Home

Advertisement

Who is more Liberal?

  • Mar. 3rd, 2008 at 6:08 PM
Jonathan


The two Democrat nominees are running on the left-wing, but the question is how far are the candidates?  I look to shed some light onto that question, by looking at their ratings from the American Conservative Union, Club For Growth, Citizens against Government Waste, American Civil Liberties Union, and National Journal (which has the only ratings published for the 2007 year).  All ratings are based on the senators voting record, and will be listed liberalness (a 12 from the American Conservative union is equivalento a 88 liberalness rating).
 BOHC
ACU9288
CAGW7086
C4G9392
ACLU8867
National Journal 200688 (10th in Senate)70 (32nd in Senate)
National Journal 200796 (1st in Senate)83 (16th in Senate)
Average87.833381
2006 Average86.280.6
I believe that the table above provides a clear understanding of where the candidates stand.  Evidently, both candidates ave moved to the left in 2007 (Clinton up 16, Obama most liberal - according to the National Journal), nonetheless, every siggnle one of the organizations which evaluated the Senators voting records rated Obama more liberal than Clinton with the exception of Citizens against Government Waste.  If you wish to check my work, feel free to visit their websites.

What makes a Conservative

  • Mar. 1st, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Jonathan
To a liberal, a conservative is someone who is a republican, and all they know is, "REPUBLICAN - NO GOOD". Nonetheless, liberals are mistaken, misguided, because Conservatives can also be Democrats (Zell Miller, former South Carolina Governor, or James Eastland, former Mississippi Senator) and they could also be Republican, but in reality Conservative is a philosophy about how the Government should be work.
Conservative Values:
1. Freedom - Conservatives believe in a limited Government, and a Government too big is not good, and a Government too small is not good either. They believe that not all the right answers are found in Washington D.C., also known as Federalism. As Abraham Lincoln once said, "A government that does everything for the people, can do anything to the people".
2. Fiscal Responsibility - This means no Earmarks. Earmarks are pet projects that are sneaked into a bill after the bill has already been passed; they always involve extra funding to a member of Congress' favorite causes, or something that directly benefits them. Over the last year, we have had some pretty radical earmarks under the new majority such as Gourmet Lunches for Children in Berkeley, a Museum run by a Congressman's wife, a Museum for a horse, Hippies Museum, and a "Monument to me" (Charles Rangel (D-NY) got funding to make a building, with a library about Charles Rangel, and a office for himself) - those are just to name a few examples. The Earmark process has, in my humble opinion, corrupted Washington Politics, to the point where it is running rampant.  Encompassed in Fiscal responsibility, is the Government takes less money from the people. 
3. God - Family Values. Now, a liberal is jumping up and down saying "What about Separation of Church and State"? Well, my liberal friend, separation of church & state was saying that the federal government could not pick Baptist religion over Catholic, or Methodist, or Catholic over Baptist (etc.); in other words, it was meant to protect the church from the state - not the state from the church. It is not any more complicated than that, now, liberals from the ACLU, are trying to change the meaning.
A Conservative will interpret the constitution as saying that our rights come from God, NOT from government, inasmuch as it says in the Declaration of Independence,
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
We are endowed by our creator (God) unalienable rights, which means that we are given, by god, rights for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  It is not complicated.
4. Strong National Defense - Peace Through Strength.  It has been known for years that Peace through Strength is the strongest, most effective way to win a war, an example is Richard Nixon vs. Soviet Russia, Nixon tried  peace  through give Russia what they wanted, and he failed miserably.  However, Ronald Reagan tried a Peace Through Strength, built up the U.S. Military, and less than ten years later, the Cold War was over.  Another example, can be the Bay of Pigs (Cuba) during the Kennedy administration, and the invasion of  Grenada, and El Salvador during the Reagan Administration. 

Why Socialized Medicine?

