It takes a woman to clean a house? Looks mighty messy.

New Congress at War Over Everything - Politico

Oil Price to Reach Carter-Era Peak, Will Set Record High

Crude oil prices appear increasingly likely to hit a record in real terms reached during the second oil crisis in 1979, as nominal prices on Monday continued rising well above $90 a barrel.

Full Story

You will notice that I had to get this story from London. Did you think the U.S. media would actually report this on a wide scale? Maybe on the inside back page, if we're lucky.

Flashback

NORAH O'DONNELL, GUEST HOST, "HARDBALL": What is it that the Democrats can do about high gas prices that the Republicans can't?

HOWARD DEAN, DEMOCRATIC CHAIRMAN: We can do a lot. The first thing we would do is give back the $16 billion that the Republicans gave to the oil companies. Here you have the spectacle of them giving away $16 billion worth of tax breaks, which are paid for by us and then we have got to pay $3 a gal on top of that. That's not right. If the Democrats had been if power, those kind of tax breaks never would have been given away...

...O'DONNELL: So you're telling me that if in these midterm elections that if Democrats win, that Americans will see an immediate drop in the price of gas at the pump?

DEAN: What I'm telling you is that if Democrats win, we'll be able to stop the president from doing the kinds of things that he's done that have increased oil prices dramatically.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12580289/

Remember the Gerald Ford thing about Iraq? Let's See If Liberals Will Rally Behind This...

Newser's book: Ford saw Clinton as a sex 'addict'



Flashback: Drain Bamaged CBS Reporters

As you will recall, Ford did not oppose the use of force in the Middle East ( although the MSM certainly tried its best to spread that deception.)

Gil, Save Your Hot Air

What do California wildfires have to do with the Lancaster County perspective section? Not much, but here it is anyway.

Gil's Column

As the wildfires of Southern California blazed away, we caught our collective breath; thousands of homes destroyed, half a million people evacuated, hundreds of thousands of acres scorched. It was destruction on an almost unprecedented level even in a region where wildfires are common, a normal part of nature.

"Almost unprecedented"? Get serious, Gil. In 2003, there were much more serious wildfires in the same area.


October 25, 2003


October 24, 2007



Source

“Damage from wildfires ravaging California this week highlight a recent trend--in the past few decades, there has been a clear tendency for increased property loss due to wildfires,” said Mr. Daraskevich of AIR. “This is a direct consequence of rapid construction growth in the wildland-urban interface—a region where primitive, undeveloped forest meets urban expansion. Losses from this week's wildfires, in the luxurious Malibu community in particular, are likely to reflect this trend.”

Source

Additional Link of Interest:
FireImaging.com

And then he has the nerve to suggest this:

That's why government must take the lead, imposing an additional tax — say $1 per gallon — on gasoline with the idea of driving down consumption and incentivizing fuel efficiency.

Obviously, this is an "about-face" for Mr. "Smart". Mr. "Gas will hit $3.00" before the 2006 election is now humming the tune of increasing gas prices.

In case you hadn't noticed, both of these "major fires" in 2003 and 2007 were set by arsonists - not global warming.

Democrat makes offensive comment

Dutch call Democrat's comment offensive



Democrat Tom Lantos. His older brother doesn't see the big deal (pictured below).

Democrats plan a shorter workweek!

Flashback: Democrats promise to work five day workweeks.

"We are going to work longer hours, we are going to work full weeks, we are going to have votes on Mondays and Fridays," new Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., advised his colleagues at the opening of the new session on Jan. 4.

Other Americans, from teachers to police officers to factory workers, put in five days a week on the job, Reid said. "Shouldn't we here in Washington, where we do our business in this laboratory we call the Senate, do the same?"

Back to the present:

The House majority leader, Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, told fellow Democrats this week that the House would not be in session next year on Fridays, except in June for work on appropriations bills.

Full Story

Gil's "ninnies" at it again on shoe bombings?

Full Story

New Shoe Explosives Warning

WASHINGTON -- U.S. security officials have been warned to look out for explosives components that can be smuggled in travelers' thick-soled shoes, but no specific threat against the United States was reported.

A memo from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Homeland Security, reported by CBS this week, said European authorities in September found electric blasting caps hidden inside the thick rubber soles that had been packed in luggage.

A DHS spokesman was not immediately available for comment on Friday.

The memo said the shoe modifications are "difficult to detect by visual inspection." It said homeland security and law enforcement officials need to be alert particularly at passenger screening checkpoints.

U.S. airports do X-ray screening of footwear, but not all overseas airports with U.S.-bound flights have the same requirement.

Pennsylvania Cop Charged With Sexually Abusing Mentally Retarded Girls

Full Story

DUNCANNON, Pa. — A suspended Marysville police officer is accused of molesting or propositioning 14 girls ages 12 to 17, including mentally ill, mentally retarded and injured children.

A judge has ordered Robert Pavlovich Jr. held in the Perry County prison in lieu of $500,000 bail on numerous charges, including involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and corruption of minors. It's not immediately known if he has an attorney.

Pavlovich has been suspended from the Marysville police force since March. District Judge Daniel McGuire has ordered him to surrender his badge and have no contact with the girls named in the indictment.

Gil insists we will have war with Iran

Let's take a look back to last October and what I posted then.

