Daily Wisdom

December 27, 2008

Questions Remain

December 25, 2008

Merry Christmas

May the Lord Bless You and Keep You.
May Lord Make His Face to Shine Upon You.
May the Lord be Gracious Unto You.
May the Lord Lift up His Countenance Upon You.
May the Lord Give You Peace.
May the Lord Prepare a Table Before You.
May the Lord Anoint Your Head with Oil.
May Your Cup Overflow and Your Harvest be Bountiful.
May Goodness & Mercy follow You all the Days of Your Life.
May You Dwell in the House of the Lord Forever.
May You Enjoy a Time of Peace, Happiness and Joy...
In Celebration of the Messiah's First Coming.

And I Wish You ALL the VERY BEST in 2009!!

December 23, 2008

Blago: Carter Burke Reprise

Rod Blagojevich -- Paul Reiser

While watching Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's recent news conference, I thought that he reminded me of somebody, but at first I couldn't quite put my finger on it. Then it occurred to me -- Paul Reiser in his role as Carter Burke in the movie "Aliens". Burke was the "company man" who was only interested in his own enrichment, even to the point of sabotaging the mission, getting Newt and Ripley "impregnated" by the aliens, and killing the rest of the crew -- all so he could make a buck. When he gets caught, the following memorable scene takes place...

Ripley: He figured that he could get an alien back through quarantine, if one of us was... impregnated... whatever you call it, and then frozen for the trip home. Nobody would know about the embryos we were carrying... me and Newt.
Hicks: Wait a minute, now... we'd all know.
Ripley: Yes. The only way he could do it is if he sabotaged certain freezers on the way home... namely, yours. Then he could jettison the bodies and make up any story he liked.
Hudson: F---. He's dead. You're dog-meat, pal!
Burke: This is so nuts. I mean, listen - listen to what you're saying. It's paranoid delusion. How - It's really sad. It's pathetic.

And that's basically what Blagojevich is saying. "What are you talking about? I'm innocent. I didn't do anything wrong..." All along, you know that this guy is guilty as sin. And he's got the gall to lie through his teeth. Tell me if you don't see the comparison...

December 22, 2008

Be Careful What You Wish For

You know the old saying, "Be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it." For the past two years Barack Obama has been running on a platform of "Hope" and "Change". Americans have been "hoping" for "change", and now we have it...

Americans wanted lower gasoline prices, and now we have them. The national average price of gasoline has fallen from an all-time high of $4.11 per gallon to $1.66 per gallon.

Americans wanted lower oil prices, and now we have them. Oil was selling at an all-time high of $147.27 a barrel in July, and on Friday, the NYMEX price was only $33.87 a barrel.

Oil Prices Plummet

Americans wanted OPEC to get less of our money, and now OPEC is scrambling to cut oil production to prop up sagging world prices -- all to no avail.

Americans wanted "big oil" to make less profits, and now they are.

Americans wanted the greedy Wall Street execs to make less money, and now they are.

Americans wanted a stronger dollar, and now we have it. It took $2.00 to buy a British Pound in July, but today it takes only $1.48. In July, it took $1.59 to buy a Euro, today it takes only $1.38 -- and was as low as $1.26 in early December (levels it hasn't seen since October 2006).

But along with all the good news, there are a few "minor" problems... The housing bubble burst. Home foreclosures skyrocketed. The credit markets froze up. Banks and financial firms failed. The stock market collapsed. Billions of dollars in assets were lost. Billions more of taxpayer dollars have been used to prop up the financial industry. The automakers are failing. The country is in a recession. People are being laid off.

So there you have it... "change". Americans wanted "change" and we got it. Frankly, I prefer the "good old days" of $4.00 gasoline. I don't think I can take much more "change".

December 15, 2008

The Constitution Is Dead

The Constitution of the United States is dead... "Long live the Constitution!" For those of you who may have had the mistaken notion that our Constitution was merely dying, I regret to inform you that the patient has expired. We were reminded of that today when the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) refused to hear the Wrotnowski case. Although it was obvious that "time was of the essence" and that this case required an expedited review, the Court chose to postpone a decision on whether or not to hear the case from its Friday conference until today, in what can only be described as an obvious delaying tactic. Since the Wrotnowski case was a request for a stay or injunction to stop today's meeting of the Electoral College, the Court's move to wait until today to make a decision effectively made a hearing of the case a moot point. One can only call it the "lost weekend". A weekend that was lost, most assuredly, by design.

