Global warming?

This is also quoted from the Federalist ----

Clear the Air, an organization based on the junk science of "global warming," has declared that the cities in our home state of Tennessee are getting hotter. One begins to suspect an agenda when considering their statistical field—1961-1990—a rather narrow window compared to the 1871-2004 numbers available. Using the data to reinforce pre-conceived notions (hardly scientific), Clear the Air found that the average 11-month temperature in Nashville in 2005 was 1.4 degrees higher than the study period. Of course, using the full date-range, Clear the Air might have found that five of the ten hottest summers took place back in the 1800's and all ten before 1961. Last year recorded the 14th hottest summer since 1871, tied with 1921, which was left out of the "fake but accurate" study, while 2004 was the 122nd hottest on record. What can we say? We're happy to have cleared the air.

The port thing

Here is an excerpt from an The Federalist Patriot email I get thrice weekly - see the link to them on the right. It is a little long - and there are some formatting problems, but it is readable - and profitable, I think. ---- Billy
***
The port of public opinion...
Protests about the planned transfer of management for several U.S. seaports to a state-owned company in the United Arab Emirates are fraught with almost as much confusion as fervor—which explains why the current division within the political parties is almost as stark as the one between them. When Karl Rove, Jimmy Carter and The Los Angeles Times line up on one side of an issue, while Senators Bill Frist, Chuck Schumer and The New York Times line up on the other, something is seriously amiss.
Of course, the first casualty of political conquest is the truth, which is not to say that both sides don't feel genuine concern. In an effort to elucidate the issue, let us first distinguish between fact and fiction.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a multi-agency panel that evaluates foreign financial interests in the U.S. with national-security implications, has approved the transfer of management of some port terminals (not the sale of these ports) in New York, Newark, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, New Orleans and Houston. The transfer is from a British owned company, Peninsula and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, to Dubai Ports World, which is headquartered in the UAE. What this means, essentially, is that American managers and longshoremen will now get their checks cut by DPW instead of P&O. In other words, DPW will become one of many operators in these ports.
\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The first casualty of political conquest is the truth. \n\n\n\n This does not put DPW in a position to act as an agent for\nal-Qa\'ida, delivering weapons of mass destruction to their terror-cell\noperatives in the U.S., as has been suggested by some print and\nInternet tabloids. Direct responsibility for port security is shared\nby the Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection, and state and local\nport authorities. Here it should also be noted that port-management\npriorities are wholly subordinate to port-security priorities. Of course,\nport-security operations, particularly those pertaining to interdiction\nof WMD, are augmented by the entire asset base of the U.S. military,\nits intelligence community and its law enforcement agencies. \n\n\n\n The U.S. does not outsource national security operations. \n\n\n\n Despite the rancor, the U.S. does not outsource the protection of\nour critical national-security infrastructure. \n\n Approval of the DPW proposal underwent three months of interagency\nreview. According to Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England,\n"This review definitely was not cursory and it definitely was not\ncasual. Rather, it was in depth and comprehensive." This is the same\nreview that management companies based in China, Denmark, Japan, Singapore\nand Taiwan underwent before being authorized to manage terminals in the\nport of Los Angeles. We might add, China now manages some terminals on\nboth ends of the Panama Canal. ",1]
);
//-->



