Al Gore frozen out of the Senate

Newsflash from the Drudge Report, file this one under irony.

GORE HEARING ON WARMING MAY BE PUT ON ICE

Mon Jan 26 2009 17:59:26 ET

Al Gore is scheduled before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday morning to once again testify on the 'urgent need' to combat global warming.

But Mother Nature seems ready to freeze the proceedings.

A 'Winter Storm Watch' has been posted for the nation's capitol and there is a potential for significant snow... sleet... or ice accumulations.

"I can't imagine the Democrats would want to showcase Mr. Gore and his new findings on global warming as a winter storm rages outside," a Republican lawmaker emailed the DRUDGE REPORT. "And if the ice really piles up, it will not be safe to travel."

A spokesman for Sen. John Kerry, who chairs the committee, was not immediately available to comment on contingency plans.

Global warming advocates have suggested this year's wild winter spells are proof of climate change.

Sunday's Truth

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction."

Proverbs 1:7 (King James Version)

Today's Truth

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

Benjamin Franklin - (1706-1790)

US Founding Father, author, printer, satirist, political theorist, politician, scientist, inventor, statesman and diplomat.

Obama - rank Constitutional hypocrite?

My friends, President Obama is more than familiar with the Constitution of the United States of America, not only is the former Senator now the President, he also taught Constitutional Law as a Professor at the University of Chicago Law School for more than a decade.

In his Inaugural Address he said the following about the Oath of Office he had just taken:

The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears, and true to our founding documents.

He continued, later in his address:

Our founding fathers faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake.

All very interesting, but here's what I don't get. We now hear that in a meeting with Congressional Republicans on Friday called to discuss the proposed stimulus package, the President warned them about their sources of information by saying:

You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done.

That's not all, it is also reported that he said to fellow Democrats:

If we don't get this done we could lose seats and I could lose re-election. But we can't let people like Rush Limbaugh stall this. That's how things don't get done in this town.

So there you have it, a Professor of Constitutional Law becomes President of the United States of America and tells his fellow Americans of the importance of the Constitution, especially at times of crisis no matter what expediency might dictate. He then proceeds totally to ignore any concept of the Separation of Powers riding roughshod over the Constitution's system of "checks and balances" to tell other elected officials how to behave, despite their consciences, constituents and mandates, and ties it to his re-election chances in 2012.

Nice. Obama, the change America needed?

Today's Truth

"No man will ever bring out of the Presidency the reputation which carries him into it."

Thomas Jefferson - (1743-1826)
US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President

Hitchens isn't sorry that George W. Bush was President

My friends, allow me to direct you to the latest piece by that always excellent champion of truth, Christopher Hitchens at Slate.com (Why I’m not sorry that George W. Bush beat Al Gore and John Kerry, January 19 2009). On the eve of the inauguration of the candidate for whom he voted he skewers, with typical intellectual honesty, the lie that the world would necessarily have been a better place had either of Dubya’s opponents beaten him.

Unmoved by the current tidal wave of hatred directed towards the former President, Hitchens begins:

“…on the last day of his presidency, I want to say why I still do not wish that Al Gore had beaten George W. Bush in 2000 or that John Kerry had emerged the victor in 2004.

“We are never invited to ask ourselves [in Oliver Stone’s W.] what would have happened if the Democrats had been in power that fall. But it might be worth speculating for a second. The Effective Death Penalty and Anti-Terrorism Act, rushed through both Houses by Bill Clinton after the relative pin prick of the Oklahoma City bombing, was correctly described by the American Civil Liberties Union as the worst possible setback for the cause of citizens' rights. Given that precedent and multiplying it for the sake of proportion, I think we can be pretty sure that wiretapping and water-boarding would have become household words, perhaps even more quickly than they did, and that we might even have heard a few more liberal defenses of the practice. I don't know if Gore-Lieberman would have thought of using Guantanamo Bay, but that, of course, raises the interesting question—now to be faced by a new administration—of where exactly you do keep such actually or potentially dangerous customers, especially since you are not supposed to "rendition" them. There would have been a nasty prison somewhere or a lot of prisoners un-taken on the battlefield, you can depend on that.