  • Oct. 20th, 2007 at 11:03 PM
Jonathan
I have been thinking about it, and I just cannot understand why so many people support socialized medicine. We all have one common goal that we want all American to have quality, affordable Health Care.
Frankly, the idea of socialized medicine sounds really good at first, but it is specious. But, when all is said and done, socialized medicine is more about turning America into the likes of Socialist Europe. I think that we, as the people of the United States of America should question why in the world we want it. Firstly, we all know that Socialized Meidicne means that the government provides the Health Care. I now pose a question to you....
Do you want the same government that ran the Katrina Clean Up... or runs the post office, or spends thousands of dollars for a hammer at the Pentagon. Do you want that same government to be providing your Health Care? Frankly, I don't!
When all is said and one, at the end of the day, the 110th Congress has made unaffordable and inaccessible to the average American Citizen. As an example, before, they had measures in place so that companies who did not offer health care benefits to the American people were given money to give to their workers, to buy their own personal heatlh care. Also, it has reduced the tax deductions that a business gets if it offers their workers a Health Care plan. And now, they come up with a brilliant solution, Socialized Health Care.
Advocates of Socialized medicine say that it is great, and There is only one flag I support... The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FLAGthat we can Split the difference, but as Senator Jim Demint perfectly says,
You cannot Split the Difference between freedom and Socialism
He is exactly right.  You cannot.  The fact is that socialized health care is selling out the future of America.  It is selling out the future of American health Care.  It is Not the right answer, it is an attempt to move America closer to a Socialistic style of government, taking away our freedoms, and pretending to do something that we are not.  Socialized Medicine is Not the answer to our health care problems.

Mike Huckabee is Not My Candidate

  • Oct. 20th, 2007 at 10:11 PM
Jonathan
Mike Huckabee seems to have established himself as a Conservative.  Maybe he is, and maybe the evangelicals support him, but in reality, they haven't done their homework.  Mike Huckabee, when he was governor of Arkansas, did some things that I do not approve of. 
Power Hungry Guru Crossing the Line
Him and his wife, Janet Huckabee ran for two offices.  He ran for re-election as Governor (and won), while his wife ran for Secretary of State for Arkansas (which she eventually lost).  It is simply to much power in one families hands. Firstly, it is, to be frank, spurious that anyone in their right mind could think of doing something like that.  It shows me that he is clearly on a power-hunt, and is not the right man for the job.
Okay, so, you may ask, aren't all of the people running for president power-hungry people?  Well, I must admit, quite often that is the case (unfortunately).  But seriously, when all is said and done, one family running for 2 high-level offices in a small state?  This transcends anything remotely related to just a little power hungry like the other candidates, this is leaning toward wanting to be the monarch of the state!
Moreover, in his election campaigns, he has broken the law.  He did not report paying money to his wife, Janet Huckabee, during one of his elections.
Illegal Immigrant Supporter
Also, he was a supporter of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS very recently - 2005.  In his State of the State address (2005), he piss and moaned about an illegal immigrant, who did not receive financial aid, saying,
"But when he applied for financial aid, he wasn’t eligible for the various scholarships or grants because of his status, a status that he had no decision in or control over."
It seems quite clear to me that he is simply a amnesty for illegals supporter.  Also, to worsen the matters, when State Senator Jim Holt authored a bill to omit state benefits to ILLEGAL immigrants, Huckabee was through and through, an illegal alien supporter.  He was adamantly opposed to the idea.
Fiscally Conservative What a Joke!
He claims (falsely) to be fiscally conservative.  Just the fact that he raised taxes 65.5% during his reign as Governor.  He has also supported a number of tax increases.  In my view, that is unacceptable.

Overall, Mike Huckabee has a shaky record, and he is not the right candidate for me.

Analyzing 2008 (cont.) Democrat candidates

  • Oct. 20th, 2007 at 10:07 PM
Jonathan
Democrat Candidates

This year, the democrat candidates consist of Senators Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Dodd, and a few others. Nonetheless, similar to what I have done for the Republican candidates, I will only analyze the top tier candidates: Senators Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and Al Gore, whom I doubt will run for the white house.

Senator Clinton: Senator Clinton, former first lady, is a senator from New York. She has been elected, and
re-elected in the United States Senate, and is up for re-election in 2012. Hillary approaches the 2008 Democratic primaries in charge. She seems like (from my point of view) the most likely democrat nominee. Here is what Senator Clinton stands for, she stands for Quality Affordable Healthcare for all Americans, withdraw from Iraq, stopping Global Warming, and how bad President Bush is. She also seems to be especially strong on her womens rights policies. Should she win, she will be the first female to become president of the United States, and her husband, Bill Clinton, will become the first first man... Is She your gal? Support Hillary? - Click Here!

