Dems: We Don't Need No Stinkin' Hispanics

Democrats yesterday celebrated the resignation of Alberto Gonzales, the first Hispanic-American to be appointed Attorney General of the United States. Senator Barack Obama who is seeking the Democratic presidential nod, said: "I am pleased that he has finally resigned today." Democratic presidential contender John Edwards said: "Better late than never." U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd, (D-CT), said the resignation was long overdue. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) said: "It's been a long and difficult struggle, but at last the attorney general has done the right thing and stepped down." Dan Gernstein, a Democratic strategist who wrote an opinion column for The Politico newspaper recently suggesting that Democrats impeach Gonzales said: "It is a pretty safe bet that the boil has been lanced."

While the Dems have prided themselves on being the party that champions minorities, they have made it clear that they don't want to include Hispanics among those ranks. Miguel Estrada an Hispanic-American lawyer who was nominated in 2001 by President Bush to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, was similarly attacked by Democrats in the Senate who used a filibuster to block his nomination. In fact, internal memos to Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin mention liberal interest groups' desire to keep Estrada off the court because his Latino heritage made him "especially dangerous" as a potential future Supreme Court nominee.

Some observers have suggested that Democratic opposition to Hispanics grows out their underlying hatred of President George W. Bush, who made a record number of Hispanic appointments in his first administration that included now U.S. Senator Mel Martinez as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Rosario Marin as Treasurer of the United States and Dr. Richard Carmona as U.S. Surgeon General. "You can't hang around Bush and expect to come away without mud on your clothes", said an unnamed Washington insider.

Others however, disagree. "We Democrats love Hispanics," said an unnamed Hillary Clinton staff member who wished to remain anonymous, "that is... so long as they are illegal. When Hillary gets elected, don't be surprised if she appoints an illegal Hispanic to the position of Attorney General!"

The Liberal Definition of "Victory"

Hat-tip to Beerme.

Based on the comments of various Democrats, Liberals and the Left-Wing Media in general, it is apparent that we have lost the war in Iraq. And not just once, but several times, and for various reasons. Since I have had a hard time understanding how we lost the war, or who actually won, I decided to do some research and see if I could figure out what it really takes to achieve victory in standard Liberal parlance. I have therefore come up with the following Liberal definition of "Victory"...

"Victory" can ONLY happen when...

A war is fought with the permission of France A war is fought with the permission of Germany A war is fought with the permission of Russia A war is fought with the permission of China A war is fought with the permission of the U.N. A war is fought in a country without oil A war is fought in a country without sand storms or jungles A war is fought for no more than one week A war is fought while terrorists do not remain at large The President does NOT receive bad pre-war intelligence The President is a Democrat No one is killed on either side No collateral damage occurs to persons or property No accidental deaths or friendly-fire incidents occur Reporters feel safe to visit the front lines Reporters are free to learn our strategic plans and disseminate them to the world Intelligence on foreign enemies cannot be obtained We do not interrogate captured enemy combatants We respect the traditions & customs of foreign enemy combatants We provide foreign enemy combatants with American constitutional rights There are no frat-style AbuGhraib-type hijinks Everyone on both sides is at their best behavior at all times No brutal dictators are removed from power No authoritarian governments are toppled No new post-war governments or constitutions are required No post-war reconciliation between ethnic, religious, or political groups is required Americans are greeted as liberators with flowers, hugs and kisses from EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN of the country A war is followed by NO insurgencies of ANY kind A war is followed by rebuilding efforts that do not use Haliburton contracts A war is followed by NO rebuilding efforts, because that takes money from social programs A war is followed by our immediate withdrawal so as not to be labeled 'occupiers' A war costs absolutely NO money, because ANY amount is too much

I think I missed a few, but failure to meet any of the above equally-weighted criteria results in immediate defeat for the United States! Got it now?

