done. This is the second response in a row from MF.

And to dovetail on TB's views, I would argue that conservatives believe that - regardless of your personal religion or lack thereof - Judeo Christian moral values should dominate American society.

Take the issue of abortion. What middle ground is there? Can you be neutral on such an issue?
If abortion results in the death of an innocent human being, why should I allow someone to be able to make the "choice" to kill another human being?

The simple point of fact is that classic liberalism - the view that people have individual freedom and individual responsibility - is the unique byproduct of Judeo-Christianity. If it's something that comes out of the left, then the communists should have been doing it (you might notice they haven't and never even tried to do it). Human dignity only exists when the Imago Dei is a presupposition of a society.

The first response to the no young-earth creationism edict

Written by Paul Zannucci on 6:50 PM

My first email response from dictating that no one write from a young-earth creationist perspective on the site

I'm not going to take my ball and go home over the "age of the earth" thing (and in fact I argue from the view of "old earth" when trying to convince someone of the Creator God of the Bible), but...

I look at the flat-out mockery that "science" has made of "the science of global warming" and compare it to the similar mockery that "science" made out of "the science of evolution." And I realize the IDENTICAL crap is going on with global warming that has gone on with Darwinian evolution for decades. It's not about "science"; it's about a philosophy or ideology that is IMPOSED onto science which is then itself then called "science."

I'm personally very open to a young earth view. I trust what the Bible says far more than I trust what the people who gave Al Gore a Nobel Prize for science say. I don't see one reason whatsoever anymore to allow "science" to dictate what I believe and what I accept to be true given the terrible history of deception and propaganda that way too many scientists have propagated in its name. They've pretty much forfeited all credibility in the "meta" issues.

To put it this way: Christians don't need the young earth view to be true to be Christians; neither do they necessarily need evolution to be false to be Christians. Atheists NEED the old earth view AND evolution to be true. So they must necessarily be entirely rabid and vicious on both fronts. Christians can and should be willing to argue with light rather than heat on the age of the universe. Bottom line: none of us were there when God created all time, space, energy, and matter ex nihilo. And the biblical record of Genesis 1-4 is definitely open to interpretation.

I'm just sayin'.

(note: this person did eventually "take his ball and go home.")

The 2nd email in the chain
The 1st email in the chain

By the way, sort of on this topic, I wrote a piece today on Ida: Missing Link

2nd for clarification...

Written by Paul Zannucci on 12:37 PM

The second email I sent in that series, regarding clarification of my personal stance:

And just to clarify for all who may not know me well enough, I may side with science on almost all issues, pretty much on everything except the notion that an omnipotent God can't break His own rules when He wants to; and I may not side with social conservatism a lot because I believe in personal responsibility over forced behavior; yet, still, my faith is strong and getting stronger.

I used to run an apologetics web site until I allowed myself to be run off by the fundamentalists (not the atheists, mind you, but the fundamentalists), but I will get back to that some day in the next year. I own (domain removed), and intend it to be a force to be reckoned with.

Go see email #1

So this was the email that started the battle...

Written by Paul Zannucci on 10:31 PM

Email # 1 from me, igniting the theological/philosophic argument ready to ensue...

Not naming names (name removed) but the best way to communicate with me over site errors is actually to send me an email as opposed to placing a comment in some random location on the site ; )p But I did fix the registration process.


Got us linked up a bunch of places, and we've had our best "search engine" day by far (largely owing to our gleeful skewering of Wanda Sykes). So far today we've had 171 search engine hits. We still aren't on the first 50 pages of Google for "Political News" but that may well be in the top 5 most competitive keywords out there considering how often news sites are linked from blogs. On the bright side, in addition to our search hits improving, we do come up on page 1 in Google for Annuit Coeptis now. Search engine hits will go up and down, but the overall trend should continually be upward. Linking will continue until we pass CNN...

Got annoyed at a troll and created a page called "Age of Earth." By the way, I have a great deal of flexibility on almost all issue positions, but on this one I do not. It is the official, and only, stance of Annuit Coeptis that the planet is approximately 4.5 billion years old. I'm not telling you to be a naturalist, but we don't argue about things like the age of the planet.

Fixed (name removed) and (name removed) in the sidebar. If (name removed) would like a different picture, please let me know.

At some point I added a "Most Popular Stories" to the sidebar, at least I think it was me. Hey, I said my brain was improving; I didn't say it was perfect. It will show the most popular posts from the last seven days.

Did some category work, but am still a little unsettled as to what, exactly, to do there.

Made a slight design adjustment.

Made a short blog post.

Monetized our feedburner feed with adsense--at least I think I did. That process was a bit odd. We now have 4 subscribers. I'm getting tingly.

Put up the "Help Wanted" sign, but with a little twist this time...

The Grand Debate

Written by Paul Zannucci on 3:58 PM

While working the start up of Annuit Coeptis we were presented with a typical, irrelevant, obnoxious liberal response from a reader who said that the author of a particular article probably believed in a young Earth. The article had nothing to do with anything remotely related to that, of course, and neither the author nor I believe in a young Earth, and so I decided, just to remove all doubt, to create a page on the site dedicated to dispelling the popular notion that all Christians and conservatives believe in bad, young Earth science.

While all the writers for the site agree that the planet is approximately 4.5 billion years old, per science, we still managed to get into one whopper of a debate on that topic that then transformed into a topic regarding not only the age of the planet but also homosexuality.

Sadly, this lively and informed debate was carried out exclusively via email. Fortunately, I have saved them all. Over the next few days, I'm going to be posting these emails for everyone to see. They really make for fascinating reads.