Flashback: Edwards says that if the war expands to places like Iran, that Democrats will be united with the President in the War on Terror.

Do you think Gil will get it some day?

Dems break even more promises, and it wasn't a DREAM

Full Story


Dem leader Harry Reid and senior Senator (and former KKK klansman) Robert Byrd working in the Congress on the Dream Act

The immigration issue has become so toxic in American politics that Congress is now unable to pass even modest measures that once had widespread support, and immigration supporters who were once on the verge of a bipartisan breakthrough are now in danger of a backlash in next year’s elections.

The potency of the issue was on full display in the Senate on Wednesday, as eight Democrats, mostly from Republican-leaning states, helped scuttle a narrowly tailored measure aimed at granting legal residency for longtime students whose parents came to the United States illegally.

And the death of the so-called DREAM Act, which once had 47 co-sponsors in the Senate, was a stark reminder of the depth of discontent among voters to Democratic strategists who personally back liberalization of immigration rules.

“This issue has been so painful for so many people — they’re running scared,” said Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), the sponsor of the DREAM Act. When immigration is debated in Congress, Durbin said, “the switchboards light up and the hate starts spewing.”

The vote in the Senate shows just how terrifying it is for most Republicans and even some Democrats to appear open to accommodating illegal immigrants. The election in the 5th District of Massachusetts last week was another bellwether. Democrat Niki Tsongas’ victory over Republican Jim Ogonowski was much closer than expected due to frustration among working-class voters over the immigration issue.

The House has no plans to take up the DREAM Act anytime soon.

At one point, the DREAM Act had 47 co-sponsors in the Senate but had little chance in the toxic atmosphere that has engulfed the immigration issue. And the key procedural motion requiring 60 votes failed 52-44, perhaps the final death knell for any significant immigration legislation until 2009.

The DREAM Act was narrowly targeted and would benefit only high school graduates whose parents brought them to the country illegally years ago, but even this scaled-down legislation was derided as “amnesty” by opponents.

Indeed, despite the votes of a dozen Republicans, eight moderate Democrats voted against the legislation, guaranteeing its defeat. The Republican votes in favor mostly came from politically vulnerable senators from Democratic states. Republicans Mel Martinez of Florida and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, who come from states with large immigrant populations, also voted for the bill.

But regardless of the Republican support, Democrats were undone by a handful from their own party who consistently get an earful about illegal immigration when they go back home.

“What I hear is, ‘Look, you’ve got to secure the border,’” said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), who voted against the bill. “That has to be the No. 1 priority.”

Conrad was joined by other moderate Democrats such as Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Jon Tester of Montana, Max Baucus of Montana and Claire McCaskill of Missouri. Sen. Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana, who faces a tough election next year in a state trending for the GOP, also voted against the bill.

If every Democrat had voted for the bill, it would have achieved the 60-vote threshold needed to proceed.
“We’ve been through a very emotional time on immigration, and we need to sit down and think this through,” said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), who voted against the bill. “This summer [immigration debate] just fired up the emotions, and that has not gone away.”

Durbin, who has adopted this issue as a top priority, predicted that his support of the DREAM Act would be used against him in his campaign next year, and he was pessimistic the Senate would take it up again anytime soon. One other immigration measure, which would loosen rules for migrant agricultural labor, could be attached to the farm bill next week, but it’s not clear if that proposal has enough support to be approved.

The DREAM Act is designed to reward students who have been in the United States for years, have graduated from high school and plan to go to college or join the military. The idea is that kids whose parents are illegal aliens should not be punished with deportation, because they had no choice in coming to the country at a young age. The eligible students would receive no federal funding or benefits but simply would be granted permanent resident status.

“This is not a free education,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). “It’s an opportunity to go to college.”

But the limited scope of the bill seemed irrelevant in the debate. Brimming with confidence from the summer defeat of comprehensive immigration reform, opponents rejoined the arguments that lit up talk radio over the summer and killed the last immigration bill.

“America has clearly rejected amnesty, but Democrats have obviously refused to listen,” said Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). “This is a clarifying moment in the immigration debate: Republicans have heard Americans’ desire for border security and interior enforcement first.”

Democrats want the Mother of All Tax Hikes

Memo: McCrery on "Mother of All Tax Hikes"

Your cost for the Iraq and Afghanistan war: $8,000? Wrong!

The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could total $2.4 trillion through the next decade, or nearly $8,000 per man, woman and child in the country, according to a Congressional Budget Office estimate scheduled for release Wednesday.

Source

Here is the real story. in PDF format. (Requires free Adobe Reader).

According to my estimates, the Iraq and Afghanistan war from 2001 until now has been appropriated $610 b-b-b-b-illion by Congress, a mere fraction of $2.4 trillion. This is according to the same PDF report in question from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

$610 billion divided amongst a US population of 303,026,362 is $2,013 per person for a duration of six years.

Divide by six years (2001-now). That is about $335.50 per year or about $28 a month. That is much different than $8,000 for a decade.

Worthy of note:

"For 2008, funding for national defense is projected to absorb about 4.2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). By comparison, at the peaks of the Korean and Vietnam Wars, defense absorbed, respectively, some 14.2 percent and 9.4 percent of GDP."

Fire Marshall Reid, have you apprehended the global warming arsonist yet?