The Infamous "Petraeus Report"

The Liberal mainstream media is eagerly anticipating the September 15th deadline for the now infamous "Petraeus Report". For some on the Left, the anticipation is in planning on how to spin the report. For others, the anticipation is more like dread. Democrats in Congress have clearly chosen the path of defeatism and surrender, declaring Iraq to be a lost cause. They have done so with the obvious intention of speaking "truth (or rather... lies) to power". They have been so determined to smear President Bush, that they have been willing to throw the sacrificed lives of valiant American heroes onto history's dungheap of "lost causes" and "failures", without a second thought.

But their efforts may in fact be rewarded with scorn. If the report from Iraq looks even remotely positive, those Democrats who have been weeping and lamenting in "sackcloth and ashes", will appear to be foolish at best, or treasonous at worst. And there is good reason for them to be worried. There seems to be a growing consensus that the "surge" is working. Even Carl Levin (about as Left-Wing a Liberal as they come) recently returned from Iraq saying he saw "credible and positive results" from the surge of troops in Iraq ordered by the President in January (though he remains skeptical about whether military successes will lead to political successes).

Then there is Representative Brian Baird (D-WA), who upon his return from a recent visit to Baghdad said, "I believe giving it more time is worth the risk. We need to sustain the investment, at least for a while, in the belief things are getting better." Before Congress' August recess, Baird had supported legislation that called for withdrawal of U.S. forces to begin within 120 days. He now says he wishes the measure had never come up and that he hasn't so much reversed his position as... "adjusted" his thinking. "We need to keep our force strength where it is until next spring and give the political rhetoric a rest," he said. "If the Democrats were less interested in finding fault and blaming people... it would give a chance for our troops on the ground to operate."

And let's not forget Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack whose opinion piece in the New York Times sparked so much controversy amongst the Left. O'Hanlon and Pollack, both Liberals, spent eight days in Iraq, after which they described the political debate over Iraq in Washington, D.C. as "surreal". They said that "the administration's critics... seem unaware of the significant changes taking place" in Iraq. According to these two scholars from the Brookings Institute, "We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq". They said they were "surprised by the gains (they) saw", and that "things look much better than before".

On August 16, 2007 the Associated Press reported: "One senator said U.S. troops are routing out al-Qaida in parts of Iraq. Another insisted President Bush's plan to increase troops has caused tactical momentum. These are not Bush-backing GOP die-hards, but Democratic Senators Dick Durbin, Bob Casey and Jack Reed."

Joe Lieberman (I-CT), clearly no conservative, said on August 20th in an article at the Wall Street Journal, that "The United States is at last making significant progress against al Qaeda in Iraq... Thanks to Gen. David Petraeus's new counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq, and the strength and skill of the American soldiers fighting there..." But this is not a new position for Lieberman. As far back as June 15th he said in another article at the Wall Street Journal, that after a recent trip to Iraq, he had seen signs of the surge working even then... for which he was demonized by Democrats and Liberals.

All of which goes to show that those who took the time, and made the effort to go to Iraq, and to see for themselves the situation on-the-ground, have been rewarded with an eye-opening experience that belies the negativism of the arm-chair pundits and the weekend protestors. Why, even Hillary Clinton seems to agree that the surge is working. Listen to it for yourself on YouTube.

Contrary to the rhetoric of some on the Left, it should be noted that the September 15th date was never intended to be a deadline for either Iraqi legislative success or U.S. military success. It was a date established by Congress as part of the 2007 supplemental funding bill for the Iraq war, by which date a report is supposed to be submitted to the Congress on the PROGRESS of the Iraqi government towards meeting (18) different benchmarks. "Progress" does not necessarily mean "complete attainment" (although attainment would in fact be a respectable measure of progress).

But even before the President's new surge strategy was fully implemented, nay-sayers on the Left started declaring it a failure. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi sent a letter to the President telling him that they planned to send him new legislation to "limit the U.S. mission in Iraq, begin the phased redeployment of U.S. forces, and bring the war to a responsible end." Reid went further by attaching troop withdrawal deadlines to the Defense Department Authorization bill... a move that was fortunately defeated.

Amidst these premature calls for the U.S. to pull out of Iraq, President Bush said he would wait to hear from General Petraeus in September before making any decisions. I believe that this is when the media started referring to it as the "Petraeus Report". Even in the article at the last link above, there is this quote...