“We might have avoided the Iraq war, even though both Bill Clinton and Al Gore had repeatedly and publicly said that another and conclusive round with Saddam Hussein was, given his flagrant defiance of all the relevant U.N. resolutions, unavoidably in our future. And the inconvenient downside to avoiding the Iraq intervention is that a choke point of the world economy would still be controlled by a psychopathic crime family that kept a staff of WMD experts on hand and that paid for jihadist suicide bombers around the region. In his farewell interviews, President Bush hasn't been able to find much to say for himself on this point, but I think it's a certainty that historians will not conclude that the removal of Saddam Hussein was something that the international community ought to have postponed any further. (Indeed, if there is a disgrace, it is that previous administrations left the responsibility undischarged.)

“…And the collapse of our financial system has its roots in a long-ago attempt, not disgraceful in and of itself, to put home ownership within reach even of the least affluent. So the old question "compared to what?" does not allow too much glibness.”

The general thrust of the lack of his regret is that nobody can say, hand on heart, things would have been better without Bush. It’s not intended as an actual defence, merely an appeal for honesty when those reviewing his record take it as Gospel truth that the alternatives would have been better. Why does he want such honesty (other than for its own sake)? He concludes:

"Inescapable as it is, "compared to what?" isn't much of a defense. And nor has this column been intended exactly as a defense, either. It's just that there's an element of hubris in all this current hope-mongering and that I am beginning to be a little bit afraid to think of what Wednesday morning will feel like."

Former President Chirac mauled by critic

In fact, my friends, the attack was so brutal that the 76 year old ex-President was temporarily hospitalised for treatment to bites suffered.

And now they are accusing the attacker of being mentally ill, clinically depresssed apparently.

There are those around the world who might, in contrast, be thinking the assailant was merely a balanced critic.

Today's Truth

"In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

"'Let it be told to the future world...that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it].'

"America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations."

Barack Hussein Obama (born August 4 1961)

Forty-fourth President of the United States of America

As with all the best inauguration speeches, a message to the world as well as to America

Barack Obama - restoring the last best hope of Earth

So today, my friends, is finally the day that Barack Obama becomes President of the United States of America. It's a time when everyone, even those who opposed his candidacy in favour of John McCain (or, dare I suggest it, Hillary Clinton) should come together and wish him well, not least because of what he represents.

To this end I think it is worth reminding ourselves of the words of London's popular mayor, Conservative politician Boris Johnson, published in The Daily Telegraph last October:

Obama deserves to win because he seems talented, compassionate, and because he offers the hope of rejuvenating the greatest country on earth in the eyes of the rest of us. All those are sufficient reasons for desiring his victory.

And then there is the final, additional reason, the glaring reason, and that is race. Huge numbers of voters, whether they admit it to themselves or not, will hesitate to choose Barack Obama for President because he is black. And then there are millions of white Americans who will undoubtedly vote Obama precisely because he is black, and because he stands for the change and the progress they want to see in their society.

After centuries of friction, prejudice, tension, hatred - you name it, they've had it - America is teetering on the brink of a triumph. If Obama wins, then the United States will have at last come a huge and maybe decisive step closer to achieving the dream of Martin Luther King, of a land where people are judged not on the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.If Obama wins, then black people the world over will be able to see how a gifted man has been able to smash through the ultimate glass ceiling.

If Obama wins, then it will be simply fatuous to claim that there are no black role models in politics or government, because there is no higher role model than the President of the United States.

If Barack Hussein Obama is successful next month, then we could even see the beginning of the end of race-based politics, with all the grievance-culture and special interest groups and political correctness that come with it.

If Obama wins, he will have established that being black is as relevant to your ability to do a hard job as being left-handed or ginger-haired, and he will have re-stablished America's claim to be the last, best hope of Earth.

I couldn't have put it better myself.

God bless America.

Today's Truth

"It is better to cherish virtue and humanity, by leaving much to free will, even with some loss to the object, than to attempt to make men mere machines and instruments of a political benevolence. The world on the whole will gain by a liberty, without which virtue cannot exist."