Wrote a new piece for Annuit coeptis

Written by Paul Zannucci on 11:42 AM

I'm getting more and more tired of identity politics, which has now become the accepted norm under the Obama administration. After decades of America coming to the realization that identiy politics was nothing but bad policy designed to create a sort of tyranny by elevating one portion of the population over another, we see this bad policy crashing to the forfront once again, and this time with little to no opposition.

You can read my report here: Identity Politics

New Blog

Written by Paul Zannucci on 2:23 PM

As some may know, I founded the American Sentinel blog last year which grew to some popularity. For a variety of reasons, I left the blog in the capable hands of Jay Henderson and pretty much stopped political blogging except for coming back here occasionally.

Well, for a variety of reasons, American Sentinel was forced to change it name and move to a new domain, and I have taken back ownership of the site. I will still continue to post here, though very infrequently I would imagine.

My new home base for political ranting will be here Political News

I did the site design myself. Ain't it pretty?

Is the swine flu an Obama plot?

Written by Paul Zannucci on 12:03 PM


Swine Flu Conspiracy Shirt


During the Bush years, nothing could happen that didn't get blamed on Bush, be it hurricanes, 9-11, or whatever. So turn-about should be fair play, right?

This brings me to my current subject, the swine flu, which is obviously an Obama plot to kill swine, children and the elderly for the purpose of reducing carbon emissions. You can probably throw in a reduction in unemployment figures, too.

And why not? After all, if George Bush and Dick Cheney ordered planes to crash into the twin towers and the Pentagon for the purpose of going to war and raising oil prices, can't Obama and Kerry caused the swine flu to help the green industry?

Of course not, but that never stopped the left, so it shouldn't stop us.

Last blogger in the world on this one...

Written by Paul Zannucci on 10:19 AM

As usual, the libs are up to their ridiculous old tricks of demonizing their oponents, but now they've taken it a step too far. No longer is it good enough for them to simply lie about Republicans trying to destroy the planet and starve little children and the elderly. We've now become official enemies of the state according to the new version of the Homeland Security Department.

Now, anyone who is pro-life, a veteran or opposes illegal immigration is being labled a "domestic right-wing extremist." Talk about taking it to a new level. We're now not just dangerous, we're full-fledged enemies of the state. And you know what? Perhaps we should be. This administration is doing more to unravel the freedom and sovereignty that our country's forefathers fought for than all previous administrations combined.

Perhaps we should wear our new labels proudly: Domestic Right-Wing Extremist Shirts.

Don't know if this is for real or not...

Written by Paul Zannucci on 10:14 AM

It's one of those email thingies, but it has that ring of truth to it:

Having spoken to some SEAL pals here in Virginia Beach yesterday and asking why this thing dragged out for 4 days, I got the following:

1. BHO wouldn't authorize the DEVGRU/NSWC SEAL teams to the scene for 36 hours going against OSC (on scene commander) recommendation.

2. Once they arrived, BHO imposed restrictions on their ROE that they couldn't do anything unless the hostage's life was in "imminent" danger

3. The first time the hostage jumped, the SEALS had the raggies all sighted in, but could not fire due to ROE restriction

4. When the navy RIB came under fire as it approached with supplies, no fire was returned due to ROE restrictions. As the raggies were shooting at the RIB, they were exposed and the SEALS had them all dialed in.

5. BHO specifically denied two rescue plans developed by the Bainbridge CPN and SEAL teams

6. Bainbridge CPN and SEAL team CDR finally decide they have the OpArea and OSC authority to solely determine risk to hostage. 4 hours later, 3 dead raggies

7. BHO immediately claims credit for his "daring and decisive" behaviour. As usual with him, it's BS.

So per our last email thread, I'm downgrading Oohbaby's performace to D-. Only reason it's not an F is that the hostage survived.

Read the following accurate account.

Philips’ first leap into the warm, dark water of the Indian Ocean Bainbridge in range and a rescue by his country’s Navy possible, Philips threw himself off of his lifeboat prison, enabling Navy shooters onboard the destroyer a clear shot at his captors — and none was taken.

The guidance from National Command Authority — the president of the United States , Barack Obama — had been clear: a peaceful solution was the only acceptable outcome to this standoff unless the hostage’s life was in clear, extreme danger.

The next day, a small Navy boat approaching the floating raft was fired on by the Somali pirates — and again no fire was returned and no pirates killed. This was again due to the cautious stance assumed by Navy personnel thanks to the combination of a lack of clear guidance from Washington and a mandate from the commander in chief’s staff not to act until Obama, a man with no background of dealing with such issues and no track record of decisiveness, decided that any outcome other than a “peaceful solution” would be acceptable.

After taking fire from the Somali kidnappers again Saturday night, the on-scene commander decided he’d had enough. Keeping his authority to act in the case of a clear and present danger to the hostage’s life and having heard nothing from Washington since yet another request to mount a rescue operation had been denied the day before, the Navy officer — unnamed in all media reports to date — decided the AK47 one captor had leveled at Philips’ back was a threat to the hostage’s life and ordered the NSWC team to take their shots.

Three rounds downrange later, all three brigands became enemy KIA and Philips was safe.

There is upside, downside, and spinside to the series of events over the last week that culminated in yesterday’s dramatic rescue of an American hostage. Almost immediately following word of the rescue, the Obama administration and its supporters claimed victory against pirates in the Indian Ocean and declared that the dramatic end to the standoff put to rest questions of the inexperienced president’s toughness and decisiveness. Despite the Obama administration’s (and its sycophants’) attempt to spin yesterday’s success as a result of bold, decisive leadership by the inexperienced president, the reality is nothing of the sort.