The next critical point in the showdown between Bush and Congress over Iraq is expected in September, when U.S. commander in Iraq David Petraeus is due to report on progress in the strategy to "surge" up to 30,000 more U.S. troops into the war-ravaged nation.

Therefore, it comes as no surprise that when President Bush announced that he would issue a report to Congress in September on the progress in Iraq, many of those on the Left went utterly ballistic. They began accusing the White House of "writing the report FOR General Petraeus", as if to suggest that there was going to be some kind of "whitewash" or "cover up" of the true situation on the ground. The following are just a few samples of what I'm talking about...

Bush To Issue September Report, Not Petraeus

White House Contradicts Itself on Petraeus 'Report'

White House To Write Petraeus Report

Petraeus’ September Report Will Be Written By The White House

Clearly, the Left-Wing Loons who write such articles prefer to generate "heat" rather than "light". Either that, or they are incredibly "research-challenged". It is obvious from even a cursory glance at the legislation, that it is the President who is responsible for producing the report to Congress, NOT Petraeus...

The President shall submit a second report to the Congress, not later than September 15, 2007, following the same procedures and criteria outlined above... (a reference to the interim report required of the President not later than July 15, 2007) --HR2206 (page 27)

Granted, the 2007 supplemental funding bill for the Iraq war does include a requirement for testimony by General Petraeus before the Congress -- a requirement which the White House never suggested would be refused...

(3) TESTIMONY BEFORE CONGRESS. —Prior to the submission of the President’s second report on September 15, 2007, and at a time to be agreed upon by the leadership of the Congress and the Administration, the United States Ambassador to Iraq and the Commander, Multi-National Forces Iraq will be made available to testify in open and closed sessions before the relevant committees of the Congress. --HR2206 (page 27)

Nevertheless, it is very clear that the report to Congress is to come from the President...

(B) The President, having consulted with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Commander, Multi-National Forces-Iraq, the United States Ambassador to Iraq, and the Commander of U.S. Central Command, will prepare the report and submit the report to Congress. --HR2206 (page 26)

In point of fact, the purpose of the September 15th report is for the President to "advise the Congress on how that assessment requires, or does not require, changes to the strategy announced on January 10, 2007" (see HR2206, page 25). It should be noted that the President is to determine any new strategy which may be required, and he is to advise the Congress on those changes. This is clearly in keeping within the framework of the U.S. Constitution which vests the President with the title of Commander-in-Chief. The Congress cannot impose a new strategy upon the military, even though they would dearly love to do so. Only the Commander-in-Chief can make strategy.

It should also be noted that, even if the Iraqi government fails to achieve all (18) benchmarks, according to the legislation...

The President may waive the requirements of this section if he submits to Congress a written certification setting forth a detailed justification for the waiver, which shall include a detailed report describing the actions being taken by the United States to bring the Iraqi government into compliance with the benchmarks set forth. --HR2206, page 28

I'm not convinced that this waiver option is a viable one. I could be proven wrong, but I believe that President Bush will want to highlight all of the positive advances being made in Iraq, rather than resorting to some sort of written certification that amounts to nothing more than an IOU for Iraqi progress in the future. I think that would be interpreted and trumpeted by the Left as 'no progress whatsoever'.

Look for the Left to focus on failure, and the Right to focus on success. That's become the modus operandi in almost every discussion on Iraq. The Left is "hell-bent" on pinning failure in Iraq to George W. Bush. They simply won't accept the concept of victory there unless it bites them in the butt, or threatens to evict them office... "God forbid"!

Not that we have even given the "surge" an ample amount of time to succeed. It was only in late June that the level of U.S. forces reached their peak. It has been less than two months since those additional troops have been in theater at full strength. Iraqi summer days are now a wilting 120F. The Iraqi Parliament is on recess. Clearly, the Iraqis need more time to get their act together. And it wouldn't hurt to give them a sense that we'll stand behind them for more than a week or two.