Edmund Burke - (1729-1797)

Anglo-Irish statesman, orator and writer, the 'Father of Modern Conservatism'

Source: Reflections on the Revolution in France, 1790

Let's be honest now - Bush's surge worked

So, my friends, says Iraq war critic and Washington Post columnist Peter Beinart in his column yesterday (Admit It: The Surge Worked, January 18 2009).

As he starts:

"It's no longer a close call: President Bush was right about the surge. According to Michael O'Hanlon and Jason Campbell of the Brookings Institution, the number of Iraqi war dead was 500 in November of 2008, compared with 3,475 in November of 2006. That same month, 69 Americans died in Iraq; in November 2008, 12 did.

"Violence in Anbar province is down more than 90 percent over the past two years, the New York Times reports. Returning to Iraq after long absences, respected journalists Anthony Shadid and Dexter Filkins say they barely recognize the place."

Of course that's not to say that the surge is exclusively responsible for the improvement, nor that it is permanent:

"Al-Qaeda alienated the Sunni tribes; Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army decided to stand down; the United States assassinated key insurgent and militia leaders, all of which mattered as much if not more than the increase in U.S. troops. And the decline in violence isn't necessarily permanent. Iraq watchers warn that communal distrust remains high; if someone strikes a match, civil war could again rage out of control."

However, the crucial point remains, Bush's surge won the day. There are those who would rather not give credit where credit's due, but not the liberal war critic writing in The Post:

"...even if the calm endures, that still doesn't justify the Bush administration's initial decision to go to war, which remains one of the great blunders in American foreign policy history. But if Iraq overall represents a massive stain on Bush's record, his decision to increase America's troop presence in late 2006 now looks like his finest hour. Given the mood in Washington and the country as a whole, it would have been far easier to do the opposite. Politically, Bush took the path of most resistance. He endured an avalanche of scorn, and now he has been vindicated. He was not only right; he was courageous."

So why, then, should the Democrats swallow their pride and accept that Bush was correct in his later actions?

"Doing so would remind Democrats that no one political party, or ideological perspective, has a monopoly on wisdom. That recognition can be the difference between ambition -- which the Obama presidency must exhibit -- and hubris, which it can ill afford.

"Being proven right too many times is dangerous. It breeds intellectual arrogance and complacency. As the Democrats prepare to take over Washington, they should publicly acknowledge that on the surge, they were wrong. That acknowledgment may not do much for Bush's legacy, but it could do wonders for their own."

Of course, I won't be holding my breath waiting for certain liberal war critics to follow this advice.

Man wants to lick Hooters...

...in the Courtroom.

Incredible. Why, my friends, is he so fussed? Are there really no other restaurants that will employ this man or is he just a troublemaker? And if the latter what's his purpose? Political correctness or just a way to milk Hooters of America for cash via the courts?

Mike McNeil, vice president of marketing for Hooters, hits the nail on the head:

"The good news is that when this happened the last time, Hooters benefitted from an avalanche of positive publicity and public support for keeping Hooters Girls, well, girls. If we lose this go around, you can next expect hairy legged guys in the Rockettes to line up and male models in the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue. You wonder why people just can't leave good things alone."

Today's Truth

"The financing of current government spending by debt is equivalent to an 'eating up' of our national capital value... By financing current public outlay by debt, we are, in effect, chopping up the apple trees for firewood, thereby reducing the yield of the orchard forever.

"...The person who is faced with a tax bill to finance interest charges...will reckon only on the simply observed fact that income that he or she might otherwise use is being taken away in taxes. The result is precisely analagous to the apple orchard example introduced earlier. If the yield of three trees under a person's nominal ownership is committed to debt service, it is fully equivalent to having an orchard with three fewer trees."

James M. Buchanan - (born October 2 1919)

Nobel Prize-winning American economist and educator

So, what's your current share of Gordon Brown's debt?

Sunday's Truth

"Fear thou not; for I am with thee: be not dismayed; for I am thy God: I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness. "

Isaiah 41:10 (King James Version)

With events coming this week, perhaps something to think about in the same context as "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself"?

Israeli military sorry for dead citizens in Gaza

My friends, something of a contrast here.