The result of this travesty is that we now appear to be a country which no longer operates under "the rule of law", but rather one which operates under "the rule of politics". I believe that denying a hearing of the Wrotnowski case, and the employment of the delaying tactic described above, was nothing short of a political ploy designed to avert a major controversy -- it was a "political" move. Nevertheless, the controversy will continue to fester and it will only get worse until it is addressed. It's like a boil that needs to be lanced, or an infection that needs to be treated. It won't go away by itself. Someday, the unanswered questions will be revealed, and if Barack Obama turns out to be a "usurper", as we fear, then the constitutional crisis which emerges will make SCOTUS wish they had dealt with the issue sooner rather than later.

There are only three basic requirements that a person must meet to qualify for the position of President of the United States: He or she must be at least 35 years of age, must have lived in the United States for at least 14 years, and must be a "natural born Citizen". All of this seems simple enough, yet as we know, nothing is as simple as it seems.

The case brought before SCOTUS by Cort Wrotnowski alleged that two of the presidential candidates on the Connecticut ballot were not "natural born" citizens, and therefore did not qualify to assume the office of the presidency (i.e., John McCain and Barack Obama). John McCain, according to Wrotnowski, is not a natural born citizen by reason of his birth in Panama. Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen by reason of his Kenyan father's British nationality. Since I am no legal scholar, I will refrain from attempting to go into any further detail. But you can go HERE to find a definition of "Natural Born Citizen" and some supporting documentation.

You can read the pleading in the Wrotnowski case by going HERE. Scroll down and click on the "Download" button at the bottom of the page. Wrotnowski asked the Court to issue an "EMERGENCY STAY AND/OR INJUNCTION AS TO THE 2008 ELECTORAL COLLEGE MEETING." The Court's decision (to delay a decision) effectively insured that today's meeting of the Electoral College would officially institute Barack Obama as the President-elect unhindered.

Since SCOTUS gave no reasons, we must assume that the High Court refused to hear the case because either: a) it did not want to risk overturning the election of a man who received 65 million votes, b) it did not want to appear "racist", c) it decided internally that at least 5 of the 9 Justices would rule against it and was therefore a "waste of time", d) the person bringing the case did not have "standing", e) it viewed the case as "frivolous", f) it disagreed with the premise of the case, g) the case would raise a host of other issues that it did not want to address at this time (i.e., "opening a can of worms"), h) some other reason of which I am unaware, or i) some combination thereof.

One would hope that the High Court did not consider this a "frivolous" lawsuit, although some of the Justices may indeed have viewed it as such. It is possible that some of the Justices disagreed with the premise of the case, perhaps even a majority. One would imagine that the strict constructionists (Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito) found merit in the case, while it is equally imaginable that the remaining Justices did not. Assuming for a moment that this was indeed true, then it may have been determined by the Justices that to hear the case would simply be a "waste of time" as a majority of the Justices would rule against it anyway. Denying a hearing on that basis would be nothing less than a matter of 'political expediency', and 'personal resource management' -- commodities clearly on a par with "upholding the Constitution of the United States". D'OH!

It is also possible that SCOTUS felt that Cort Wrotnowski did not have standing to bring the case. Other cases have been thrown out on such grounds, including: Hollander v. McCain, 2008WL2853250 (D.N.H. 2008); Berg v. Obama, 08-04083 (E.D. Pa. 2008). This is perhaps one of the most frightening of all possibilities. It would suggest that an average citizen no longer has any rights to bring a lawsuit in important cases of national prominence as it pertains to the Constitution. Since when is an average citizen unqualified to file a grievance? If memory serves, our Constitution begins with the words, "We the People..." thereby acknowledging that it is the people (i.e., average citizens) who empower the government and not vice versa. I seem to recall being taught that our government was supposed to be "of the people, by the people, for the people". But when an average citizen no longer qualifies to bring a grievance to court, then our government is no longer controlled by the governed -- it is out of control -- and the Preamble of the Constitution is meaningless. Mark J. Fitzgibbons presents an intelligent and thoughful analysis of this subject at American Thinker.