The first casualty of political conquest is the truth.
This does not put DPW in a position to act as an agent for al-Qa'ida, delivering weapons of mass destruction to their terror-cell operatives in the U.S., as has been suggested by some print and Internet tabloids. Direct responsibility for port security is shared by the Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection, and state and local port authorities. Here it should also be noted that port-management priorities are wholly subordinate to port-security priorities. Of course, port-security operations, particularly those pertaining to interdiction of WMD, are augmented by the entire asset base of the U.S. military, its intelligence community and its law enforcement agencies.
The U.S. does not outsource national security operations.
Despite the rancor, the U.S. does not outsource the protection of our critical national-security infrastructure.
Approval of the DPW proposal underwent three months of interagency review. According to Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, "This review definitely was not cursory and it definitely was not casual. Rather, it was in depth and comprehensive." This is the same review that management companies based in China, Denmark, Japan, Singapore and Taiwan underwent before being authorized to manage terminals in the port of Los Angeles. We might add, China now manages some terminals on both ends of the Panama Canal.
\n\n Foreign investment in the U.S., including port management, is nothing new. \n\n As for the assertion that President George Bush should have known about\nthe proposal, Frances Townsend, his senior advisor for Homeland Security,\ncounters, "Rarely do these [reviews] wind up on the president\'s desk\nand that\'s only after there has been an investigation and there is some\ndisagreement. This didn\'t get there because none of the agencies who\nreviewed it had any objection." \n\n The public remonstration in this case is the result of a volatile\ncombination of legitimate sentiments: a fundamental distrust of Islamic\ncountries combined with a concern about the potential for terrorist\nexploitation of our busy shipping ports. \n\n The distrust is warranted, particularly in the wake of 9/11. Not only\nwere two of the hijackers from the UAE, but 11 of the Saudi hijackers\ntraveled to the U.S. from Dubai, and $250,000 used to bankroll the\n9/11 attacks was wired through Dubai banks. There were ties between\nIslamist emirs in the UAE and Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, and the\nUAE recognized the Taliban government. \n\n On the latter point, however, our intel sources indicate those ties\nenabled the CIA to confirm the location of bin Laden twice in\n1999, but the Clinton administration declined to eliminate him. Bill\nClinton has floated several excuses for why he did not act on this\nintelligence—which all sank. \n\n Further, Pakistani nuclear proliferator Abdul Qadeer\nKhan testified\nthat a UAE company assisted him with the transfer of nuclear technology\nto Iran. However, as we noted two years ago, our sources indicate that\nKhan was either a CIA operative or a dupe and that the UAE cooperated\nfully with surveillance of Khan\'s contacts in Dubai. \n\n Thus, if we want to punish the UAE because it has airports and banks,\nor because it has cooperated with CIA clandestine counter-proliferation\nefforts, so be it. There is, however, no suggestion of evidence that\nthe UAE government had any knowledge, much less complicity, with the\nal-Qa\'ida cell responsible for the 9/11 attacks, or any other attack\non ",1]
);
//-->