Senator Obama: Barack Obama is a senator from the state from Illinois. He won the senate election in 2004, and is a "junior senator" from Illinois. He stands for things similar to Hillary - quality Affordable Healthcare for all Americans, withdraw from Iraq, stopping Global Warming, how bad Bush is. He also stands for a path to amnesty for illegal immigrants, and womens rights, although, from my point of view, he is not quite to the same level as Hillary when it comes to womens rights. Should he become president, he will be the first African-American President America has ever had.

Islamic Extremism - their war against America

  • Aug. 25th, 2007 at 10:22 PM
Jonathan
September 11, 2001 - The day Islamic Extremist declared war on America. America retaliated, yet we still have not found Osama Bin Laden. In February 2003, Colin Powell addressed the United Nations. The United Nations inspectors went to Iraq to investigate an Iraq - Nuclear weapons. When they went, they were turned down, and forced to go away by Saddam Hussein. So Why may I ask you? Why if he did not have the nuclear weapons did he not allow the U.N. inspectors?
Most likely, he had them, and either transported them to neighboring countries ,such as Iran, or Syria, or he possibly destroyed them. I also wonder, nothing is said about the fact that the United States Senate voted 77 - 23 in favor of invading Iraq, meanwhile the House vote was 293 Yeas - 133 Nays. Those numbers are overwhelming. The Yeas came from even extreme-leftists such as Senators Clinton, Feinstein, Schumer and many more. Soon after, the United States, along with England, Poland, Australia, Denmark, South Korea, Georgia, El Salvador, Czech Republic, Azerbaijan, Latvia, Albania, Lithuania, Armenia, Bosnia/Herzegovina, Estonia, Macedonia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Slovakia, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Japan, Norway, Philippines, Singapore and many others, invaded Iraq.
In present debates for the 2008 primaries, Republicans are consistently asked, "Knowing what we know now, Would you have invaded Iraq?" Well, that is a hypothetical situation, if Saddam allowed U.N. inspectors in, then we would've found out that they had no nuclear weapons, and that he was all just talk. Nonetheless, he, in his ignorance, thought that the U.S. was all just talk, but he soon found out he was wrong.
In early 2007, President Bush was mulling, what he should do. He met with many senators, namely Senator McCain. Senator McCain, who is now running for president, first went to Iraq in 2003, and at that time, he proposed that we add more troops. You can see his letter to then-Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsefeld Here.  He had advocated for this for a long time, and finally, in 2007, President Bush jumped on board. When the senate approved this strategy, with General David Petraeus as the lead general (in Iraq - Secretary of Defense is Robert Gates), Liberals and Conservatives alike came out saying that they did not wish for more troops to be added.
Now, the troop surge is going well, according to reports coming out of Iraq. Candidates are flip-flopping on this issue. Liberals still criticize President Bush because he is a Republican, while Conservatives criticize him for his policy on amnesty. The media won't report the fact that Iraq is going well due to their extreme Against-Bush bias. Doesn't it sound about time that we give credit where the credit is due? Senator McCain - the mastermind of the troop insurgence. Or even President Bush, who was the person who put life in the idea.
For those of you who do not like the troop surge plan, which I at first was skeptical of.  What out plan is there?  If you would take time to listen to Senator McCain or Thompson, you could learn a few things like I did.  In Iraq, losing is not an option.  Whether we like it or not, we are the leaders of the free world, and it is common knowledge that if we do not win there, it will just follow us home.  Therefore, we must win there.  That is why the troop insurgence in Iraq must be supported.  It is the last best chance.
Meanwhile, Iran has been sending weapons across the Iraq-Iran border for the Sunni and Shiite Extremists groups to use to kill American Soldiers. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates commented:
"the volume of weapons reaching the Taliban from Iran made it difficult to believe that the shipments were taking place without the knowledge of the Iranian Government" (inferring that the shipments were huge.)