Officials: Arson Behind Santiago Fire

CBS News: State And Federal Agencies To Offer $50,000 Reward To Help Find Arsonist

Fire Marshall Reid missed the memo

Full Story on Drudge Report


Click to enlarge

Fire Marshall Reid: "One reason why we have the fires in California is global warming."

I shit you not.



You just can't make this shit up. Hilarious! Except that you goofballs elected him to the head of the U.S. Senate!

The Idiocy of Gil Smart

What pure genius.

Glenn Beck is not "elevating the discourse" enough for Gil, so he suggests Glenn Back has extreme mental retardation.

Gil, say this with me slowly...

Los Angeles Chronicle: Pelosi gets an "F" grade

Full Story


William Hughes

Gil makes major faux pas on blog

Gil posted unresearched information on his blog again today in a post called "Battle flag of a faithful republic".

I would think that those who fought for the Stars and Bars, some of them anyway, would indeed have described it as a “Christian” flag, because I think many of them fought for a “Christian cause” - their country. We look at the flag now and see the other things it has stood for, the things history has marked it as standing for. And it did stand for those things - for racism, for slavery. Still does, for some.

This is the "Stars and Bars".



This is NOT the "Stars and Bars". This is the "Battle Flag of the Confederacy".



This is the current flag of the state of Mississippi.



This battle flag is available today on many state license plates.

Georgia, North Carolina, Alabama, Maryland, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virgina.

This is due mostly to an organization called the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

The flag Gil appears to be talking about is similar to the Battle Flag of the Confederacy, but is referred to as the Confederate Navy Jack, also called "The Southern Cross". It is a rectangular precursor of the Battle Flag, usually about 5×3 feet. It did not appear until about half way into the Civil War (in 1863). As the Wikipedia entry for "Confederate Flag" notes, the "Battle Flag" colors incorporated into the design of the second "Navy Jack" flag has become recognized as "the Confederate Flag".

I will post the 1861-1863 Confederate Navy Jack here for the record.



The second Navy Jack will not be posted on this site due to its resemblance of "the Confederate Flag" and its connotations of racism and slavery.

To read more, visit here.

Gil slightly rewrites history, at least he's getting better

Not on the back of an envelope on the train to Gettysburg, as you might have learned, but in Washington, with the finishing touches supplied in Adams County, the night before he delivered it.

The Hay Copy, with Lincoln's handwritten corrections.Its existence first announced to the public in 1906, the Hay Copy[25] was described by historian Garry Wills as "the most inexplicable of the five copies Lincoln made." With numerous omissions and inserts, this copy strongly suggests a text that was copied hastily, especially when one examines the fact that many of these omissions were critical to the basic meaning of the sentence, not simply words that would be added by Lincoln to strengthen or clarify their meaning. This copy, which is sometimes referred to as the "second draft," was made either on the morning of its delivery, or shortly after Lincoln's return to Washington. Those that believe that it was completed on the morning of his address point to the fact that it contains certain phrases that are not in the first draft but are in the reports of the address as delivered and in subsequent copies made by Lincoln. It is probable, they conclude, that, as stated in the explanatory note accompanying the original copies of the first and second drafts in the Library of Congress, Lincoln held this second draft when he delivered the address.[26] Lincoln eventually gave this copy to his other personal secretary, John Hay, whose descendants donated both it and the Nicolay copy to the Library of Congress in 1916.

Source

Alright, so it is no big deal that Lincoln wrote the address the morning of instead of the night before. However, it is the little things that add up that can lead to an erroneous conclusion. Like this one. It's called a simple fact check, something that reporters, and certainly associate editors, should be able to do.

Like when Gil posts a link to the Iraqi National Security Adviser saying "NO to permanent bases" when that has been the stated plan and policy all along. All it proves is that you got it wrong.

Healthcare Hillary Hilarity

Visit GOP.Com.

Yesterday, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) Claimed Her Health Care Plan Would Not Cover Illegal Immigrants, But Last Month Her Policy Advisor Said The Issue Had Not Been Resolved:

"Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton Said Thursday That Immigrants Living In The U.S. Illegally Would Not Be Covered By Her Proposed Universal Health Care Plan." (Beth Fouhy, "Clinton Health Plan for Americans Only," The Associated Press, 10/18/07)

But Last Month, Hillary's Policy Advisor Said The Campaign Did Not Have A Position On The Issue And They Would "Have To Think Through [It] A Little Bit." "Senior policy adviser Laurie Rubiner-while acknowledging that undocumented immigrants are a 'huge issue' in this country-said, 'That's one we're going to have to think through a little bit'... When asked if it would be safe to assume that the Democratic frontrunner, at this point, has no position on coverage for illegal immigrants advisers answered 'yes' and said the plan does not 'at this point' deal with that issue." ("Clinton Has No Answers For Undocumented Immigrants," www.cnn.com, 9/17/07)

Hillary Says That Her Plan Will Cover The 47 Million Uninsured, But The Census Bureau Report Says Over 10 Million Of Those Are Non-Citizens, Most Of Which Are Illegal Immigrants:

Hillary: "But if you are one of those 47 million uninsured ... you will now have the same choices that are available to members of Congress, because we will open up the plan that members of Congress have and give you a health choices menu to choose from." (Fox News' "Fox News Sunday," 9/23/07)