Foreign investment in the U.S., including port management, is nothing new.
As for the assertion that President George Bush should have known about the proposal, Frances Townsend, his senior advisor for Homeland Security, counters, "Rarely do these [reviews] wind up on the president's desk and that's only after there has been an investigation and there is some disagreement. This didn't get there because none of the agencies who reviewed it had any objection."
The public remonstration in this case is the result of a volatile combination of legitimate sentiments: a fundamental distrust of Islamic countries combined with a concern about the potential for terrorist exploitation of our busy shipping ports.
The distrust is warranted, particularly in the wake of 9/11. Not only were two of the hijackers from the UAE, but 11 of the Saudi hijackers traveled to the U.S. from Dubai, and $250,000 used to bankroll the 9/11 attacks was wired through Dubai banks. There were ties between Islamist emirs in the UAE and Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, and the UAE recognized the Taliban government.
On the latter point, however, our intel sources indicate those ties enabled the CIA to confirm the location of bin Laden twice in 1999, but the Clinton administration declined to eliminate him. Bill Clinton has floated several excuses for why he did not act on this intelligence—which all sank.
Further, Pakistani nuclear proliferator Abdul Qadeer Khan testified that a UAE company assisted him with the transfer of nuclear technology to Iran. However, as we noted two years ago, our sources indicate that Khan was either a CIA operative or a dupe and that the UAE cooperated fully with surveillance of Khan's contacts in Dubai.
Thus, if we want to punish the UAE because it has airports and banks, or because it has cooperated with CIA clandestine counter-proliferation efforts, so be it. There is, however, no suggestion of evidence that the UAE government had any knowledge, much less complicity, with the al-Qa'ida cell responsible for the 9/11 attacks, or any other attack on
\n\n\n\n The UAE government has provided significant intelligence and staging\nsupport in the war against Jihadistan \n\n\n\n Indeed, since 9/11 the UAE government has provided significant\nintelligence and staging support in the war against Jihadistan. They have\nactively participated in the pursuit of al-Qa\'ida terrorists. In 2002,\nfor example, UAE officials arrested and turned over to U.S. officials Abd\nal-Rahim al-Nashiri, who conspired in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies\nin Kenya and Tanzania and masterminded the attack on the USS Cole in\n2000. In 2004, UAE officials arrested Qari Saifullah Akhtar, who trained\nthousands of al-Qa\'ida operatives around the world. He was returned to\nU.S. interrogators in Pakistan. \n\n As for Dubai Ports World, it already provides support for U.S. Navy ships\nin Jebel Ali and Fujairah, which accommodates more U.S. Navy ships than\nany other international port. DPW is also the primary support contractor\nfor U.S. Air Force assets at Al Dhafra Air Base. \n\n Rising above the din, the real issue is this: America\'s seaports\nconstitute one of many big holes in our border security, regardless\nof who manages the terminals. Despite the port security that exists\nboth stateside and in the ports of origin, there is no guarantee that\nWMD won\'t be smuggled into the U.S. in one of the thousands of cargo\ncontainers that land on our shores each and every day. \n\n\n\n The harsh reality is, there simply is no way to secure U.S. borders. \n\n\n\n As we have noted before, when al-Qa\'ida has mated the right nuclear core\nwith the right weapons hardware (something they may have already succeeded\nin doing), getting that weapon into the U.S. will not be that difficult,\nregardless of who is managing and securing entry points. The harsh reality\nis that there simply is no way to secure U.S. borders, with even a modest\ndegree of confidence, against importation of nuclear WMD hardware the\nsize of a footlocker, and a fissile core the size of an orange. ",1]
);
//-->
U.S. interests or personnel. On the contrary, there is considerable evidence that the UAE, along with Kuwait and now Iraq, is a critical ally in the region.
The UAE government has provided significant intelligence and staging support in the war against Jihadistan
Indeed, since 9/11 the UAE government has provided significant intelligence and staging support in the war against Jihadistan. They have actively participated in the pursuit of al-Qa'ida terrorists. In 2002, for example, UAE officials arrested and turned over to U.S. officials Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who conspired in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and masterminded the attack on the USS Cole in 2000. In 2004, UAE officials arrested Qari Saifullah Akhtar, who trained thousands of al-Qa'ida operatives around the world. He was returned to U.S. interrogators in Pakistan.
As for Dubai Ports World, it already provides support for U.S. Navy ships in Jebel Ali and Fujairah, which accommodates more U.S. Navy ships than any other international port. DPW is also the primary support contractor for U.S. Air Force assets at Al Dhafra Air Base.
Rising above the din, the real issue is this: America's seaports constitute one of many big holes in our border security, regardless of who manages the terminals. Despite the port security that exists both stateside and in the ports of origin, there is no guarantee that WMD won't be smuggled into the U.S. in one of the thousands of cargo containers that land on our shores each and every day.
The harsh reality is, there simply is no way to secure U.S. borders.
As we have noted before, when al-Qa'ida has mated the right nuclear core with the right weapons hardware (something they may have already succeeded in doing), getting that weapon into the U.S. will not be that difficult, regardless of who is managing and securing entry points. The harsh reality is that there simply is no way to secure U.S. borders, with even a modest degree of confidence, against importation of nuclear WMD hardware the size of a footlocker, and a fissile core the size of an orange.
\n\n This reality accounts for the Bush Doctrine of\nPre-emption—take\nthe fight to the enemy and endeavor to wage war on their turf, not\nours. It is a reality for which pre-emption is our only option—our\nonly chance of preventing a catastrophic attack on our nation. \n\n This is certainly not to suggest that we adopt the French border-security\nmodel—one in which we throw up our hands and run away. Indeed, we\nneed to be vigilant about territorial security. However, allowing a UAE\ncompany to manage some port terminals does not constitute a surrender\nfrom such vigilance. \n\n For the public, there may be some psychological solace in the assertion\nthat preventing DPW from managing port terminals is tantamount to securing\nour destiny—but it is a false sense of security. \n\n The public confusion, media hysterics and, consequently, opportunistic\npolitical posturing and demagoguery have all but completely obscured\nthe facts pertaining to our relationship with the UAE and its shipping\nconglomerate, DPW. The Democrats have used this issue to leapfrog to\nthe right of Republicans on national security, and some Republicans\nresponded quickly by adopting the same line on DPW. Unfortunately,\nboth are doing so at the peril of our national security. \n\n\n\n The consequences of derailing our relationship with the UAE constitute\na grave threat to our national security. \n\n\n\n Not only has President Bush declared, "The UAE has been a valuable\npartner in fighting the war on terror," but has even threatened to veto\nany legislation to undo this deal. As he has yet to use his veto for\nany legislation (to our utter dismay, given some great opportunities),\nthreatening a veto in this case can only mean that the consequences of\nderailing our relationship with the UAE constitute a grave threat to\nour national security. \n\n Most likely, a compromise on UAE/DPW between the White House and\nRepublican congressional leaders was brokered prior to public objections\nfrom Sen. Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert. If that compromise is\nanything other than a "technical delay" in approving this transaction,\nwe believe ",1]
);
//-->