Which brings us to another question, should we attack Iraq?
In Iraq we have Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Here are some quotes from Iranian President Ahmadinejad:
"We have 40,000 sleeper-cells [suicide bombers] and we are ready to release them on Western civilization"  - means they have 40 thousand suicide bombers ready to blow up in western cities
"Prove the me that the Holocaust was real"
"We should wipe Israel off the map"

I cannot imagine anyone agreeing with him!  Whether we like it or not, Israel is an ally of ours, in fact, a very important one, as they are one of the few allies we have in the Middle East.  There must be some sort of United Nations inspection on Iran going nuclear.  I do not want to know what he will do with those bombs.  he has already said that he wants to wipe Israel off the map!  Should we engage in war with Iran?  If you ask me, Yes...
Jonathan
Michael Moore has released yet another anti-American documentary. Where do I begin? Moore uses dirty tricks to get his information, such as rewording an article to make the author's opinions sound like the author was stating facts, (see Farenheight 9/11), or another example is cutting a U.S soldier off in the middle of an interview, rewording it, and making it sound like the soldier did not like the commander and chief of the United States Military.
His newest installment attacks the United States health care program. Holding up England, Canada, and even Cuba as a role model, which the United States should follow.

What Michael Moore does not tell you is that according to the ranking members of the Canadian Health Program have described the state of Health care in Canada as:

In A State of Crisis

Well, you may ask, he also hold up England as a potential role model, which the United States should follow, but once again, fails to mention how ranking members of the British Health Care Program describe their Health Care system as

In A State of Crisis

Not only is it what Michael says misleading, and 1/4 truths, it is poor research.
I don't even want to go into Cuba, please! Him and his buddy Castro, who knows what is going on behind closed doors?

    But lets set that all aside, and look at the facts.  A Universal Health Care is not universal, you are still paying for it in your taxes, it does not go away.  So, what ends of happening is that the people who are rich and make more money (obviously) will pay more money in taxes, while the poor will pay less money.  Yet the rich and poor both get the exact same health care.  Let me put it in mathematical terms for you:
Say taxes takes (for sake of round numbers) 50% of your hard earned dollars.
Lets say Joe makes 10 Million dollars a year.
While Bob makes 10 thousand dollars a year.

Joe pays 5 million dollars a year, while Bob pays 5 thousand a year, and they get the same product.  Does that sound fair?  It is not fair to the people who are hard working, did well in school, and are very successful in life.

Being Pro-Life is no Vice!

  • Aug. 18th, 2007 at 4:16 PM
Jonathan
    One political issue that seems to be very controversial is abortion.  It is also known as Roe v. Wade.  According to a number of congressmen and senators - Brownback, Tacredo are a few examples - there have been 45 Million unborn babies killed in Abortion Clinics.
    I do not believe that killing unborn babies is correct.  Let me explain how many 45 million babies is.  That is approximately 15 % of the United States population.  I firmly do not believe that is right.  Who can say that killing babies is ok?  America doesn't have that many people as it is, why do we want to kill 15% of what we already have?  Let me put it in a different light:

Population of China    :  1.4 Billion
Population of India      :  1.1 Billion
Population of America:  0.3 Billion or 300 Million

    As more and more babies are killed each and every day in abortion clinics, we are losing power, we need all the people we can get.  Yet what we do not need is more and more illegal aliens coming into the country illegally straining the states on the US-Mexico border.  The rich of America are importing these illegals in order to backfill the loss of these babies, which for all we know could possibly become maybe a U.S. Senator, or Congressman.  We do not know, and all babies deserve a right to live.
    If anyone has studied their history, they know how wars are won and lost.  It is common knowledge that wars are won and lost by numbers.  How many people a specific country has.  How many people you have to kill the enemy.  As China and India are becoming stronger and stronger, many believe that China and (definitely) India have Nuclear Weapons, and they are building up their military to go to war with America.  If we do not have population, we will lose in the end.

Abortion is not only a liberal propaganda codeword for taking a knife it a baby, but it also is taking a knife to society.

Election 2008

  • Aug. 18th, 2007 at 3:16 AM
Jonathan
The Presidential elections for 2008 drawing near, I want to look at every single candidate that is declared for the Republican party.  I will try my best to evaluate the candidates and pick the nominee.  I want to first start with saying that I will include Fred Thompson. 