What should have been a standoff lasting only hours — as long as it took the USS Bainbridge and its team of NSWC operators to steam to the location — became an embarrassing four day and counting standoff between a ragtag handful of criminals with rifles and a U.S. Navy warship.

Tea Parties....Now that's what I'm talking about...

Written by Paul Zannucci on 11:33 AM

It is a few months too late (about half a year, to be exact), but people on the right seem to be waking up to the horrors that we find ourselves in. The push for the Eurofication of America is in full swing. But maybe, just maybe, yesterday's proof of awaking, might just be what the doctor ordered. Picture 1994. Can we do it again in 2010?

I would be tempted to change the motto from "A Contract With America" to "Castrate the Socialist President," but that might be a bit too much.

Anyway, according to Michelle Maulkin, there were, "More than 800 tea parties across the country." She has a lot of good pictures up that you should go see: Tea Party Pictures

Okay, I'm back temporarily...

Written by Paul Zannucci on 3:36 PM

I'm going to try to recruit some help to keep this site going while I work on other projects. One of the things I've been doing is setting up a conservative t-shirt site. I didn't know how it would go, but I've found that designing shirts is addictive and helps me to quench some of my desire for creative work.

You can check it out here: Conservative Shirts

Also, I've got some other bloggers helping me out with it. tbascom of American Sentinel fame is great at designing some really nifty shirts. Check out his tea party shirts here: Tea Party Shirt

We aren't actually making the shirts themselves. We've signed up for Spreadshirt, which is a competitor for CafePress.

Blog on Hiatus Again...

Written by Paul Zannucci on 9:56 AM

Due to other projects, like trying to get Republican Forum, Republican News and Win Congress going, this site is officially on hiatus...

See you as soon as possible...

Patriots and Pissants

Written by foutsc on 9:40 AM

The screaming leftards have finally gotten their way. Defense Secretary Gates has given in to their manufactured anti-war outrage. He will now allow flag draped coffins to be used as anti-America propaganda by the foam-at-the-mouth leftists who are still angry about us winning the Iraq war.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Pentagon will lift its ban on media coverage of the flag-draped coffins of war victims arriving at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday.

But the families of the victims will have the final say on whether to allow the coverage, he said.
This has been a sore subject for me. Regardless of where you stand on the war, you know there are casualties; the government is not hiding anything. In fact, each death is announced, along with the person's name and a picture if available. That is a small but fitting recognition of a hero's ultimate sacrifice. Taking pictures of coffins and having ideological spats over them disrespects our fallen patriots.

I particularly detest those smirking bed-wetters who use a picture of flag draped coffins as their avatar when they post their self-indulgent, left-wing, anti-American, fleck-spittle, diaper rash rants. Every time I have the misfortune to stumble upon some libtard pant-load using a picture of coffins in some public internet forum, I deliver this message to them:

Unless you knew every person in each of those flag draped coffins, and knew that they agree with your political point of view, you are exploiting them. I doubt you ever stood at attention while they loaded or unloaded one of those boxes onto a C-130 you were on. You probably never ran your hand over the fabric of the flag and said a silent prayer before you went down the ramp. You probably never had to see one of your friends leave theater in one of those coffins. You are exploiting fallen heroes for your own smirking, petty purposes.

To paraphrase that old poem:

It's not the America-hating liberal college professor or the unhinged, ranting street protester that gives you the right to be an ignorant, unpatriotic moron. It is the American soldier, who serves under, and is wrapped in, the flag you spit on and burn. God Bless America.


http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/26/pentagon.media.war.dead/
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/fallen/

Global Warming has been canceled this week.

Written by Paul Zannucci on 9:49 AM

This week's "this week in global warming" has been canceled, as has just about everything else I normally do as I have been working overtime on several other projects. I'll be back to normal posting speed next week. ; )

Part of a new affiliate program...

Written by Paul Zannucci on 8:18 PM

Our collection of sites has been accepted into an affiliate program with PowWeb web hosting. This is one of those "dream come true" type of hosting sites. They are extremely affordable (right now they are doing a special that comes in at about $24 for the first year), and they are easy to use (automated software loading, backups, etc.) and fast with load balancing. As soon as I can get out of my contract with an unnamed company, I'm switching...

Go check out our ad here: Affordable Web Hosting

Uncle Sam's Crack Pipe

Written by foutsc on 7:36 PM


I am disappointed in President Obama. I didn't vote for him but I wished him well and hoped he would end business as usual in DC. I now realize I was hopelessly deluded.

His speech before Congress last night was populist, partisan, cocky posturing. Newsweek was right: We are all socialists now. Government will wipe away every tear, change every diaper, and pay for everybody's college. I guess I can drain my kids' college fund now and buy some kickass guitars and guns...

The Great Benefactor took control last night, but a few weeks ago he ceded leadership on the stimulus to Harry and the Pelosicrats, who hastily slapped together a trillion dollar monument to economic ignorance. I now understand why he did it: He is in complete partisan agreement with them.


Robert Samuelson, brilliant economics reporter and non-partisan honest broker, calls this monstrosity what it is: A liberal cornucopia of pet spending projects that is too unfocused to do any stimulating.

Republican governors are leading a revolt (Haley Barbour of Mississippi, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Butch Otter of Idaho, Rick Perry of Texas and Mark Sanford of South Carolina). Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has actually read the stimulus bill, unlike the Democrats who voted for it. He points out that this is anything but a "one time" initiative...