This reality accounts for the Bush Doctrine of Pre-emption—take the fight to the enemy and endeavor to wage war on their turf, not ours. It is a reality for which pre-emption is our only option—our only chance of preventing a catastrophic attack on our nation.
This is certainly not to suggest that we adopt the French border-security model—one in which we throw up our hands and run away. Indeed, we need to be vigilant about territorial security. However, allowing a UAE company to manage some port terminals does not constitute a surrender from such vigilance.
For the public, there may be some psychological solace in the assertion that preventing DPW from managing port terminals is tantamount to securing our destiny—but it is a false sense of security.
The public confusion, media hysterics and, consequently, opportunistic political posturing and demagoguery have all but completely obscured the facts pertaining to our relationship with the UAE and its shipping conglomerate, DPW. The Democrats have used this issue to leapfrog to the right of Republicans on national security, and some Republicans responded quickly by adopting the same line on DPW. Unfortunately, both are doing so at the peril of our national security.
The consequences of derailing our relationship with the UAE constitute a grave threat to our national security.
Not only has President Bush declared, "The UAE has been a valuable partner in fighting the war on terror," but has even threatened to veto any legislation to undo this deal. As he has yet to use his veto for any legislation (to our utter dismay, given some great opportunities), threatening a veto in this case can only mean that the consequences of derailing our relationship with the UAE constitute a grave threat to our national security.
Most likely, a compromise on UAE/DPW between the White House and Republican congressional leaders was brokered prior to public objections from Sen. Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert. If that compromise is anything other than a "technical delay" in approving this transaction, we believe
\n\n Feel safer now? \n\nQuote of the week...\n\n "In this war, this very long war, it is very important we strengthen\nthe bonds of friendship and security with our friends and allies around\nthe world, particularly in the Arab world." —Deputy Defense Secretary\nGordon England \n\nOn cross-examination...\n\n "Most experts seem to agree on only one major point: The gaping holes\nin security at American ports have little to do with the nationality of\nwho is running them." —The New York Times \n\n \n\nOpen query...\n\n "As for the Democrats, we suppose this is a two-fer: They have a rare\nopportunity to get to the right of the GOP on national security, and\nthey can play to their union, anti-foreign investment base as well. At a\nnews conference in front of New York harbor, Senator Chuck Schumer said\nallowing the Arab company to manage ports \'is a homeland-security accident\nwaiting to happen.\' Hillary Clinton is also along for this political\nride. So the same Democrats who lecture that the war on terror is really\na battle for \'hearts and minds\' now apparently favor bald discrimination\nagainst even friendly Arabs investing in the U.S.? Guantanamo must be\nclosed because it\'s terrible PR, wiretapping al-Qa\'ida in the U.S. is\nillegal, and the U.S. needs to withdraw from Iraq, but these Democratic\nsuperhawks simply will not allow Arabs to be put in charge of American\nlongshoremen. That\'s all sure to play well on al Jazeera." —",1]
);
//-->
U.S. national security will suffer the consequences.
Feel safer now?

H&R Block goofs on own taxes

H&R Block reports tax miscue, lower income - Earnings - MSNBC.com

Gotta love this story!

French Government Report Says No to Homosexual ?Marriage?

French Government Report Says No to Homosexual ?Marriage?

Very, very interesting - no?

Mom beats Bear

Don't mess with a momma's kids - she'll get ya!!
Even if you are a polar bear!

Nunatsiaq News

Me, a Geek?

Here is what I asked to get on my birthday recently: The new english translation of Archbishop Ussher's "Annals of the World." My head hurts just from reading the preface and some of the appendices.

Check it out here: Annals

Toxic toads evolve to aid Australian invasion - Yeah, right!!