Republican Party

    Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani:  Rudy Giuliani, also known as "Americas Mayor", was almost not heard of until September 11, 2001.  When The world trade centers came crumbling down, and our nation was under attack.  During his reign as mayor he was a prominent supporter of illegal immigration.  In 2007, he has changed his views, also, as mayor, he was pro-choice, and against homosexual marriage.  Now, on many of those hot-topic issues, Rudy Giuliani has changed his views, and Former Governor Mitt Romney has called him on it.  Despite that, he seems to have managed to stay the front-runner in the republican national polls.  Like every candidate, he has his pros and his cons.  He seems to really appeal to the moderates, and do very good in "swing states".  I believe that he has the best chance to win in the general election.  I would give Rudy Giuliani 30% chances to win the nomination.  If you like Rudy http://www.joinrudy2008.com

    Former Senator Fred Thompson: Fred Thompson announced on The Jay Leno Show, announced that he was running for President of the United States. In June 2007, he announced that he is "testing the waters" and made http://www.imwithfred.com.  Many people support him such as Talk Show Host Sean Hannity.  Fred Thompson is regarded by most people as a true conservative.  He has been pro-second amendment, pro-life, yet he believes that when it comes to the issue of abortion that the states should decide.  He also is skeptical about man-made Global Warming.  I believe that Fred Thompson has a about a 25% chance of winning the nomination. 

    Senator John McCain:  John McCain, whom talk show host Michael Savage has called McKennedy, is a senior senator from Arizona.  He attempted to carry the "Goldwater Legacy".  Many true conservatives believe that he is just a complete joke in the aspect.  In the year 2000, he ran in the Republican Primaries, and lost to then Governor George Bush.  Obviously, he lost, but he gained a national following.  In 2007, Senator McCain is now running for president again.  Unfortunately for the Arizona Senator, he made a  major mistake.  He committed campaign suicide; He supported the Amnesty for illegal aliens Bill.  Also known as the McCain-Kennedy Bill.  On the bright side for Senator McCain, it was Senator McCain who supported the troop insurgence in Iraq, and now we are getting reports back from Iraq, saying that things are going good.  It was Senator McCain who convinced President Bush that the Troop Insurgence was the right plan. At times of war, Senator McCain would be a great President, as he was tortured by the North Vietnamese for 5+ years.  He probably would've been better than George Bush.  But looking back, everything is easy.  Unfortunately, many have a very unfavorable opinion of him after the immigration bill.  I say he has 20% chance to win the nomination.  If you like Senator McCain, http://www.johnmccain.com/

    Former Governor Mitt Romney:  Mitt Romney is the former Governor of Massachusetts.  His education
includes doing a double-major in Harvard Business and Law.  He has a lot of money, and was able to jump-start his campaign, with advertisements in the first states that vote - New Hampshire, Iowa etc.  He was pro-choice his whole life until 2005, when he made a 180 degree turn, and switched positions to pro-choice.  I am just using abortion issues as an example.  He has flip-flopped on many issues.  Many consider him all over the map on crucial issues.  Despite this, he has managed to win the Iowa Straw Poll, and could potentially gain some momentum from the straw poll, and possibly win the Republican nomination.  He is taking on "true conservative" positions on hot issues such as abortion, homosexual marriage, illegal immigration etc.  Now, he has jumped on board with Senator McCain, with supporting the troop surge.  Yet I believe that he will not stand against the democratic nominee, which will most likely be Hillary.  I give Governor Romney a 25% chance of taking the nomination.  Support Mitt?  http://www.mittromney.com

Global Warming... man made?

  • Aug. 17th, 2007 at 2:43 AM
Jonathan
By Jonathan Soo Hoo
If there is anything here that is misleading, (ie. a quote, which I took from the Documentary, "The Great Global Warming Swindle". email me, and it will be removed - soo.hoo.j@nojunkgmail.com, of course, remove "nojunk") - Thanks Jonathan.  Also note, graphs are taken from that
documentary also, if those are misleading, or not true, please tell me.

I have "learned" about it in school, and have listened with open ears to both sides of the Global Warming debate. Many times, I have preached my views, quoting Scientists, and a common answer has been, "well thats one scientist, what about the other Scientists?" Well I will respond to that with a different approach. It is not just one scientist, and it has not been proven without a doubt, when you hear that, it is just propaganda. Let me be clear, I do not plan to convince you, because despite all of this evidence, I have always found it hard to convince a person that is not willing to be convinced. If you will open your ears to me, maybe I can convince you.