But as I said before, the Left was declaring the surge to be a military failure before it was even fully implemented. And now they are being proven wrong. The surge appears to be a military success despite all of their predictions to the contrary. They will likewise prematurely declare the surge to be a failure because all of the Iraqi legislative benchmarks have not been met. The Left can think of nothing better than for American failure in Iraq.

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) said recently that a positive report on progress in Iraq by General David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us." I personally find it hard to believe that American military success would be a problem for ANY American!

Although we will no doubt hear from Petraeus and Bush about military success in Iraq resulting from the "surge", the Left will focus on the failures of the Iraqi government. Although we will no doubt hear about life getting back to normal for many people in Iraq, it will be completely ignored by the Left. They will talk about Nuri al-Maliki being at odds with Petraeus. They will talk about fractures occurring in the Iraqi government coalition. They will talk about Iraqi government failure to produce important legislation. They will talk about Shi'ite al-Maliki's inability (or reluctance) to achieve reconciliation with Sunnis. They will talk about ANYTHING but success... because they are so invested in defeat.

They can't stand George W. Bush. They suffer from that malady common to the Left known as Bush Derangement Syndrome. If Bill or Hillary were President, the "Petraeus Report" would result in parades in every city, glowing headlines in every newspaper, special reports on CBS, NBC, MSNBC, NPR, etc. There would be accolades for the President and his/her remarkable General. The mainstream media would be in a sheer swoon. But it's not Bill or Hillary. It's GWB... expect headlines about gloom and doom, defeat and failure.

Failure eventually comes to those who diligently seek it. --Hawkeye®, 2007

Is The Earth Really Warming? (Part 2)

From Grassfire: Here is Part Two of the interview by Steve Elliot (President of Grassfire.org) with Congressional Staffer Marc Morano following his recent trip to Greenland as part of a Congressional fact-finding tour. In this interview, Marc and Steve get to the fundamendals of the issue: Is the earth warming? Is CO2 the primary cause? What can we do about it? With Congress getting ready to consider a huge Carbon Tax bill that could cost the average American family over $4500, this is important information:

For those of you with low bandwidth, here is a rough transcript...

Steve asks Marc, "Let's step back and look a little bit at the bigger picture. Are you saying there is no trend in warming over the past 40 years?" Marc says, "I'm saying, if you look at it from the end of the 'Little Ice Age' which roughly ended 1850-1880, we've been on a warming trend. Human CO2 could not possibly have impacted that until after 1940. We've been steadily warming. In fact, five of the ten hottest summers were in the 1930s in the US. Just to give you an example of what was going on during the 1930s. And it was the same with Greenland. It was warm as well. Temperatures... after human CO2 really increased after 1940... guess what? Global temperatures fell from the 1940s, 50s, 60s, into the 70s, to the point where Newsweek, TIME, and the National Academy of Sciences came out with reports warnings of a coming Ice Age. And then of course, they've been warming over the last 30 years."

Marc continues, "Now the question is, what's been causing that warming? A physiscist from Denmark, and a whole slew of astrophysicists have just come out recently and announced that the sun is the hottest point it has been in 1000 years. So scratch your head, stop and think a minute about what was happening back then... oh yeah, that was the Medieval Warm Period when the Vikings were farming a much warmer Greenland! Ahh, I see, it all starts to make sense now, but, a couple caveats though..."

"No one is arguing that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. No one is arguing that CO2 does not impact our climate. In fact the 60 scientists who advised Canadian Prime Minister Harper last year said, 'if we had known in the 1990s what we know now, we would have concluded that Kyoto was never necessary'. They said, 'Yes, CO2 is a warming agent, but that you can't distinguish the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere from natural climate variability'. And that's essentially what's happening in Greenland with the latest peer review studies. But people say, 'Yes, but what about the future? If we keep putting all this CO2 into the atmosphere we are going to have an 8F degree rise in temperature and all the ice sheets are going to melt. We're going to have more severe storms'," Marc said.