The tens of billions of dollars of aid for health care, welfare and education will disappear in two years and leave states with no way to finance the expanded programs.
The Governor of Texas doesn't like it much either:
Mr. Perry sent a letter to President Obama last week warning that Texas may refuse certain stimulus funds. "If this money expands entitlements, we will not accept it. This is exactly how addicts get hooked on drugs," he says.
The South Carolina Governor had this to say about the new programs this porkulus funds:
"There's no way politically we're going to be able to push people out of the program in two years when the federal money runs out," Mr. Sanford says.
These good men are correct: Our government is peddling crack. You can't just snatch billions of dollars worth of programs out from under these government-dependent addicts. This "stimulus" is a Trojan horse that ushers in a new golden age of social liberalism. I guess that's the change everybody's been talking about

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/obamas_stunted_economic_stimul.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123535040968044863.html
http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/20/crisis-resolution-board-opinions-contributors_regulation_sec.html

Live Free Or Die

Written by foutsc on 8:02 AM

State legislators are accusing the Federal Government of flagrantly usurping its authority and bursting it's constitutional bounds.

This allegation is based upon the 9th and 10th Amendments to the US Constitution. It helps to recall a few facts:

1) The constitution does not come from the Federal Government. It comes from the people of the several states.

2) The Constitution is a set of instructions from the people to the Federal Government. It was established by the thirteen original states as a delegation of certain specific powers to the federal government so that the rights of the people might be protected.

3) Our inalienable rights come from God,
not the government or the Constitution. The Government and the Constitution don't bestow rights, they safeguard them.

Peoples' Rights and States' Rights: Two Amendments

9th Amendment
:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
New Hampshire, Live Free or Die State
New Hampshire ratified the Constitution on 21 June 1788 by a vote of 57 to 47. With this vote, it became the ninth state to approve the document and thus made it effective for the ratifying states. New Hampshire's legislature is now considering HCR 6 , a resolution affirming states' rights based on Jeffersonian principles. It's out of committee now, with the majority Democrats recommending it be voted down, although it is just a resolution that implements no law.

According to Milford News, Deputy House Speaker Linda Foster, D-Mont Vernon, opposes the resolution because the need for it is vague. She said nobody who supports the resolution has articulated clear examples of federal tyranny.
"I wish they would explain to me what they are angry about," she said.
I guess she hasn't been herded through airport security lately. How about politicians blowing taxpayer money like there's no tomorrow, and then borrowing more from Communist China when the coffers are empty?

How about the federal government poking its snout in every last nook and cranny of human existence, far and beyond those activities contemplated by the constitution? For a layman's explanation of the resolution, go to NolanChart.com.

The media is studiously ignorant of this story. This could turn into a national phenomenon if reporters would stop acting like the Democratic Party Praetorian Guard. Local newspapers, blogs and other new media outlets are the exclusive source of information, which unfortunately makes this look like a kook story. I could maybe understand if this were limited to New Hampshire, but it's not. Arizona's HR 2024 is a similar measure.

Interestingly, Opednews.com, a very liberal site, has an article supporting these State's Rights efforts:
United States Federal Government laws are often in violation of the Tenth Amendment, which is perturbing...

A growing number of states are declaring their sovereignty afforded under the US Constitution’s Tenth Amendment, however the conventional news media are not telling you about what is happening. The State of Washington on Wednesday - 11 February 2009 and most recently, New Hampshire [2009], Montana [2009], Hawaii [2009], Michigan [2009], Missouri [2009], Arizona [2008], Oklahoma [2008], Georgia [1996], and California [1994] all of which have introduced bills and resolutions declaring and reaffirming their sovereignty. Some other states have done this in the past but then let the issue go. Additionally, the states of Colorado, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Alaska, Kansas, Alabama, Nevada, Maine, and Illinois are considering similar measures. More well may follow, such as Wyoming and Mississippi.
This is not about treason or revolution. God save us from anything like that. It's not about right or left. It's about legally restoring this nation, These United States, back upon a solid constitutional foundation. It's about reining in the berserk, incontinent, out of control beast known as the Federal Government.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html
http://www.nolanchart.com/article5958.html
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Firestorm-Brewing-Between-by-Lance-L-Landon-090217-130.html
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hcr2024p.htm

Moonbat du Ecouter - Barack Obama

Written by Paul Zannucci on 1:09 PM


Obama is a moonbat for all seasons, but one thing that conservatives, and everyone interested in true liberty, must be prepared to keep an eye on is how Moonbat Obama ends up handling the question of the census. What is at stake here is a massive raping of the electoral college and congressional districting.


The debate is whether to actually count people or to estimate them. Guess who wants to estimate them? If you are thinking maybe it's the same party that can always find lots of extra votes during recounts, you would be correct.


Moonbat Obama has threatened, and then retracted, to bring the conducting of the U.S. Census into the purview of the White House. But the issue is still up in the air, and it looks right now like Rahm Emanuel will be able to bring leftist pressure to bear and stack the deck against dissenting political thought for some time to come.


Articles to read:





This Week in Anthropogenic Global Warming:

Written by Paul Zannucci on 8:53 AM

THE HURST PHENOMENON by Professor Will Alexander

I have absolutely no freakin' idea what he's talking about, but it may have something to do with sun cycles...or not...But TAKE THAT alarmists!

**********

Satellite Data Show No Warming Before 1997. Changes Since Not Related to CO2


Warning: This paper has been rejected by Science and Nature. It May be hazardous to your research grant.

**********

The Real Truth About AGW

I think a clear distinction needs to be made between (a) the science of AGW, and (b) the perception of AGW - and the use of AGW - by non-scientists.

The science:
The present empirical evidence strongly indicates that the AGW-hypothesis is wrong...


**********

And a couple from here:

Al and the Apocalypse: EPA Likely to Regulate Greenhouse Gases

Al and the Apocalypse: Global Cooling Continues...

**********

And, as always, visit with our friends at IceCap (well, we consider them friends, but they've never actually heard of us).