Al Gore's main argument is that When the CO2 goes up, the temperature goes up. I disagree. It seems to me and many other scientists that the CO2 follows temperature.
In order for me to convince you, we must go to the root cause of CO2 in this atmosphere. Q: So, what is the biggest producer of CO2?
Despite all we hear that the manufacturing companies are the largest producer of CO2 in the world is totally wrong. The largest producer of CO2 is actually the Oceans. Here is a list:
  1. Oceans
  2. Volcanoes
  3. Animals / Bacteria (150 gigatons of CO2 each year)
  4. Dying Leaves
  5. Factories 6.5 gigatons each year
"humans produce a small fraction in the single digits compared to the CO2 in the atmosphere" - Professor John Christy, Lead Author, IPCC

Now you may ask Q: Why the Oceans?
The Oceans takes in 90% of the sun's CO2, obviously, it lets it out as well.
Delay of CO2 following temperature, because of the oceans.
By: NASA, Ice core records from Vostok

The Oceans are by far the largest part of our planet. They take up 3/4 of this planets surface. And don't forget the Oceans are very deep. Therefore, they release the CO2 anywhere from 800 - 10,000 years later. Or as Professor Carl Wensch (Professor of Oceanography at MIT, author of 4 major textbooks on oceanography) put it:
"The Ocean is the major resivuare into which the carbon dioxide goes when it comes out of the atmosphere or to, for which, it is readmitted to the atmosphere. If you heat the surface of the ocean, it releases more carbon dioxide, if you cool it, the ocean can dissolve more carbon dioxide. The oceans has a memory of events running out as far as 10,000 years."

So, If the CO2 is not driving the climates, What is?
The Solar activity (number of sun spots) matches up almost identically to the temperature. 150 years
By: Danish National Space Centre (Center).

The answer lies in the sun. The Danish National Space center decided to compile a record of solar activity in the 20th century. Here is their results, compared with the temperature...
Then, people said, "Hey! This must've just been a coincidence." So, they decided to extend it to 400 years using astronomical records.
To the left: The Solar activity (number of sun spots) matches up almost identically to the temperature. 400 years
By: Danish National Space Centre (Center).

To The right: The Temperature vs CO2 (20th century only)
by: Astrophysicists from Harvard University





Above: Comparing the CO2 with temperature, and the Sunspots with temperature.
Astrophysicists from Harvard University & NASA & Americas National Oceanic and Atmospheric association
But why? is the question, Why does the more sunspots mean that it is hotter on earth?
There are a number of reasons, but I will limit myself to just 2. The First is that the sun spot (more solar activity) creates more pressure, and powerful winds blowing the sun's heat to the Earth. The second is the fact that it makes less clouds form. Why does it make less clouds form?
To the Right and Left: Compares the amount of cosmic rays to the temperature.
By: Shaviv & Veizer
Information on Ján Veizer and Nir Shaviv.
Ján Veizer is an emeritus professor of Earth Sciences at the University of Ottawa and holder of the NSERC/Noranda/CIAR Industrial Chair in Earth System Isotope and Environmental Geochemistry. He is one of the world leaders in isotope geochemistry and its use in determining Earth's climatic and environmental history.
Nir Shaviv is an Israeli associate professor of physics, carrying out research in the fields of astrophysics and climate science. He is currently an associate professor at the Racah Institute of Phy
sics of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