On the one hand you have Hamas deliberately targetting Israeli citizens in their plans for ridding the globe of Israel as per their Charter (the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement, 18 August 1988):

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.

On the other hand you have the Israeli military who, despite Hamas fighters wearing civilian clothing while fighting Israeli troops and using schools, mosques and crowded residential areas for cover intentionally making it hard to keep ordinary residents out of harm's way, are trying to avoid hitting noncombatants:

Capt. Orr, 25, felt that aborting some of his targets for fear of harming civilians were among his proudest achievements.

"The ones I remember are when I have locked in on a target and I fire and then at the last second I see a child in my cross hairs and I divert the missile," he said. "That leaves a mark."

..."We work very hard to keep civilian casualties as low as possible," he said. "Each missile we shoot is pinpointed to the very meter we want it to go."

It's worth reading the whole article, and then thinking about what people mean when they repeat the leftist mantra, "we are all Hamas now".

Today's Truth

"If the only motive was to help people who could not afford education, advocates of government involvement would have simply proposed tuition subsidies."

Milton Friedman - (1912-2006)
Nobel Prize-winning American economist

PETA website upgrade

My friends, they've changed the PETA website and it looks a lot more appealing now.

So not all Tories are insane then

Not when they've groups like this in the party, my friends.

History will show that George W Bush was right

My friends, that great man, the historian Andrew Roberts, has been stirring the pot once more with his article in today’s Daily Telegraph. In it he makes the case that the Presidency of George W Bush is going to be viewed better by impartial historians than by the contemporary commentariat. As he says:

“In the avalanche of abuse and ridicule that we are witnessing in the media assessments of President Bush's legacy, there are factors that need to be borne in mind if we are to come to a judgment that is not warped by the kind of partisan hysteria that has characterised this issue on both sides of the Atlantic.

“The first is that history, by looking at the key facts rather than being distracted by the loud ambient noise of the 24-hour news cycle, will probably hand down a far more positive judgment on Mr Bush's presidency than the immediate, knee-jerk loathing of the American and European elites.”

He goes on to explain exactly why he holds this position. At some length, including the following passage:

“History will also take Mr Bush's verbal fumbling into account, reminding us that Ronald Reagan also mis-spoke regularly, but was still a fine president. The first MBA president, who had a higher grade-point average at Yale than John Kerry, Mr Bush's supposed lack of intellect will be seen to be a myth once the papers in his Presidential Library in the Southern Methodist University in Dallas are available.

“Films such as Oliver Stone's W, which portray him as a spitting, oafish frat boy who eats with his mouth open and is rude to servants, will be revealed by the diaries and correspondence of those around him to be absurd travesties, of this charming, interesting, beautifully mannered history buff who, were he not the most powerful man in the world, would be a fine person to have as a pal.

“Instead of Al Franken, history will listen to Bob Geldof praising Mr Bush's efforts over AIDS and malaria in Africa; or to Manmohan Singh, the prime minister of India, who told him last week: "The people of India deeply love you." And certainly to the women of Afghanistan thanking him for saving them from Taliban abuse, degradation and tyranny.”

I commend the article to you, and also the following thought:

“The historian’s first duties are sacrilege and the mocking of false gods. They are his indispensable instruments for establishing the truth.”

Jules Michelet - (1798-1874)

French historian

Source: History of France, 1833

Ireland's new fight for Home Rule

My friends, first we had the ex-Maoist President of Europe, José Manuel Barroso, telling us that he knew that the United Kingdom was closer to Euro entry than ever before, and he knew this because, as he said:

"I know that the majority are still opposed, but there is a period of consideration underway and the people who matter in Britain are currently thinking about it."

That's right, "the people who matter in Britain".

Now we have my good friend Lord Malloch-Brown, the Government appointed British Foreign Office Minister, explaining who are the people who matter in Europe:

"With 24 countries having approved the treaty, I am not sure whether the voters of Ireland should have a right of veto over the aspirations of all the other people of Europe. I am not sure whether that is, or is not democracy."

So there you go Ireland, you fought for and won independence from British rule but it now seems to have been replaced with rule from Brussels.

Here's hoping sanity prevails in October and, once more, Irish voters kick the EU Commissioners where it hurts.