Final Results: Oxytocin and Liquid Trust Experiment

Written by Paul Zannucci on 7:27 AM

(Please note that I've included some helpful oxytocin information links at the bottom of this post for all the people who are coming here genuinely seeking help.)

Okay, so before I abandoned this blog, now reawakened, to start a site called American Sentinel, I said that I was going to run a test on Liquid Trust, which is supposed to contain oxytocin. Checking the Google Analytics, I see that these threads are still some of the most read on the site, so I might as well finish what I started...

For those of you who don't know, Oxytocin is a naturally occurring substance that makes you less shy, more loving and trusting. Several pharmaceutical companies are working on a synthetic form and a delivery system that will keep oxytocin in the body longer and help the millions who suffer from social anxiety. Many doctors are already prescribing oxytocin in nasal spray form for the patients suffering the most.

I, on the other hand, was just making fun of a site called Liquid Trust, which sells what it claims is oxytocin in a spray bottle. Their claims are that if you spray their Liquid Trust on yourself that OTHER people lose their inhibitions around you and begin to trust YOU more.

So I knew that this claim was ridiculous but thought that there might be some slight (very slight)chance that Liquid Trust might actually work on the person it is sprayed on, so my premise was that I was going to buy some and watch a bunch of Barack Obama commercials on the Internet and see if I grew to trust him.

I never actually tried that, although I did get the Liquid Trust and used it as an aftershave for a week, assuming that closer to the nose was better, and I can report to you that I had absolutely no side effects, meaning nothing at all happened. I might as well have put water on my face.

HOWEVER, real oxytocin is proven to work. As I said above, several pharmaceutical companies are working on a synthetic form and a delivery system that will keep oxytocin in the body longer and help the millions who suffer from social anxiety. Many doctors are already prescribing oxytocin in nasal spray form for the patients suffering the most. Below are some links and other data that have to do with oxytocin, relationships, etc. and it appears that social anxiety sufferers may soon have some help.

_____

From Dr. John Gray:

One way to combat stress for a woman is to stimulate the production of oxytocin, a hormone proven to lower their stress. "Whenever a man does something romantic--it doesn't matter if it's big or small--it stimulates oxytocin," said Gray. "Men make the mistake of doing big stuff thinking it's going to last a long time. That's why they end up feeling like whatever they do, it doesn't seem to be enough."

Talking about problems is another big oxytocin producer in women, which may lower their stress, but can do just the opposite for men. "Men need to fix things, solve problems, and feel important," said Gray, which increases their testosterone--the hormone that lowers cortisol levels. "The bigger the problem, the more testosterone." However, 90 percent of the things women talk about have no solution. Men think if there's nothing they can do and no way to solve the problem, then why talk about it?

_____

From Philly.com

The hormonal and neurotransmitter cascade triggered by kissing includes adrenaline (which increases heart rate), endorphins (which produce euphoria), oxytocin (which helps development attachment), serotonin (which affects mood), and dopamine (which helps the brain process emotions). Your heart rate increases, your blood vessels dilate, your body receives more oxygen. Your earlobes swell.

_____

Lack of social interaction "bad for your health"

States that lack of social interaction and the use of social websites like facebook increases stress because it doesn't promote the release of the "cuddle chemical" oxytocin.

_____

Love potions in our future, neuroscientist says

"I think it would be very useful in marital therapies. What oxytocin does is it tunes you in to other people. It makes you more trusting (and) better able to understand the emotions of other people."

It's easy to give oxytocin: A nasal spray works.


_____

A Hormone to Remember

Given only a small dose of oxytocin, individuals in a recent study found that their memory significantly improved. Not for historical dates, strings of digits, or bars of music, but for something much more significant: each other.


_____

Scientists join self-styled love doctors in seeking love potion

_____

For all those coming here seeking help for social anxiety, the bottom line is that true help is on the way, but it's not here quite yet.

Libertarians, Social Conservatives, Natural Allies

Written by foutsc on 7:05 PM

What's wrong with libertarianism? It's too cold, too logical... Sterile.

It lacks the fecundity to spawn an emotional movement, and sociologists tell us that politics is driven by emotion.

Libertarianism stands for... Nothing! It doesn't have an elephant or donkey as its symbol, or even a flag.

Actually, libertarianism stands for thousands of things: Drug use, homosexuality, gun rights, log cabin get back to nature, Christianity, Judaism, atheism. It stands for not standing in the way of human activity, some of which may be destructive to the actor.

And guess what? That puts libertarianism in complete concert with the constitution. Unfortunately, it also puts libertarians in the same suspicion-worthy category as liberals and atheists in the minds of cultural conservatives. That's too bad, because these two groups have overlapping goals that can only be protected by banding together.

Peter Berkowitz writes in WSJ Online:

Unfortunately, contrary to the Constitution's lesson in moderation, the two biggest blocs in the conservative coalition are tempted to conclude that what is needed now is greater purity in conservative ranks. Down that path lies disaster.

The cultural conservatives point to how California, Florida and Arizona passed bans on gay marriage. What they fail to recognize is that, notwithstanding these victories, public opinion is trending against them on this issue. In 2000, 61% of Californians voted against gay marriage. In 2008, the anti vote had shrunk to 52%.

Libertarian conservatives point disdainfully to GOP spending that is indistinguishable from Democratic profligacy, as well as a fixation on issues that government has no business getting into such as stem cell research, Terri Schiavo, and gay marriage.