Note: The recent Census Bureau Report released on August 2007 discloses that 10.2 million of the 47 million uninsured were non-citizens in 2006. (U.S. Census Bureau, "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2006 Report," 8/28/07)

"[T]he Census Bureau Includes 10.2 Million Non-Citizens In Its Estimate. Does Sen. Clinton Intend To Admit Non-Citizens Into Her Plan?" (Lawrence A. Hunter, Op-Ed, "Hillary's Bomb May Blow Up U.S. System," The [Fort Lauderdale, FL] Sun-Sentinel, 9/29/07)

CNBC's Larry Kudlow Notes That At Least Three Out Of 10 Of The 47 Million Are Illegal Immigrants. "The federal health care program, if we can all subscribe to it, is very interesting. What controls and regulations we don't know but let me raise this point. Of this mythical number...Fifty million uninsured ...what we found is at least three out of ten include illegal immigrants." (CNBC's "Kudlow And Cramer, 10/11/07)

RE-LIVING HISTORY: Hillary Says Her '93 Plan Did Not Cover Illegal Immigrants, But Employers Were Required To Cover Their Illegal Workers:

Hillary: "[W]e did not cover them in '93/'94 and my plan does not cover them now." (ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos," 9/23/07)

HillaryCare '93 Specifically Required Employers To Cover Illegal Immigrants. "[E]mployers are required to pay health insurance premiums for all of their employees, regardless of immigration status." (The White House Domestic Policy Council, "The President's Health Security Plan," 1993, p. 18-19)

Hillary's Plan Not Only Required Employers To Insure Their Illegal Workers But Granted Them Protection From Deportation. "The plan does require employers to provide insurance for all their employees, whether they are here illegally or not. So it is conceivable that some undocumented workers would be covered. At the same time, the plan would protect these workers against deportation by preventing insurers from sharing information with the Immigration and Naturalization Service." (Sheryl Stolberg and Edwin Chen, "Illegal Immigrant Health Policy Told," Los Angeles Times, 9/20/93)

"Alliances Do Not Share Information Related To Health Insurance Premiums Paid By Employers With The Immigration And Naturalization Services." (The White House Domestic Policy Council, "The President's Health Security Plan," 1993, p. 19)

Hillary's Senate Voting Record Shows That She Is Likely To Provide Benefits For Illegal Immigrants Intended For Hard-Working American Citizens:

Hillary Voted Against Prohibiting Illegal Immigrants From Claiming Social Security Credits. "Specter, R-Pa., motion to table (kill) the Ensign, R-Nev., amendment no. 3985 that would bar illegal immigrants currently in the country from claiming Social Security credits for work done in years before they are assigned a valid Social Security number." (S. 2611, CQ Vote #130: Motion Agreed To 50-49: R 11-44; D 38-5; I 1-0, 5/18/06, Clinton Voted Yea)

Hillary Voted Against Prohibiting Illegal Immigrants From Claiming The Earned Income Tax Credit. "Sessions, R-Ala., amendment no. 4108 that would prohibit illegal immigrants who earn legal status under the bill, including those in the United States illegally before Jan. 7, 2004, from claiming the earned income tax credit until they receive citizenship." (S. 2611, CQ Vote #154: Rejected 37-60: R 33-21; D 4-38; I 0-1, 5/25/06, Clinton Voted Nay)

Liberals Must Lie In Order to Succeed

Rush Limbaugh hits the nail on the head.

If anybody needs to hide their faces these days it's the Democrats in Washington.

I agree 100%. These Democretan liberals need to stop their lying.

Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt: It is not only our plan but our policy that we do not intend to have any permanent bases in Iraq.

Full Story

Iraq National Security Adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie: A "big, fat NO" to war with Iran

Full Story




There are alot of stories floating around online like this.

However, they never mention in the same breath these facts:

BLITZER: So what is a realistic number for the spring -- 139,000 going down to what?

AL-RUBAIE: Let me give you some, well, figures or approximate figures. Of course, these figures are going to be condition-based. Because until and unless the right conditions are created in some of these areas, the multinational forces will not leave, and the Iraqi government will not ask them to leave.

But if we create -- and we are working very hard to create these conditions in some of these provinces and some of the regions as well as districts -- when these conditions are right, then we will ask the multinational forces to leave these areas.

I would have a guess of a very good number in tens of thousands will leave in the first part, in the first half of next year. And a considerable number of the multinational forces will probably leave Iraq before the end of next year.

BLITZER: So, in other words, it would go down from 139,000 to what, let's say, by next summer, a year from now? What would be a realistic number?

AL-RUBAIE: I wouldn't like to guess a figure because I think this will play into the terrorists hands, as well as it's unfair.

There are so many factors who are playing in this process. And one of it is the training of our Iraqi security forces, and the other is the level of insurgency and the level of violence and the terrorism, our evaluation of our enemies and our Iraqi security forces.

There are so many factors who are variables. There are so many are variables in this process. I don't think we should guess numbers here.

BLITZER: The vice chairman of the U.S. military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, who will become the new chairman, said this past week, he said, "Only a small number of Iraqi security forces are taking on the insurgents and terrorists by themselves" -- a small percentage.

How many Iraqi troops and police forces are fully capable of operating right now without U.S. or multinational coalition assistance?