Three of the other potential reasons cited, including: a) it did not want to risk overturning the election of a man who received 65 million votes, b) it did not want to appear "racist", or c) the case would raise a host of other issues that it did not want to address at this time (i.e., "opening a can of worms"), are again nothing more than 'political expediency'. If there was some other reason why the Court refused to hear the case, a reason of which I am completely unaware, then it would have been nice if the Justices served the interests of all Americans and enlightened us to it. The silence on this whole issue of Obama's status as a 'natural born citizen' is simply "deafening". Obama won't talk, and now apparently SCOTUS won't either. Why?

In an ideal world, all 9 Justices would have found this case extremely important, even if they feared the potential fallout that hearing such a case could generate. Under such a scenario, the Justices would agree that compliance with the Constitution is of paramount importance to the exclusion of all else. For what other reason does the Supreme Court exist than to safeguard our nation against laws, behaviors and practices which are "unconstitutional"? The Supreme Court Justices swore an oath to "uphold the Constitution of the United States". Will they now turn a blind eye to compliance with that Constitution by none other than the prospective Chief Executive? What does that say about our Constitution, Court and Presidency?

In a somewhat less than ideal scenario, all 9 Justices would have found the case extremely important, but might have determined amongst themselves that the potential fallout that hearing such a case could generate would be too damaging to the nation to risk enforcing compliance with the Constitution, and then ADMITTING IT. Denying the hearing of a case under such circumstances would also be nothing less than 'political expediency', but at least it could be considered a defensible position as part of the government's mandate to "insure domestic Tranquility" according to the Constitution's Preamble. (Lest we forget, the SCOTUS is a part of the federal government.)

Unfortunately, we know that at least 2 Justices did not consider such a case important enough to be referred to the Court for conference (or they were too politically motivated to refer it). Justice Souter denied the Donofrio case -- as well as the Berg case -- before Justice Thomas later referred it to the Court, and Justice Ginsburg denied the Wrotnowski case before Justice Scalia later referred it to the Court. The fact that at least 2 (and undoubtedly more) Justices are unwilling to insure that the requirements of the Constitution are upheld, is simply apalling. If Supreme Court Justices do not consider the Constitution sacred, then what are they doing on the Supreme Court? ...And why did they spend so much time in Law School studying about it if their only intent was to ignore it, or overthrow it?

What does this imply then about the health of our Constitution? It suggests that the Constitution is more than sick -- I think it is dead. When the Supreme Court of the United States is unwilling or unable to uphold the preeminent law of the land, then we are no longer operating under the "rule of law". When the Supreme Court of the United States is willing to turn a blind eye to compliance with the Constitution, then 'political expediency' is the law which governs. The Constitution has become a meaningless, unenforceable document. It is nothing more than a piece of paper with nice-sounding words on it, which bears little or no resemblence to reality.

It is not exactly clear when the Constitution died. No doubt it was long before this weekend. But like the movie "Weekend at Bernie's", the Constitution is being held up like a prop for the sake of appearances. It is being used and abused by people who want you believe it is still alive -- and plenty of people are being fooled. All around it, people are laughing, partying and celebrating -- completely oblivious to its recent demise. In the background, a subplot of cash, corruption and crime plays out. In the foreground, we watch with unbelieving eyes as morons mistreat a corpse. Unfortunately, this is no laughing matter.

December 13, 2008

Natural Born Citizen - Definition

Natural Born Citizen: A person who is born within the borders of a country (jus soli) to parents who are both citizens of that country (jus sanguinis).

The following is from the Natural Born Citizen blog. I have bolded certain passages for emphasis...

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Despite popular belief, the 14th Amendment does not convey the status of “natural born Citizen” in its text. It just conveys the status of “Citizen”. And it’s very clear that in the pre-amendment Constitution, the Framers made a distinction between a “Citizen” and a “natural born Citizen”. The requirement to be a Senator or Representative is “Citizen”, but the requirement to be President is “natural born Citizen”.

From the 14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.

But even as to this conveyance of citizenship, those who were responsible for drafting the 14th Amendment made it clear that - to them - the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant subject only to the jurisdiction thereof.

Dr. John Fonte, Senior Fellow of The Hudson Institute had this to say about the issue at a Congressional hearing on dual citizenship from September 29, 2005:

The authors in the legislative history, the authors of that language, Senator Lyman Trumbull said, ”When we talk about ’subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,’ it means complete jurisdiction, not owing allegiance to anybody else.” Senator Jacob Howard said that it’s ”a full and complete jurisdiction.”