At best, cultural conservatives and libertarian conservatives are highly suspicious of one another; at worst, these are mutually hostile camps.
Berkowitz explains why these two groups need each other:
But the purists in both camps ignore simple electoral math. Slice and dice citizens' opinions and voting patterns in the 50 states as you like, neither social conservatives nor libertarian conservatives can get to 50% plus one without the aid of the other.
He then identifies the principles these two camps can rally around:

The principles are familiar: individual freedom and individual responsibility, limited but energetic government, economic opportunity and strong national defense. They are embedded in the Constitution and flow out of the political ideas from which it was fashioned. They were central to Frank Meyer's celebrated fusion of traditionalist and libertarian conservatism in the 1960s. And they inspired Ronald Reagan's consolidation of conservatism in the 1980s.

Short-term clashes over priorities and policies are bound to persist. But championing these principles is the best means over the long term for conserving the political conditions hospitable to traditional morality, religious faith, and the communities that nourish them. And it is also the best means over the long term for conserving the political conditions that promote free markets, and the economic growth and expanded opportunity free markets bring.

It's not about fighting the noble but futile battle of converting everyone to your social values. It's about defending the constitutional principles that guarantee your right to continue to exercise those values. This is how conservatives keep liberals from hijacking the government and using its powers to snuff their values. It's about creating that space for human action that is free from government control. That is what the founders envisioned. Who knows, in the process, you may just gain some converts by your actions.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123086011787848029.html

Religion of Murder: N.Y. Muslim Accused of Beheading Wife

Written by Paul Zannucci on 9:24 AM

The Islamic founder of a New York television station that aimed to counter Muslim stereotypes is accused of beheading his estranged wife in what is being called an "honor killing."

That pretty much says it all, but you can go here to read the full story:

Muslim TV exec accused of beheading wife in NY

Al and the Apocalypse: EPA Likely to Regulate Greenhouse Gases

Written by Paul Zannucci on 8:54 AM


According to various articles like this one here, Lisa Jackson, head of the EPA and not the love child of any known famous Jackson, is planning to decide "whether to target greenhouse gases as a public health threat."

What this means is that tons of businesses struggling under a faltering economy will have to now apply for EPA permits and follow stricter and more costly guidelines. Considering that the "science" behind global warming is anything but settled, this is merely another Demwit overreaction.

But it doesn't stop with the usual companies because another greenhouse gas is methane, the sweet byproduct of butts everywhere, both human and bovine. From the Daily Leader, we get:



It seems the EPA has come up with an idea on how to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act that could result in permitting fees or “taxes” on livestock operations. Because of global warming they want to make livestock producers pay a tax on their animals based on the amount of carbon dioxide their animals release into the air in the form of flatulence...Farm Bureau calls it the “cow tax” and says farmers and ranchers can’t afford to pay it.




Even though they are calling it the "cow tax," it would actually impact the hog industry as well. And the bottom line is more hardship not only for family farmers, but also for families everywhere. Can you imagine what a gallon of milk will cost by the time these fruitcakes are done?


This is what you voted for, America. I hope you enjoy it.

Moonbat du Jour: Roland Burris

Written by Paul Zannucci on 8:36 AM


It's never a shocking thing to learn that a Demwit has an issue with the truth. After all, without populist lies, scare mongering and half-truths, there would be no Demwits. But this one actually surprises me just a tiny bit: that newly minted Illinois Senator Roland Burris helped to raise money for Rod Blogojevich and probably perjured himself before the state House panel.


I actually felt a little sorry for this clown, who seemed to have been caught between an idiot and a moron after being appointed by Blogojevich and challenged by Harry Reid. Now, according to an article from Bloomberg.com, an Illinois prosecutor is reviewing Burris's statements before the panel, and his chances of winning the Demwit nomination are slim.


When did lying and perjury become an issue for Demwits? They must really dislike this guy, which almost disqualifies him for Moonbat Du Jour--almost, but not quite.


So here's to you, Roland Burris, you are the one zebra in the herd that gets dragged down by the lion, the liar amongst liars, the bottom of the Demwit food chain. You are the Moonbat du Jour.

Moonbat du Jour: Hilda Solis, Labor Secretary

Written by Paul Zannucci on 10:24 AM

Article to read: FrontPageMag.com, A Leftist in Labor

Hilda Solis was actually a fantastic choice for Labor Secretary. Who better to embody the Demwit notion of "Labor" than someone who is deeply committed to the "green" wealth redistribution platform? Who better to embody the Demwit notion of "Labor" than someone who is openly friendly to American communist and socialist organizations?

From the article: A Congresswoman since 2001, Solis is a member of the Progressive Caucus, the socialist wing of the Democrat Party in the House of Representatives. The Caucus was founded by the self-identified Socialist and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders—himself a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, which describes itself as “the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International.” The Progressive Caucus laments that “the concentration of wealth is a problem because it distorts our democracy, destabilizes the economy and erodes our social and cultural fabric,” a crisis for which it advocates “a package of legislative initiatives that will close America’s economic divide and address both income and wealth disparities.” In other words, Hilda Solis wants to spread the wealth around. And her lifelong record bears it out.

This is, after all, what Demwits are now all about. The Democratic Party has become the de facto American socialist party, and Obama's selection for Labor Secretary, Hilda Solis, is a perfect example of that.

So here's to you, Hilda baby, you are the Moonbad du Jour.

Al and the Apocalypse: Global Cooling Continues...

Written by Paul Zannucci on 10:00 AM

Article to read: from IceCap, Global Cooling Continues

Continuing a decade-long trend of declining global temperatures, the year 2008 was significantly colder than 2007, and global temperatures for the year were below the average over the past 30 years. The global temperature data, reported by NASA satellite-based temperature measurements, refuted predictions 2008 would be one of the warmest on record.
Data show 2008 ranked 14th coldest of the 30 years measured by NASA satellite instruments since they were first launched in 1979. It was the coldest year since 2000.