AL-RUBAIE: Admittedly the number -- I wouldn't go into percentages. But let me tell you something. By December, we will have a total number of our Iraqi security forces including Iraqi policemen, a new Iraqi army, and counterterrorism, special forces. They're going to be in the region of 200,000-plus.

BLITZER: But of that 200,000-plus, how many of them are fully capable right now to operate without U.S. assistance?

AL-RUBAIE: We hope by the end of the year probably more than a third of this security force, Iraqi security force, are going to be able to operate independently. And obviously, you will need the multinational forces to stay over the horizon, just in case they need the help, and they would get the help.

Source

So, it looks like PROGESS IN IRAQ. Permanent U.S. bases in Iraq may not even be necessary. Looks like the left wing kooks, even by their own admission, were WRONG.

A Third Political Party?

Now there, for once, is a good idea.

In the UK, there are three major political parties. The largest is the Labour Party, with 355 seats in the House of Commons.

The second largest political party in the UK is the Conservative Party with 198 seats.

And coming in third is Liberal Democrats with just 63. The leader of that party recently resigned.

What does Rudy Giuliani have to say about Hillary?

She's never run a city. She's never run a state. She's never run a business. She's never met a payroll. She's never been responsible for the safety and security of millions of people, much less even hundreds of people. So I'm trying to figure out where the experience is here. It would seem to me that in a time of difficult problems and war, we don't want on-the-job training for an executive. The reality is that these are areas in which -- maybe there are some areas in which she has experience, but the areas of having the responsibility of the safety and security of millions of people on your shoulders, is not something that Hillary has ever had any experience with.

Source

Watching it unravel, what a pleasure it is

Pelosi sours on Senate



Frustrated by lack of legislative progress in the Senate, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is increasingly touting Democratic achievements in the House.

Her statements represent a significant shift from the stance she took six months ago. In March, the Speaker celebrated the first 100 days of the congressional majority by stating, “Democrats have brought the winds of change to the Capitol.”

These days, she’s confined to claiming those winds are blowing on her side of the building. In the minds of her caucus members, the Senate is in the doldrums and House members are paying the price for Senate inaction on Democratic priorities.

MORE

Liberal Democrat leader in the UK to resign, poor polls, counterpart says party was about to go down the drain

Campbell quits as Lib Dem leader

Every Florida vote will count...

Florida sues over Dems' primary rules

Propaganda & Children During the Hitler Years

Propaganda and Children during the Hitler Years

A World's Foremost Meteorologist calls Gore and IPCC Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous"

Dr William M Gray, pictured on left via http://typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu/

Gore gets a cold shoulder

ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.

His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee honoured Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans and global warming.

"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."

At his first appearance since the award was announced in Oslo, Mr Gore said: "We have to quickly find a way to change the world's consciousness about exactly what we're facing."

Mr Gore shared the Nobel prize with the United Nations climate panel for their work in helping to galvanise international action against global warming.

But Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.

However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of cooling would begin soon and last for several years.

"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Dr Gray said.

During his speech to a crowd of about 300 that included meteorology students and a host of professional meteorologists, Dr Gray also said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error.

He cited statistics showing there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.

"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said.

He said his beliefs had made him an outsider in popular science.

"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."

Critics slam Nobel "winners"

Gil's Little White Lies Continue, Partial Quotes Abound

We see conservative yakkers like Glenn Beck telling a Muslim congressman from Minnesota, "Prove to me you are not working for our enemies."

Source

Ok, now let's actually take this partial quote and put it
in context to get a completely different take on what was actually said and that the congressmen agreed with.

The Nobel Peace Prize, Global Warming and Hockey Sticks

A bit of funny information I ran across today during a bit of scientific research.

"Hockey sticks" on temperature graphs seem to be part of a computational error.

^ McIntyre, Stephen & Ross McKitrick (2005), "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance", Geophysical Research Letters



Compare this with examples such as this.

Observed Arctic Temperature, 1900 to Present

It must be fun to win a prize for which you have absolutely no qualifications for in science.

Harry Reid defends our troops, but still thinks Commander in Chief is a "loser"

Click on image to enlarge, read, and cry about what your tax dollars are going to - picking on AM radio talk show hosts.

Reid Authorizes Bush to Disarm Saddam

Harry Reid calls the Commander-in-Chief a "loser".

The Hypocrisy of the Left Continues, and Continues, and Continues...

In Gil Smart's blog, he has posted this high-brow piece bashing Senator Larry Craig at 1:19pm on Oct 12.

Then he turns around and posts this little piece a few hours later.

The machine at work
Paul Krugman on the wurlitzer’s sliming of Graeme Frost:

All in all, the Graeme Frost case is a perfect illustration of the modern right-wing political machine at work, and in particular its routine reliance on character assassination in place of honest debate. If service members oppose a Republican war, they’re “phony soldiers”; if Michael J. Fox opposes Bush policy on stem cells, he’s faking his Parkinson’s symptoms; if an injured 12-year-old child makes the case for a government health insurance program, he’s a fraud.

So, which is it? Is it OK to bash Larry Craig and attempt to assassinate his character? Or should you not be bashing Craig?

You stepped in a big pile of doo-doo on that one, Gil.