He went on, "First of all, warmer world means less severe storms and a lower death rate. In fact, cold snaps kill more people than heat waves. You can look that up in the history of the ice ages. The Little Ice Age was much more damaging. It used to be called the 'Medieval Climate Optimum', now called the 'Medieval Warm Period'. Steve asked, "You mean they actually changed it?" Marc said, "I don't have the details on that, but the name was actually changed from decades ago. It used to be called the 'Medieval Climate Optimum' meaning that the climate was optimal, but they didn't like that because it didn't go with their agenda, so now it became the 'Medieval Warm Period'."

"The gist of the whole debate is what is the the impact of future CO2 increases. And the report we're working on in the Senate has Ivy League geologists, it has other climate experts explaining what happened, and this why the climate models are so wrong... why the scientists believe they're so wrong. Each unit of CO2 you put into the atmosphere has less and less of a warming impact. Once the atmosphere reaches a saturation point, additional input of CO2 will not really have any major impact. It's like putting insulation in your attic. They give a recommended amount and after that you can stack the insulation up to the roof and it's going to have no impact. You only put so much in. And that's the gist of CO2... in the stabilizing atmosphere."

"In addition to that, it's not the only factor: water vapor, cloud cover, cosmic rays, solar impacts, ocean circulation, different... land use changes, heat urban island effect. Did you know that if there are more trees in the northern hemisphere, they can contribute hugely to possible warming in the northern hemisphere because they are dark colored and absorb more sunlight? There's so many factors... cow emissions. The U.N. last November came out with a report claiming that cow emissions were more damaging to the atmosphere than all the CO2 from cars and trucks. I mean, just think of that, methane from cow "burps" (and, you know, from the other end) are more damaging and more of a heating agent than all the CO2 from cars and trucks."

"When you add all this up and then you ask the question, assuming we WERE facing a man-made climate catastrophy, what could man do about it? The bottom line is there's very little we can do about it. Even we shut down our entire economy and stopped all man-made CO2, the climate scientists who believe the alarmist stuff will tell you that it's essentially too late. We've already reached past a tipping point. There's so much CO2 in the atmosphere, the warming will continue for 1000s of years."

"But then you look at proposals like the Kyoto protocol and you look at the CAPA Trade bills in Washington DC. The architects of Kyoto admit it, and the architects of the CAPA Trade bills here in DC, admit that even if their bills are fully enacted, they will have no impact on the climate. They're all symbolic bills to get us... quote 'to do something about global warming'."

Steve Elliott said that he's heard there are some proposals in Congress that could cost the American family up to $4500 over a 5-10 year period if they're enacted. What legislative bills are being moved right now, and will there be an economic cost to the American family?

According to Marc, there about a dozen or more bills in both houses of Congress, all different variations. "We're expecting something to come to the floor this fall. It's got to go through Committee first but, the gist of almost everything proposed is... You have Senator Binghaman's(?) CAPA Trade Bill which the Washington Post which described as having no impact on the climate, but will raise home energy and gas prices an average of 5%. And this is the Washington Post, not a friend to any skeptics of the climate, admitting that this bill will not affect the climate. So it's all climate symbolism for real economic pain. Well what is the pain? Senators Boxer-Sanders(?) have a bill. The MIT and CBO have done a study and a cost estimate that it would have an economic cost of approximately $4500 per family. The Lieberman-McCain Climate CAPA Trade bill would cost $3500 per family. Keep in mind, even if these bills are fully enacted, you will not even be able to detect the impact they will have on the climate, assuming that these bills are fully complied with (which we're finding out with the Kyoto treaty, these bills are almost NEVER fully complied with)."

Marc closes with this. "Just to leave the listeners with one thought, when you're debating someone who's into global warming, ask them one question, I mean... get them to understand, that nothing on the earth is outside of normal variability... Computer models are being pedaled by 'software engineers' who know nothing about climate. They are not licensed and qualified to sell these programs to society, meaning... this is just wild speculation about what could, might, may happen in the future. And you could sit down and scare yourself silly if you wanted to... based on that (the computer models)... if that was the criteria."

UPDATE: Michael Fumento at 'The American Spectator' confirms some of the statements made by Marc Morano in his interview above. To check it out, go HERE.

Questions, Questions, Questions!

Why would ANY American (even a liberal)...