This illustrates that Congress recently discussed the issue, and they can’t claim they were unaware. But we don’t have to take Dr. Fonte’s word for it. The following discussion by the various 14th Amendment Framers took place on the Senate floor. I took it from P.A. Madison’s research at http://www.14thamendment.us (use his link for footnotes):

It is clear the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil. Again, we are fortunate enough to have on the record the highest authority tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee... and the one who inserted the phrase:

[T]he provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ’subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Then Madison quotes Sen. Howard, another Framer, concurring with Trumbull:

Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull’s construction:

Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.[3]

Mr. Madison continues with even more proof of what the 14th Amendment Framers meant:

Sen. Johnson, speaking on the Senate floor, offers his comments and understanding of the proposed new amendment to the constitution:

[Now], all this amendment [citizenship clause] provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power–for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us–shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born to parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.[4]

No doubt in the Senate as to what the citizenship clause means as further evidenced by Sen. W. Williams:

In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States... All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, ’subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,’ to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.[5]

Madison saves for last the greatest authority on the issue:

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...[6]

It’s important to note this statement was issued by Bingham only months before the 14th Amendment was proposed.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The article then goes on to talk about a case where Justice Scalia made reference to a certain legal textbook in March, 2008, entitled "The Law of Nations". The footnote for the textbook reads in part...

E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, or, Principles of the Law of Nature 144 (1792)

According to the 'Preface to the 1999 Digital Edition' of this work...

This 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel is of special importance to scholars of constitutional history and law, for it was read by many of the Founders of the United States of America, and informed their understanding of the principles of law which became established in the Constitution of 1787.

In that textbook, we read the following discussion...

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

December 09, 2008

Hawkeye Theme Song

I found out that I now have my own theme music. This was performed by the Commodore 64 (C64) Orchestra live at 'The Paradiso' in Amsterdam, and recorded on July 5th, 2008. My special thanks to the composer for an excellent composition, and to the artists for a wonderful rendition. Turn up the speakers and click on the 'x' when you see the small ad appear at the bottom of the screen. To view the video in "Fullscreen" mode, click on the little box at the bottom, just to the left of the word "Menu". Enjoy...

Rumor has it that this piece was actually written several years ago. More about the C64 Orchestra HERE.

December 07, 2008

Global Warming News - November 2008

Real News Stories To Share With Global-Warming Skeptics

Global Warming Habits Succumb:
Harley Sundown at 'The Tundra Drums' noticed how the effects of a cooling pattern in Alaska changed things this year. He says...

I was really starting to enjoy global warming these past few years until this fall came. I had heard Anchorage people talk about an unusually cool summer that prevented them from walking around in their tank tops and bikinis. I noticed that the salmon berries were on schedule in Scammon Bay. We used to get them in August so many years ago, and after 20 years or so we finally got them on schedule this year.

Then moose season rolled around and I heard one of the hunting groups announce from Black River nearing the end of September that there were plenty of snow geese at their usual feeding spot at Manumik. I thought, “Hmmm, interesting, they usually don’t show up so early but a little later.” Then came another VHF talk between my brother-in-law and some hunters in Manumik near Black River that it was starting to ice up, and my brother-in-law told them to start heading out because of the icing. I went, “Hmmmm again.”

Reflecting on the years and how habits had been developed over the past global warming years, people were caught off guard when the cold weather came and stayed. By early to mid-October, the geese were already prepared to leave our area before people could do their yearly roundup of the white geese. Then came the freeze-up that started two weeks back and now has resulted in a full freeze... Somehow, I think my brother-in-law knew by the old way of observing that freeze-up may hit us and stay. The rest of us missed the boat and got frozen before we knew it.

MIT Scientists Baffled About Methane:

Methane Molecule
Scientists at MIT have recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels. This is the first increase in ten years, and what baffles science is that this data contradicts theories stating man is the primary source of increase for this greenhouse gas. It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. However, since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, it is now believed this may be part of a natural cycle in mother nature - and not the direct result of man's contributions.

The two lead authors of a paper published in the Geophysical Review Letters, Matthew Rigby and Ronald Prinn, the TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry in MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science, state that as a result of the increase, several million tons of new methane is present in the atmosphere. Methane accounts for roughly one-fifth of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, though its effect is 25x greater than that of carbon dioxide.