The phony soldiers story was discredited a long time ago. The Michael J Fox story was also discredited a long time ago. Are Republicans bashing a 12 year old? No! They are bashing the SCHIP extension ideas and concepts - not the 12 year old child that Democrats propped up in public view as their "perfect example".

Gil really needs to get outside more often and read something other than Paul Krugman or Andrew Sullivan. I often wonder to myself if he has actually ever listened to Rush Limbaugh, since all the stories he's mentioned come from that program.

Just in case, Gil...here is a link. Try reading it with an open mind, for once.

On the plus side, Gil's blogging this weekend will be "light to non-existent", according to his most recent entry at the time of this posting. Good. I hope he leans toward "non-existent". Because all he is is a regurgitating hack with no skills.

Follow-ups and related stories:

Michael J Fox story

The Real Phony Soldiers

Five Key Myths Told About SCHIP

Dems view Bush veto on SCHIP program as a victory for themselves

SCHIP of Fools

Five Key Myths About Bush's Support for SCHIP Reauthorization

Five Key Myths About President Bush's Support For SCHIP Reauthorization
MYTH #1: President Bush's proposal would not help poor children.

FACT: The President strongly supports SCHIP reauthorization and his 2008 budget proposed to increase SCHIP funding by $5 billion over five years. This is a 20 percent increase over current levels of funding.

FACT: The President's proposal maintains SCHIP's original purpose of targeting dollars to poor children who need them most.

MYTH #2: Cost is the only reason for President Bush's veto threat.

FACT: There are numerous problems with Congress's SCHIP bill. In addition to raising spending by $35 to $50 billion, the legislation:

Turns a program meant to help poor children into one that covers children in some households with incomes of up to $83,000 a year.

Would move millions of American children who now have private health insurance into government-run health care.

Is an incremental step toward the Democrats' goal of a government-run health care system.

Raises taxes on working Americans.

Relies on a budget gimmick that drops SCHIP funding by almost 80 percent in year six, masking future deficits and ultimately resulting in a choice between higher taxes or forcing millions of children to lose health insurance.

Creates new funding schemes inviting states to overspend their budgets and shift health care costs to the Federal government by using SCHIP funding to offset state Medicaid spending.

Provides incentives to states to relax protections against enrolling ineligible individuals, including illegal immigrants.

MYTH #3: President Bush is wrong in claiming the Senate SCHIP bill would cover children in some households with incomes of up to $83,000 per year (400 percent of the Federal poverty level).

FACT: The Senate bill grandfathers in New York at a higher SCHIP match rate than the rest of the country – allowing SCHIP to cover children in some households with incomes of up to $83,000 per year.

Background Information:

Sens. Clinton and Schumer: "New York State's planned CHIP expansion would have covered children up to 400 percent of the national poverty level." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Press Release, "Clinton, Schumer Blast Federal Rejection Of New York's Attempts To Increase Health Coverage For Children," 9/7/07)

The Federal Poverty Level for a family of four is $20,650. Four hundred percent of $20,650 is $82,600. ("The 2007 HHS Poverty Guidelines," Accessed 9/20/07, Available At: http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/07poverty.shtml)

The Senate bill states: "(B) - Exception - Subparagraph (A) [the limitation of the matching rate to the Medicaid rate for children whose effective income exceeds 300 percent of the Federal poverty level] shall not apply to any State that, on the date of enactment of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007, has an approved State Plan Amendment or waiver to provide, or has enacted a State law to submit a State plan amendment to provide, expenditures described in such subparagraph under the State child health plan."

New York enacted a state law to submit a "State plan amendment." While that amendment was disapproved, the language of the Senate bill would still allow New York to claim the enhanced match if approved by a different Administration in the future.

FACT: The Senate SCHIP bill also grandfathers in New Jersey's program at 350 percent of the Federal poverty level, which includes children in families with incomes of $72,000 a year.

Gov. Jon Corzine (D-NJ): "Corzine added that the state, which covers about 122,000 kids in its program, known as FamilyCare, 'will continue to provide health care to children in families with income up to 350 percent' of the federal poverty level – or $72,275 for a family of four. He also wrote that he is prepared to file a lawsuit challenging the new rules." (Christopher Lee, "N.J.'s Corzine to Defy New Health-Care Rules," The Washington Post, 9/14/07)

MYTH #4: Democrats are not seeking a political victory by passing a bill they know will be vetoed.

FACT: House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL): "If he vetoes the bill, it's a political victory for us." (Robert Pear, "Veto Risk Seen In Compromise On Child Health," The New York Times, 9/17/07)

FACT: House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD): "With a bill on its way to the president's desk by the end of next week, Democrats will be safe in blaming the White House for allowing the program to expire, according to House Majority Leader Hoyer." (Fawn Johnson, "Negotiators Strike SCHIP Deal, Agree To Slightly Modified Senate Measure," National Journal's CongressDaily, 9/19/07)

FACT: House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee Chairman Pete Stark (D-CA): "The Medicare and Medicaid portions of CHAMP have been abandoned for rhetorical and/or political reasons that are unclear to me." (Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA), Dear Democratic Colleague Letter, 9/20/07)

MYTH #5: President Bush will be responsible if SCHIP is not reauthorized by September 30.