Here's a rhetorical question for all the climate "scientists" out there. Last week, during the only day that I checked, local temperatures were expected by climate "scientists" - meteorologists -to top out at 58 degrees. We actually made it to 65 degrees. If a forecast made early in the day, or the day before at worst, is so completely unreliable, why should I believe your predictions for 50 years from now?

What we don't know about climate would fill an entire set of books on climate, and today's climate "scientists" are as close to future climate scientists as alchemists of the 16th century were close to today's chemists. It's a joke, plain and simple.

PETArdation: McDonald's is Mean to Chickens

Written by Paul Zannucci on 9:42 AM

The towering intellects at PETA have started a campaign against McDonald's for "chicken abuse." They are so disturbed, in fact, that they have created a site called McCruelty at which you can watch an informative video that, amongst other things, claims that McDonald's chickens suffer broken bones.

In the slaughterhouses of McDonald's U.S. chicken suppliers, birds are dumped out of their transport crates and hung upside-down in metal shackles, which can result in broken bones, extreme bruising, and hemorrhaging. Workers have the opportunity to abuse live birds, and birds have their throats cut while they are still conscious...

Gee, the "opportunity to abuse live birds" would have been the only good thing about several of my past jobs, and PETA wants to take that away? PETA apparently wants some version of compassionate, assisted, Kevorkian-like suicide, where chicken processors hold the bird's hands as they are anesthetized and then put to sleep.

If you go to the site and watch the video, the key thing to remember is the phrase, "a chicken with its head cut off." There is a reason why this phrase exists. When you cut a chicken's spinal cord they run around, flap their wings, and generally act alive for quite some time. So are all these flailing chickens still alive or are they just having natural neurological reactions?

I don't know the answer to that, and I don't really care. Chickens are stupid, nasty and taste delicious. I'm going to get some nuggets for lunch.

Fitna Video

Written by Paul Zannucci on 9:33 AM

The Religion of Murder has a fine marketing tool here is a movie created by Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders. The full movie has been broken into two parts, both below. Be forewarned that they are disturbing, as is befitting any honest look at Islam.



Free Speech Watch: Great Britain Not So Great

Written by Paul Zannucci on 9:03 AM

Article to read: Human Events: Free Speech is Dead in England

England has become a country that is at the complete mercy of its worst Islamic immigrants.

All over Europe, Muslims are pressing for prosecutions in courts of anyone who speaks the truth about the Religion of Murder. In England, blogger Lionheart has been harassed and even arrested for speaking the truth. In France, Brigitte Bardot has been arrested and fined four times for making anti-Islamic statements. The list of examples could go on and on. Now we have a new outrage.

Geert Wilders, Dutch parliamentarian who made the movie, Fitna, which shows the worst horrors of Islam, has been denied entry to the country by the British government.

Per the Human Events article; Last month, after being invited to address the House of Lords, Wilders was denied entry into the country after protests by a prominent British Muslim.

In defense of England, Fitna is a great movie about Islam, which means that it is truly repulsive and offensive. Go here to watch it: Fitna Video

Moonbat Du Jour: Patrick Leahy and the Truth Commission

Written by Paul Zannucci on 4:50 PM




As a reference, one can read the above article from FrontPageMag.com regarding the desire of Patrick Leahy and some other Demwits in Congress to form a "Truth Commission" to investigate the Bush administration. Leahy, as usual, has only one thing in mind...and still no one has figured out what that is, but he has a long history of violating America's private parts and putting the country and its agents in danger. At risk here is America's most sensitive anti-terrorist data...


He has a long history of exposing the most vital secrets of our nation. At least one operative was murdered after Leahy publicly leaked a 1985 intercept that had enabled the capture of the Achille Lauro terrorists. After Leahy leaked a 1986 covert operation to topple Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddhafi, it was necessarily canceled. But for that, in other words, 270 victims of Libya's Pan Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie Scotland might still be alive.


Finally in January 1987, Leahy was forced to resign as vice-chair of the Senate's Select Committee on Intelligence after leaking classified information on the Iran-Contra affair. Not surprisingly, after 9/11, the FBI investigated national security leaks from Congress, specifically House and Senate Select Intelligence committee leaks.


So here's to you, Demwit Leahy. You are not only the Moonbat Du Jour, but a danger to the free world. Pretty impressive for one old lunatic, huh?

This Week in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming - 02-13-09

Written by Paul Zannucci on 4:37 PM

New Ice Age: Milankovitch cycles

From here we have a story about Milankovitch cycles from Pravda. According to this view of climate science, we are headed into a new ice age. I liked the first two because I'm a huge Ray Romano fan, so I'm sure to like this one.

_____

Green ideology ‘as deadly as Communism’

From CO2 Skeptics we review the fact that the green movement is merely cover for social change and wealth redistribution, so says a Catholic charity, in fact.

A Catholic charity has launched a scathing attack on the Green movement, describing the excesses of environmentalism as an ideology every bit as dangerous as Communism.

_____

Antarctic Sea Ice Is Up Considerably (35%!) In January Compared to 1997

Well, this is really tragic. Apparently we need to run out and drive our cars before the penguins all freeze to death.

_____

Darwin and Argentina Drought

If that headline from Icecap doesn't get you, I'm not sure why you are here.

_____

“…the world’s oceans are rising more than twice as fast as they were in the 1970s…”

Quick! Pack all your essentials and a sleeping bag on a llama and head for higher ground! I'm just terrified. Scared sheetless, I am.

_____

And, as usual, a shout out to Skeptics Global Warming.

Uncle Sugar, Giga-Pimp pt 2

Written by foutsc on 9:27 PM

Part 2 of the continuing saga of Uncle Sugar, giga-pimp, and Jane Doe, his hapless, captive crack ho.