In the 1920s, Scientists were pondering this very same question. What they found was that the earth is constantly being bombarded by subatomic particles. They called these partials cosmic rays. When Cosmic rays hit the water molecule, they formed clouds. So, when the Sun's solar activity was greater (more sun spots), the cosmic rays were blown farther, and there were therefore less clouds. The relationship between the amount of cosmic rays and temperature became clear only recently, when Ján Veizer, and Nir Shaviv put their records of Cosmic rays and Temperature together. In order to see how close, just flip the lines...
How close the relationship is between Temperature and Cosmic Rays
If this is so simple, why are we constantly told that it is proved without a doubt by the media?
We don't have to go any farther then Former News Writer/Editor Nigel Calder, who is now a new Scientist.
"In the Weather Machine, we reported the mainstream opinion of the time"
That means that they just report what you want to hear, or whatever improves their ratings. For example, they were reporting Global Cooling 40 years ago, because if we take a look at the graphs, the temperature was going down.
Why Then does the IPCC say differently?
I was horrified of the 2nd and 3rd assessment reports because there was so much misinformation without any kind of recourse or virtually without mention of scientists literature.. literature by specialists in this fields.
In a letter to the Wall Street Journal, Professor Frederick Seitz, former president of Americas national academy of Sciences says IPCC had censured comments of many scientists.
"This Report is not what it apears to be— it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page."
He concluded that,
"I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of peerreview process than the events that led to this IPCC report"
They deleted sections such as,
"None of the studies cited above show clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific causes of increase in grenhouse gases"
or
"No Study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate changes observed to date to anthropogenic man-made causes."

In responce, the IPCC admitted that they did make these deletions. We don't have to go any farther than Professor Paul Reiter - IPCC & Pasteur Institute (Paris) or Professor Richard Lindzen, MIT, IPCC.
Richard Lindzen said, "In order to build the number up to 2,500 people, they have to start taking reviewers and government people and so on or anyone who even came close to them. None of them are asked to aggre"
You look at the bibliographies of the people [that have their name on the IPCC report]and its simply not true. There are quite a number of nonscientists"
professor Reiter further continued, "When I resigned from the IPCC, I thought that was the end of it, but when I saw the final draft, my name was still there. So I asked for it to be removed, but they said that I had contributed... Finally, I had to threaten legal action against them and they removed my name. Those people who are specialists and don't agree and resign are simply put on the author list and become part of this worlds top 2,500 scientists."
To conclude this we can see that the IPCC is a U.N. organization with an unfair bias, and their conclusions are always politically driven.
Well Thats because Chevron and other oil companies payed them!
Well, we don't have to go any farther then Professor Tim Ball
"I sometimes hear that well 'you must be one of this who are payed by Cheveron.' I joke, I wish they would, so then I would be able to afford their product"


Finally, I would like to finish this off with answering the first question posed, well that is just one scientist, my answer is can you list me names of some scientists, that support the man-made global warming theory that doesn't sit in front of computers all day and estimate the temperature. temperature record of the Earth's climate as shown below.

By: Ice core records from Vostok, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change


If you want more information on this topic http://www.nrsp.com/ is a great place to start and be converted, and break away from Al Gore's propaganda.



Source:
The Great Global Warming Swindle Documentary - Channel 4 UK - by Martin Durkin
Unstoppable Global Warming - Professor Fred S. Singer, and Professor Dennis T. Avery

Illegal Immigration

  • Aug. 17th, 2007 at 2:34 AM
Jonathan
By Jonathan Soo Hoo

Lets make it clear, our borders are broken, we must do something about it, as there is an estimated 500 thousand - 1 million illegal immigrants that pass across the border unchecked each and every year.

The Presidents latest bill is clearly stated int these following terms:
Illegal Immigrants must...
a) pass a national security check;
b) apply for a Z-visa that allows them to stay in the U.S. legally;
c) work or get an education;
d) pay taxes;
e) learn English
f) pay a fine of $5000, plus processing fees of at least $3000;
g) not commit crimes;
h) reapply and undergo additional background checks;
i) return to their home country for a "touch-back" for at least a day, to submit their application, provide a fingerprint, biographical and biometric information;
j) and earn enough points under the same merit system that all future applicants will use.

There is a problem, when they have crossed the U.S. - Mexico border illegally, that is simply illegal and they have already broken the law. The "touch back" will not do anything. It will not work, because we have no guarantees that they will even go back. In fact, you may argue that they had to to submit their applications, but if we cannot find that information within 24 hours, they will automatically get their Z-visa.

Many people have argued that the illegals from Mexico are keeping our economy afloat. Yet those claims have failed to be backed up by any evidence, and are, to be frank, spurious. The National Research Council researched this topic. Their Conclusions were that immigration is rather insignificant on our economy.

Senator Feinstein clearly stated how they had to pay a $5,000 fee plus a 3,000 processing fee, but in the long run according to Robert Rector (Heritage Foundation), it will cost the U.S. Government 2.5 Trillion dollars. That is a huge sum of money. I quote.