FACT: Congress is irresponsibly waiting until just before SCHIP expires on September 30 to pass a final bill they know will be vetoed. Democrats have known for months that President Bush would veto a bill like the one they intend to send him.

FACT: One of the Democrats' leaders has even said such a veto would be a "political victory." Members of Congress are putting health coverage for poor children at risk just so they can score political points in Washington.

FACT: President Bush has called on Congress to pass a clean, temporary extension of the current SCHIP program that he can sign by September 30. The President does not believe health coverage for poor children should be held hostage while political ads are being made and new polls are being taken.

FACT: The President has instructed HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt to work with states to mitigate the resulting damage if Congress allows SCHIP to lapse.

The SCHIP is going to hit the fan

They Said It! Congressional Democrats On SCHIP Reauthorization

Speaker Nancy Pelosi: "The President Is Wrong When He Says Democrats Want A Political Victory." Speaker Nancy Pelosi, "Pelosi: 'President Should Support Bipartisan SCHIP Legislation For 10 Million Reasons - The 10 Million Children Who Will Receive Health Care Coverage'," Press Release, 9/20/07)

FLASHBACK: House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel: "If He [President Bush] Vetoes The Bill, It's A Political Victory For Us." (Robert Pear, "Veto Risk Seen In Compromise On Child Health," The New York Times, 9/17/07)

SCHIP of fools

Full Story

The SCHIP website

Ok, it's time to get alittle honest, here. Because some libs just can't seem to get it.

Republicans are not bullying 12 year olds.

Rush Limbaugh sums it up nicely.

What everybody is missing about this is what I think is the nuts and bolts of the whole program. This is the State Children's Health Insurance Program. It's ten years old, and it's up for renewal. The Democrats are trying to increase the program so that it covers "babies" up to the age of 25, families of four up to the income level of $83,000, and any number of other people. It's beyond "the poor." The poor have nothing to do with this program as the Democrats want it.

The president has not suggested it be "cut." The president wants to increase the funding by, what is it, $4 billion, annually, but keep the coverage at poor children. Now, the dirty little secret is this: the Democrats put lies into the Frost kids' heads; they send them out in television and radio to make these statements. One of the things that the kid said, "I just want children in my circumstance to be able to get the health care I got." Well, guess what? They got their health care under the previous iteration of the program! They don't need an increase in the program for them to qualify, strangely, because the state of Maryland can qualify whoever they want. So the whole thing is bogus! We don't need the massive Democrat expansion in order to get this Frost family covered. They were covered under this program as it currently exists. Yet they were trotted out to make it look like they would not have been able to recover from their auto accident because of George Bush. It's another flat-out smear, and lie, and misrepresentation by Democrats who cannot dare tell the truth about anything, and the truth in this case is their intention for this program to be one of many stealth programs to get us, stealthfully, down the road of socialized medicine, with the government running the whole thing. This poor family has been propped up and used -- and it's just typical for the Democrats.

President Witch endorsed by terrorists

Oh, if only this weren't the truth...

Sandy Burglar is back! And he is advising Hillary!

Pictured on far right of far left picture.

Full Story

WASHINGTON - Sandy Berger, who stole highly classified terrorism documents from the National Archives, destroyed them and lied to investigators, is now an adviser to presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Berger, who was fired from John Kerry’s presidential campaign when the scandal broke in 2004, has assumed a similar role in Clinton’s campaign, even though his security clearance has been suspended until September 2008. This is raising eyebrows even among Clinton’s admirers.

“It shows poor judgment and a lack of regard for Berger’s serious misdeeds,” said law professor Jonathan Adler of Case Western Reserve University, who nonetheless called Clinton “by far the most impressive candidate in the Democratic field.”

Adler told The Examiner that it is “simply incomprehensible to me that a serious contender for the presidency would rely upon him as a key foreign policy advisor.”

He added: “If Senator Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee, at some point she will begin to receive national security briefings that will include sensitive information. At such a point, continuing to keep Berger on board as a key advisor, where he might have access to sensitive material, would be beyond incomprehensible.”

The Clinton campaign declined to comment.

Gil Lost in Translation II

Much has been made of this president's evangelical fervor. Last month, transcripts of a meeting with then-Spanish prime minister José Maria Aznar were released, during which Aznar, on the eve of war with Iraq, told Bush, "The only thing that worries me is your optimism."

Bush replied, "I'm optimistic because I believe I'm right."

Here, then, is the crux of how Bush has governed. There is, noted the writer Andrew Sullivan, "no concept that even if he's right, bad things could ensue. There is no cost-benefit analysis here, no weighing of options, no thinking through of unintended consequences."

Gil Smart, Associate Idiot of the Lancaster Newspapers

Source

The Bush Anzar Memo

Please note that, according to Wikipedia.org, El País "politically and ideologically is connected with the left and Social democrats."

El País's transcript of the meeting

A rough translation courtesy of FreeTranslation.com:

TEXT OF REFERENCE: MINUTES OF THE CONVERSATION AMONG GEORGE W. BUSH AND JOSÉ MARÍA AZNAR - CRAWFORD, TEXAS, February 22, 2003

President Bush. We are in favor of obtaining a second resolution in the Security Council and we would want to do it quickly. We would want to announce it Monday or Tuesday [24 or February 25, 2003].