Want America to LOSE a war? Say that they "support the troops", yet denounce the mission of those troops? Say that they "support the troops", yet falsely accuse those troops of going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night and terrorizing women and children? Say that they "support the troops", yet suggest that only the uneducated "get stuck in Iraq". Say that they "support the troops", yet demand that those troops come home in shame and defeat? Put American soldiers in harm's way, and then deny those soldiers the funding they need to support the mission? Unilaterally declare that a war is LOST, without having accurate information from sources on-the-ground? Suggest redeployment to a location 5,000 miles from Iraq as a good place for "rapid response"? Suggest that it was a mistake to depose a man who killed millions of people? Want to insure that the lives of those Americans heroically sacrificed in Iraq have been wasted? Unanimously approve the appointment of a U.S. general, and then immediately seek to undermine his mission? Declare a new strategy to be a failure, even before it has been fully implemented? Agree to a date-certain for a report from the Pentagon, and then attempt to make an uninformed military decision (2) months prior to release of that report? Purposely ignore the historical lessons of Vietnam? Want to sacrifice the lives of thousands (or perhaps millions) of innocent Iraqi civilians? Want to smash the dreams of millions of Iraqis for stability in their lives? Want to surrender a country of 28 million people to Al-Qaeda, our sworn enemy? Want to provide a safe haven for terrorists to plan their next attacks on America? Turn their backs on a fledgling democracy that will one day be an important ally? Turn their backs on Afghanistan - which will be the next target of Al-Qaeda and Iran? Turn their backs on the Middle East - an entire region of the world? Turn their backs on Israel - an important ally in the region and a long-established democracy? Give Iran free reign to establish Shi'ite fundamentalism in Iraq? Give Iran free reign to develop its nuclear arsenal? Want America's international stature to be diminished? Want to embarrass the U.S. in the eyes of the world? Want to meet and be seen with dictators and tyrants? Be cordial to America's enemies, and indifferent to America's allies? Expose classified intelligence programs that keep Americans safe from terrorists? Seek to prevent intelligence agencies from conducting wiretaps on foreign enemies during a time of war? Seek to prevent intelligence agencies from using proven methods of interrogation to obtain valuable intelligence during a time of war? Seek to release foreign enemy combatants from prison so that they can resume their terrorist activities? Want to subvert the President of the United States during a time of war? Want to subvert the Constitution of the United States by allowing (or advocating) that Congress usurp the role of "Commander-in-Chief" during a time of war?

I will be the first to admit that I have no answers to such questions - neither simple nor complex. But let me say that such questions are NOT rhetorical. I truly cannot fathom what such people think. I can only ask more questions...

Is it because such people are against ALL war in principle? Are they TRULY "conscientious objectors"? Do they TRULY believe that American soldiers are Nazi storm troopers? Do they REALLY equate George W. Bush with Adolf Hitler? Are the lives of American soldiers TRULY that precious to anti-war activists? Do they REALLY believe that the Iraq war is lost? Do they REALLY believe Iraqis would have been better off under Saddam? Do they REALLY believe there won't be another 9/11-type event? Do the lives of Iraqi millions mean nothing to them? Does liberty mean so little to them? Are they ignorant of history? Are they short-sighted? Have they been misled? Are they stupid? Do they REALLY believe that life would be better under Chavez, Castro or Ahmadinejad? Do they REALLY believe that George W. Bush wants to listen in on their private phone calls? Do they REALLY believe that George W. Bush caused the attacks of 9/11? Do they REALLY believe that George W. Bush invaded Iraq only to get the oil? Do they REALLY believe that George W. Bush wants to consolidate ABSOLUTE power for the remainder of his 18 months in office? Do they REALLY fear that George W. Bush will set himself up as a tyrant and not leave office after his second term?

Or... do they simply suffer from BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome)?

Are they still angry that John Kerry lost in 2004? Are they still angry about the Swift Boat Vets? Are they still angry that Dan Rather was forced to resign? Are they still angry that Al Gore lost in 2000? Are they still angry that Bill Clinton was impeached?

Or... is it because they simply seek to aquire political power? Do they REALLY value political power more than...