Prinn has said, "The next step will be to study [these changes] using a very high-resolution atmospheric circulation model and additional measurements from other networks." The primary concern now is that 2007 is long over. While the collected data from that time period reflects a simultaneous world-wide increase in emissions, observing atmospheric trends now is like observing the healthy horse running through the paddock a year after it overcame some mystery illness. Where does one even begin? And how relevant are any of the data findings at this late date?

One thing does seem very clear, however; science is only beginning to get a handle on the big picture of global warming. Findings like these tell us it's too early to know for sure if man's impact is affecting things at the political cry of "alarming rates." We may simply be going through another natural cycle of warmer and colder times - one that's been observed through a scientific analysis of the Earth to be naturally occurring for hundreds of thousands of years.

NASA-GISS Data Incorrect:
According to an article in the 'Telegraph' (UK), a "surreal scientific blunder raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming." On November 10th, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that the previous month was the hottest October on record.

This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.

A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. --Christopher Booker, The World Has Never Seen Such Freezing Heat, November 16th, 2008

As the article goes on to say, "This is an astonishing admission." NASA (the National Aeronautics and Space Administration) is an agency of the United States government, and responsible for the nation's public space program. Surely it has plenty of employees and a huge budget, and yet it does not have the resources comparable to those of two lone bloggers? An event like this brings into question the credibility of the entire GISS program and any findings it may produce.

Yet last week's latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen's methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s. --Christopher Booker, The World Has Never Seen Such Freezing Heat, November 16th, 2008

These revelations force some to conclude that NASA's GISS is no longer a scientific organization, but merely a political tool for those who push the Global Warming / Climate Change agenda.

New Film Rebuts Global Warming Hysteria:
A new Irish film claims that climate change guru Al Gore is an alarmist and that those who think they are saving the planet are only hurting the poor. If the advance publicity is anything to go by, 'Not Evil Just Wrong' will do for Al Gore what Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 did for George W Bush. "This is the film Al Gore and Hollywood don't want you to see," declares the website for the latest work by film-makers Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer...

The website goes on to say that their latest film - which takes on what are described as global warming alarmists - is "the most controversial documentary of the year". Indeed, it could very well be the most controversial. And Al Gore and Hollywood may well not want you to see it. And in that respect, Gore and co are actually succeeding for the moment. Because there is no completed film. Not yet anyway.

You can see a YouTube trailer HERE.

McElhinney and McAleer have raised almost $1 million (€799,000) but need a total of $4.5m (€3.6m) to allow for a full cinema release. They say they were acutely disappointed at being turned down for funding by the Irish Film Board, especially its conclusion that it was "repetitive and creatively thin". Instead, they have gone onto the internet hoping to solicit donations in the style of Barack Obama. The finished product will be around 90 minutes long. Both film-makers rebut the Film Board's criticism by pointing out that a near-complete version of the film has been chosen in the audience category at the Amsterdam Film Festival later this month.

However, for now, there is no finished product. And that creates a bit of a difficulty. The merits of the case put forward in the film can only be judged - for now - on a short trailer and on the spirited arguments put forward by its two creators, and not on the work itself.

Read more HERE.

'Freezing' At Global Warming Rally :
On November 18th, a small global warming rally was held near the U.S. Capitol that was said to be "freezing" cold. About 300 people were in attendance.

DC Global Warming Rally - Nov 18.

It looks like the "Gore Effect" made itself felt once again. For those of you who might not be aware it, here is the Urban Dictionary definition of the "Gore Effect"...

1. The phenomenon that leads to unseasonably cold temperatures, driving rain, hail, or snow whenever Al Gore visits an area to discuss global warming. Hence, the Gore Effect. --Urban Dictionary, Gore Effect

Here are a few examples of the Gore Effect...

- Australia, November 2006: Al Gore is visiting two weeks before summer begins. The Gore Effect strikes: "Ski resort operators gazed at the snow in amazement. Parents took children out of school and headed for the mountains. Cricketers scurried amid bullets of hail as Melburnians traded lunchtime tales of the incredible cold." (The Age)

- New York, March 2004: "Gore chose January 15, 2004, one of the coldest days in New York City's history, to rail against the Bush administration and global warming skeptics... Global warming, Gore told a startled audience, is causing record cold temperatures." (NY Environment News)

Here is how 'Luis' at 1Sky blog described the event...