"Giving amnesty to illegal immigrants would increase the costs outlined in this testimony. Some 50 to 60 percent of illegal immigrants lack a high school degree. Granting amnesty or conditional amnesty to illegal immigrants would, overtime, increase their use of means-tested welfare, Social Security and Medicare. Fiscal costs would go up significantly in the short term but would go up dramatically after the amnesty recipient reached retirement. Based on my current research, I estimate that if all the current adult illegal immigrants in the U.S. were granted amnesty the net retirement costs to government (benefits minus taxes) could be over $2.5 trillion."

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/tst052107a.cfm

It adds 14,000 new border patrol agents over the process of 5 years, which I personally think is good, but it is simply to slow. if I did my math correctly, that is on average 700 border patrol agents per year. But that is not it, when a border patrol agent does his job, such as Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean. The border patrols that will be hired will not shoot, because they don't want to end up like Ramos and/or Compean.

Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean end up in jail for shooting a drug smuggler, after they told him to stop. Yet it gets better, now the same drug smuggler is suing the government for 5 million dollars. But President Bush fiddles while Rome burns... Those heroes should be pardoned. In fact, it is interesting, because President Bush was the one who really was pursuing Ramos and Compean. This shows signs of a broken government, a broken administration, and an ignorant president.

Another very good reason is that when the illegal immigrants cross the border, they are arriving on a gold mine. They are paying an approximated $8,000 in taxes each and every year to the federal government, yet the government is paying them a whopping $30,000 a year due to the broken policies of Welfare. That is a 22,000 dollar gap. We must do something about this. Each high school drop out that we give amnesty to bares an approximately 1 Million dollar price tag according to Robert Rector, Immigration Analyst (the benefits (s)he receives minus the taxes (s)he pays).

Despite the fact that America opens their arms (which I will remind you I am against) to these illegal aliens, they are not law abiding people as you the media has depicted them to be. They are not law abiding. I heard many stories of illegals going into shopping malls and shooting law abiding citizens of this country, and then the ACLU lawyer gets them off with a mere slap on the wrist, with lines such as "We need to be SENSITIVE to his culture" or "We must've been a little bit discriminatory" or "Oh poor OPPRESSED MINORITY". When they don't have the ACLU lawyer, they get sentenced to jail, which is a slim percent of the population. Nonetheless, still the federal jails hold 30% illegal aliens from Mexico. While the Orange County Jails (Los Angeles) holds 70% illegal aliens. It makes me puke.

Our government has already had almost 6 years of Bush's Spending Policy (Spend, and don't stop). We cannot afford this.

We draw our conclusions, and they are inescapable... I will never support giving amnesty to the illegal aliens, if you want to, you go gather with your friends and split the 2.5 trillion dollars. Leave me out of it, I do not want to pay that kind of money.

So, what is your solution? What should we do?

The solution to the immigration problem is very simple. Just simply follow the laws.
a) crack down on companies that are hiring the illegals, follows the laws! It is the law.
b) cut off any funding to "sanctuary cities", and put all the mayors of those cities on trial, it is aiding and abiding, it is breaking the law.

The result is that the illegals will simply turn around and go home, because the sole reason that they had come to America was to make money, get a job. With the reason to come here gone, they will go home to Mexico. Problems Solved. If they stay here, they must be deported.

Well, we cannot do that!

Federal Express, USPS, etc. everyday tracks packages. Lets say, they get maybe10 million packages a day across the nation. Now, lets be honest, we all have checked where our package is online in a matter of seconds. Lets use logic here... the mail service companies are able to track packages that are moving.
Now, we come to the U.S. Government, who claims that they cannot find the illegal aliens. There are 20 million aliens in this country already. The illegal aliens are not moving, as they go back to the same place that they call, "home". But, for sake of argument, although it will be many more, lets say half go back to Mexico, thats 10 million.
So let me get this straight.
a) Federal Express and other mail service companies are able to track 70 million packages a week (7 x 10 million), moving.
b) while the U.S. government cannot track 10 million illegals, not moving

How ridiculous is that?

Profile

Jonathan
[info]jrsoohoo
jrsoohoo

Latest Month

March 2008
S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031