Their country? The lives of our soldiers? The lives of millions of Iraqis? America's stature in the world? The safety of Americans from terrorists? Fledgling democracies and future allies? Relationships with our existing allies? The entire Middle East region of the world? Iran's nuclear ambitions? The Office of the Presidency? The United States Constitution?

One can only suggest that the latter possibility simply begs the question: Why would anyone want to create an environment where they could acquire power in a country...

By losing a crucial war? Whose troops were forced to leave the battlefield in shame and defeat? Whose stature in the world has just been diminished? Whose credibility is now at stake? Whose foreign policy may result in the deaths of thousands or millions? Whose relationship with its important allies has been compromised? That surrendered 28 million people to its enemies? That provided a safe haven for terrorists to plan attacks against themselves? That abandoned an entire region of the world? That put the lives of its own citizens at risk? Where idiots believe that they can have "rapid response" from a distance of 5,000 miles? Where people apologize for deposing a brutal murderer? Where leaders make false accusations against their best and brightest? Where leaders surrender to the enemy while their troops are winning the battle? Where the media exposes classified intelligence programs? Where intelligence agencies are prevented from obtaining intel on their foreign enemies? Where the office of the presidency is being subverted? Where leaders subvert their own constitution?

It's beyond me. I'm simply in a state of "interrogative conundrum".

Is The Greenland Ice Cap Melting?

From Grassfire.org:

Central to the claims of those who say global warming is an imminent threat to our world, is the idea that the Greenland ice cap is melting and will cause a devastating rise in the sea level. Half of Florida will be under water, for example.


But is it true? Is the Greenland ice cap melting in an unusual way and does it pose a threat? Steve Elliot of Grassfire.org recently interviewed a key Congressional staffer who took part in an official fact finding trip to Greenland last month.

Click on the player to listen to Steve's interview:

For those of you with bandwidth problems, let me summarize...

An interview with Mark Morano, Communications Director for Senator Inhofe's staff on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Mark took a trip recently to Greenland on a fact-finding tour with 10 U.S. Senators and their staffs. They were accompanied by a U.N. scientist and a Danish government official approved by the Democratic majority. They were shown a typical summer melt of the glaciers in Greenland, and that would have been the end of the trip. The scientists said how bad it was, and if all of Greenland melted, half of Florida would be underwater.

According to Mark, these are just "wild speculations" not endorsed by the peer reviewed scientific community. Mark was armed with the latest scientific peer reviews and challenged the U.N. scientist and Danish official. According to Mark, nothing unusual is going on in Greenland. Mark explained that one recent study used a 2-year set of sampling data which showed "alarming melting" and then that data was extrapolated to show disastrous predictions. But, according to Mark, that recent melting trend has already reversed itself and the ice cap in central Greenland is in fact growing.

Mark said that Greenland started melting in the 1880s, long before major CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. Factoid: 80% of human-caused CO2 emissions came after 1940. However, in the second half of the 20th century, Greenland's average temperatures were actually lower than the first half of the century. Greenland's temperatures were higher in the 1920s-1940s than they are today. According to a study that came out this year, Greenland's ice sheet is far more stable than anyone thought. Greenland's ice sheet has survived previous warm periods, including the Medieval Warm Period, when temperatures were higher than they are today.

Mark got the U.N. scientist to admit that Greenland is currently within natural climate variability. Greenland's current melting is not contributing to sea level rise. Antarctica's ice cap is in fact increasing which compensates for Arctic and Greenland melting. Computer models are often inaccurate. The U.N. scientist in charge of global warming research came out in June of this year and said that current global warming models do not account for half of the variables and are not very reliable. The U.N. and New York Times have both reported that nothing which is occurring on the earth today is outside of natural climate variability, including droughts, floods, hurricanes, etc.

According to Mark (paraphrased), "Al Gore is correct when he says that if Greenland melts sea level will rise 20 feet, but that's like saying that if a family goes on vacation and their car crosses the white line in front of an oncoming truck that everyone will die. It may be a true statement, but what is the liklihood of it actually happening? Not very likely at all."