Toxic toads evolve to aid Australian invasion - LiveScience - MSNBC.com

The standard for proving "evolution" has gotten pretty low if all it takes is a toad growing its legs 6% longer than usual!!

It is still a toad - hello!?!

MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING!!!

Cheney accident has political echoes - Politics - MSNBC.com

The idiotic democrats and the MSM need to get a life!!

IT WAS A HUNTING ACCIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cal Thomas on evnagelicals and warming the earth

"The agenda-driven life"

By Cal Thomas

Feb 13, 2006

What is it with evangelical Christians that so many of them need a
cause beyond the commission they've been given?

Having witnessed the damage to the church's fundamental message of
redemption from a too-close association with the "kingdom of this
world" - first in the liberal National Council of Churches and World
Council of Churches, and more recently with various conservative
religious-political movements - some evangelicals have decided to give
it another go. This time, the issue isn't abortion, gay rights, or
cleaning up offensive TV programs. They want to clean up the planet.

Last October, it appeared the National Association of Evangelicals
(NAE), which claims 30 million members, was headed toward an alliance
with the more liberal wing of Christendom over the environment. Rather
than call it "environmentalism," which to some reeks of sensible shoes
and reusing hotel towels, these evangelicals embraced a euphemism more
to their liking. "Creation Care" they decided to call it, and solving
"global warming" would be their objective.

It now appears that at least some cooler heads have prevailed over
global warming. While some superstars of evangelicalism - including
best-selling author Rick Warren ("The Purpose Driven Life") - have
signed on to the global warming doctrine, many others have not. This
division in evangelical ranks prompted the NAE to pull back from an
expected endorsement of the issue following last October's statement
that mankind has "a sacred responsibility to steward the Earth and not
a license to abuse the creation of which we are a part." A statement
issued Feb. 1 by NAE President Ted Haggard recognized "the ongoing
debate" on global warming and "the lack of consensus among the
evangelical community on this issue."

Calvin DeWitt, professor of environmental studies at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison and a leading evangelical supporter of various
environmental causes, called the NAE statement "a retreat and a
defeat." He predicted "negative consequences for the ability of
evangelicals to influence the White House, unfortunately and sadly."
Should influencing the White House be the primary or even a major
objective for evangelicals, or should their goal be to please God?

A better objective would be to follow another statement made not by a
committee but by a single individual who claims ownership of His
church and requires obedience to all who would follow Him: "Go and
make disciples of all nations." (Matthew 28:19) Jesus also called on
His disciples - then and now - "to obey everything I have commanded
you." A quick look does not reveal those teachings as having anything
to do with global warming or the environment. Rather, He calls
individuals to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit those in
prison and pray for those who persecute them. Evangelicals should
pursue these higher virtues instead of settling for the lower life of
politics.

John the Apostle warns, "Do not love the world or anything in the
world. ... The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does
the will of God lives forever." (1 John 2:15,17)

Some evangelicals lift a verse from Genesis that speaks of being good
stewards and "taking care" of the earth. But that was before the fall
of man, when sin and corruption entered the world.

I'm all for trying to keep the air and water as clean as possible, and
I do not toss litter on the ground, but I worry that, having been
mugged several times before at the end of the political alley,
evangelicals may be setting themselves up for more damage to their
credibility.

The environmental models pertaining to planet temperatures have not
been studied long enough to reach such a profound conclusion that
unless Americans drive different cars, the planet will burn up due to
carbon monoxide gas. It is more likely to burn up due to nuclear
weapons in the hands of nuts like the president of Iran.

If evangelicals make the environment another "cause," they are likely
to be as frustrated and disappointed as when they exercised misplaced
faith in politics to cure other social evils. Should they desire a
real effect on the planet, let them return to the eternal message that
has been given them to share with a world that needs it now more than
ever. That is a message which "cleans up" the inside of the hearts of
men and women and places them in a position to more powerfully
influence this world and prepare themselves and others for the world
to come.

Money really doesn't buy happiness, study finds

BREITBART.COM - Money really doesn't buy happiness, study finds

Well - duh!!!

Birthday

Hey - I'm 42 tomorrow!!

Party on, Wayne. Party on, Garth.


Billy

86 Evangelical Leaders Join to Fight Global Warming - New York Times

86 Evangelical Leaders Join to Fight Global Warming - New York Times

Is this the work God has called them to? I don't think so.