Little dapples of light stabbing through the tattered hotel room curtains made it impossible for Jane to stay asleep. Uncle Sugar snored noisily next to her. The crack pipe lay cold and empty, it's effects now but a bitter fog in her head.

She clicked on the TV, where a bright, cheery young woman was extolling the virtues of Denver Technical College, where "a young woman can become a professional in less than a year! Manicure, hairdressing, and hundreds of other careers..."

"Yeah," Jane thought, hope and optimism coming to life within her. She hit the floor, gathered up her meager possessions and headed for the door.

"Where you goin'?" growled Sugar, suddenly awake.

Jane, full of confidence now, announced, "I'm outta here."

Uncle Sugar glanced at the tail end of the commercial and laughed that low, slow, derisive laugh of his.

"Where you gonna get your food. How you gonna make money?" He bit off the last word and let his questions sink in.

Jane hadn't thought of that...

"Where you gonna live? Those folks out in the suburbs ain't gonna put you up in a hotel like Uncle Sugar does."

Jane was crumbling inside, but she kept up her outward defiance.

"How about your health care. Ain't nobody besides Uncle Sugar gonna pay for all them abortions and contraceptional luxuries."

That stopped her cold. It was too much. She couldn't do it and she felt ashamed and stupid for believing that she could. Defeated, she crawled slowly back into bed and stared at the scabby ceiling.

"Huh uh," grunted Sugar. "Roll over..."

Moonbat Du Jour(s): Congress

Written by Paul Zannucci on 1:10 PM


Okay, I'll try not to make a habit of lumping vast sums of moonbats together, but this deserves it. Both the House and the Senate have managed to pass their own versions of a stimulus package, and trying to determine which is better would be like the Underwriters Laboratories detonating various nuclear devices to gauge how consumer-safe they are. Or Consumer Reports rating poisons by taste, consistency and overall value. You get the point.


Quick note to politicians: a healthy free market economy is, to make it very simple for any Demwits who may be reading, consumer cash flow creating a natural supply and demand. Government spending, though well thought of by many economists, is a poor substitute for real economic activity. Here's a brief list of why:


1) The U.S. GDP is $77 trillion. Any fiscally responsible increase in government spending can only be a mere drop in the bucket of what needs to be happening.


2) Government spending, particularly in the form of useless pork projects, which is what these stimulus packages are, creates a very false economic situation. Gone is the natural, consumer-based supply and demand, replaced by a system of almost random spending. Will jobs created by pork be sustainable? Many will not be because the demand is artificial. The only benefit will be that the lucky few who get money thrown at them will probably run out and spend it or invest it in the stock market.


Any real stimulus package should have been based on getting businesses and consumers more cash. Lowering business taxes, mortgage interest rates, income taxes, death taxes, capital gains taxes, etc.


What did we get instead? Theft. We've redistributed the money of generations to come, and we've done it in the worst possible way--politically, essentially cash payments for favors past and present.


So here's to you, Congress. You are the Moonbats Du Jour.


New Ice Age: Milankovitch cycles

Written by Paul Zannucci on 4:37 PM

The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science. Many sources of data which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, and then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years.

So says an article from Pravda, which uses Milankovitch cycles to support the theory. Normally I'm good about reworking material I find, but I'm just going to copy and paste this explanatory paragraph...

The three Milankovich cycles include the tilt of the earth, which varies over a 41,000 year period; the shape of the earth’s orbit, which changes over a period of 100,000 years; and the Precession of the Equinoxes, also known as the earth’s ‘wobble’, which gradually rotates the direction of the earth’s axis over a period of 26,000 years. According to the Milankovich theory of Ice Age causation, these three astronomical cycles, each of which effects the amount of solar radiation which reaches the earth, act together to produce the cycle of cold Ice Age maximums and warm interglacials.


You know you have issues when you start pulling for a new ice age and the resulting deaths of about a billion people just to spite Al Gore, but for some reason I can't help it. I'm sure we can figure out some sort of growing method that will keep food on the table for everyone.

Of course, you realize that even if we do go into an ice age, it will be your fault. They'll figure out some way of blaming it on consumption. They'll say we used so much carbon that we created a permanent nulear winter. But by then no one will be listening to them.

Read all about it here

Moonbat Du Jour: People's Republic of Denver

Written by foutsc on 6:49 PM

Liberalism has wussified and californicated the once proud and brave frontier town of Denver. The effete metrosexuals have reduced the city to to a shivering, piddling down its leg inbred toy dog cowering at the foot of the Rockies. Buffalo Bill is rolling over in his grave.

AURORA A Cherokee Trail High School senior who had a ROTC-style drill team rifle in the back of her car has been suspended from school and will face expulsion, officials said.

Marie Morrow, 17, a member of the Douglas County Young Marines, said she brought a wood and duct tape reproduction of a rifle to school Thursday in preparation for drill team practice. When the rifle was spotted in the back of her car by other students, she said, school administrators suspended her for 10 days pending an expulsion hearing.

The little liberal pot smokers who tore the McCain bumper stickers off of Marie's car were scared when they saw the drill rifles, so following their socialist indoctrination to the letter, they rushed to tell their liberal overseers.

This is not about protecting kids. It's about conditioning them to have an adverse Pavlovian response to firearms. Schools have failed at teaching our kids math and science, but they've sure got the social indoctrination down.


Links
http://www.khow.com/pages/boyles.html
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/18677952/detail.html#-
http://www.aurorasentinel.com/articles/2009/02/10/news/metro_aurora/doc4991180b4e734838264650.txt
http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=109554&catid=339