Over 4,000 climate activists have been fanning out today throughout the country to welcome our newly-elected President and Congress and urge them to take bold climate action next year. More than 300 of them gathered near the U.S. Capitol today for a Climate Action Now rally co-sponsored by 1Sky, the Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN), 350, and other partner organizations. It was freezing in DC today (I should know -- I was there!)... --Luis, Climate Action Now DC rally: freezing, but fired up for change!, November 18th, 2008

The Killer Frost For Global Warming:
On November 21st in the Washington Times, Wesley Pruden opines about global warming. Here are a few exceprts...

Turn up the heat, somebody. The globe is freezing. Even Al Gore is looking for an extra blanket. Winter has barely come to the northern latitudes and already we've got bigger goosebumps than usual. So far the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reports 63 record snowfalls in the United States, 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month. Only 44 Octobers over the past 114 years have been cooler than this last one.

The polar ice is accumulating faster than usual, and some of the experts now concede that the globe hasn't warmed since 1995. You may have noticed, in fact, that Al and his pals, having given up on the sun, no longer even warn of global warming. Now it's "climate change." The marketing men enlisted by Al and the doom criers to come up with a flexible "brand" took a cue from the country philosopher who observed, correctly, that "if you've got one foot in the fire and the other in a bucket of ice, on average you're warm." On average, "climate change" covers every possibility.

This is similar to the science practiced by Dr. James Hansen at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the source of much of the voodoo that Al Gore has been peddling since the doctor showed up at a Senate hearing in 1988 and told ghost stories that Al swallowed whole. Only last month Dr. Hansen's institute announced that October was the hottest on record, and then said "uh, never mind". The London Daily Telegraph calls this "a surreal blunder [that] raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming."


It's clear now that the earth has been cooling for the past decade, to the sorrow of the special pleaders and despite everything Al can do about it. The solar cycle peaked, the sun is quieter, the sunspots have faded and everybody but Al is cooling off.

Even the United Nations says so. The director of the U.N.'s panel on climate change concedes that nature has overwhelmed everything man can do and it might even be another decade before man can rally and the warming resumes. Until then, like it or not, nature rules the cosmos. --Wesley Pruden, The Killer Frost For Global Warming, November 21st, 2008

You can read the whole article HERE.

Global Warming Greater Threat Than Terror?:
In a stinging analysis of former President Bill Clinton's assertion that Global Warming is a greater threat than terrorism, Marc Sheppard at the 'American Thinker' Blog raises some interesting points about global warming while at the same time repudiating Clinton's remarks...

Forgive me, as it's broken record time again -- but the warming experienced in the latter quarter of the 20th century ended in 1998. Furthermore, as of October's RSS satellite data, the 12 month global average temperature trend was cooler than last year and continuing its fall since 2005. And when the data for 2008 are released next month, it seems likely this year will confirm a mean annual decline over last... (Concerning Al Gore's response to such facts) we've come to expect what David Whitehouse so marvelously refers to as "data denial" from the Goracle.


But consider this graph, charting both NASA's Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) satellite and Britain's Hadley Climate Research Unit's ground station temperature data against atmospheric CO2 levels as measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii between 1998 and 2008. Its IPCC greenhouse orthodoxy-shredding depiction of steadily rising CO2 relative to flat or dipping temperatures after 1998 should, at the very least, stop the rabid attacks upon AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) apostates and open the debates that never really started despite alarmists' insistence already ended.

But nearly 10 years of actual measurements contradicting IPCC doctrine should also give those lending a decade-dead non-problem priority over the unthinkable threat of nuclear or germ terrorism pause. Alarmists shout loudly of a hypothetical CO2 level of 450 ppm representing a tipping point - supposedly triggering irreversible and cataclysmic global warming. But that the all too real catastrophic tipping point a nuclear capable al-Qaeda would represent poses the greater danger should be glaringly obvious.

Even to ex-presidents with a history of missing terrorism's warnings and ignoring repeated opportunities to capture or kill its most infamous and deadly architect. --Marc Sheppard, American Thinker, December 3rd, 2008

Global Warming vs. CO2; click to enlarge.

You can read the whole article HERE.

December 03, 2008

'View'ership On The Increase

According to statistics from Sitemeter, visits to 'View From Above' have increased steadily during the past year...

The blog's proprietor -- Mr. Eye® -- could not be reached for comment.

December 01, 2008

Good Article on Obama Birth Certificate

Found a good article at American Thinker...

Why The Barack Obama Birth Certificate Issue Is Legitimate.