President Aznar. Better Tuesday, after the meeting of the Counsel of General Matters of the European Union. It is important to maintain the momentum [impulse] obtained by the resolution of the summit of the European Union [in Brussels, Monday 17 of February]. We would prefer to expect until Tuesday.

PB. Could be Monday afternoon, keeping in mind the hourly difference. In any case the next week. We see the resolution edited so that contain not obligatory elements, that do not mention the use of the force, and that you be evident that Saddam Hussein has been incapable to comply its obligations. That type of resolution can be voted for many people. It would be something seemed to which was obtained when it of Kosovo [June 10, 1999].

PA. It would be presented before the Security Council before and independently of a parallel statement?

Condoleezza Curl. In reality do not there would be parallel statement. Ourselves are thinking about a resolution as simple as be possible without many details of compliance that could serve so that Saddam Hussein utilized them as phases and consequently to break them. We are speaking with Blix [chief of the inspectors of the UN] and other of its team to obtain ideas that can serve for introduce the resolution.

PB. Saddam Hussein will not change and he will continue playing. The moment to be get rid of has arrived him. Is thus. I, by my part, I will try from now on to utilize a rhetoric it more subtle possible, while we seek the approval of the resolution. If someone vetoes [Russia, Chinese and France they possess next to the United States and right United Kingdom to veto in the Security Council in their quality of permanent members], we will go. Saddam Hussein is not being disarmed. We have to catch him right now. We have shown an incredible degree of patience up to now. They remain two weeks. In two weeks we will be militarily ready. I believe that we will obtain the second resolution. In the Security Council we have to the three Africans [Cameroon, Angola and Guinea], to the Chileans, to the Mexicans. I will speak with all they, also with Putin, naturally. We will be in Baghdad to the end of March. A 15% of possibilities exists that just then Saddam Hussein be dead or have itself gone. But those possibilities do not exist before we have shown our resolution. The Egyptians are speaking with Saddam Hussein. It seems that has indicated that would be willing to be exiled if they left him to be carried 1.000 million dollars and all the information that wanted on weapons of massive destruction. [Muammar The] Gaddafi has said to Berlusconi that Saddam Hussein wants to be gone. Mubarak says us that in those circumstances many possibilities exist that be murdered.

We would like to act with the mandate of the United Nations. If we act militarily we will do it with a great precision and getting into a lot of focus ours objective. We will decimate to the loyal troops and the army to regulate quickly will know about what treats. We have done to arrive a very clear message to the generals of Saddam Hussein: we will treat them as war criminals. We know that they have accumulated an enormous quantity of dynamite to cause to fly the bridges and other infrastructures and to cause to explode the oil wells. We anticipate to occupy those very quick wells. Also the Saudis would help us to put in the market the petroleum that were necessary. We are developing a package of very strong humane aid. We can win without destruction. We are presenting already the Iraq post Saddam, and I believe that there is good bases for a better future. Iraq has a good bureaucracy and a relatively strong civil company. It would be able to organize in a confederacy. In the meantime we are doing everything possible to attend the political needs of our friends and allies.

PA. Is very important to include a resolution. It is not the same thing to act with her that without her. It would be very convenient to count in the Security Council with a majority that supported that resolution. In fact, is more important to include majority that that someone emit a veto. We believe that the content of the resolution he would owe among others things to verify that Saddam Hussein has lost its opportunity.

PB. Yes, of course. It would be better that that to do a reference to "the necessary media" [refers to the resolution type of the UN that authorizes to utilize "all the necessary media"].

PA. Saddam Hussein has not cooperated, he has not been disarmed, we should do a summary of his breaches and to launch a more elaborate message. That would permit for example that Mexico itself to move [in reference to change its contrary position to the second resolution, that Aznar could know of lips of the president Vicente Fox Friday 21 of February in a scale carried out in Mexico City].

PB. The resolution will be done custom-made of what can help you. A little the same thing gives me the content.

PA. We will cause we will arrive you some texts.

PB. We have no text. Only a criterion: that Saddam Hussein itself disarmament. We cannot permit that Saddam Hussein extend the time to the summer. Al end and al tip already has had four months in this last phase and that is more than sufficient time to be disarmed.

PA. That text would help us to be capable of sponsor it and to be its coauthors and to obtain that many people sponsor it.

PB. Perfect.

PA. Next Wednesday [26 of February] I see me with Chirac. The resolution already there will be begun to circulate.

PB. Seems me very well. Chirac knows perfectly the reality. Its intelligence services have been explained it. The Arabs are transmitting to Chirac a very clear message: Saddam Hussein should be gone. The problem is that Chirac is believed Mister Arab

And in reality the impossible life is doing them. But I do not want to have any rivalry with Chirac. We have different points of view, but I wanted that that was all. You give him the better memories of my part. Truly! As much as less rivalry sits down he that exists among us will be better for all.

PA. How does he combine the resolution and the report of the inspectors?

Condoleezza Curl. In reality there will not be report February 28 but the inspectors will present a report written March 1, and its court appearance before the Security Council will not be produced to the 6 or March 7, 2003. We do not expect much of that report. As in the previous, they will put one of lime and another of sand. I have the impression that Blix will be now more negative than what before was on the will of the Iraqis. After the court appearance of the inspectors in the Counsel we should predict the vote on the resolution a week later. The Iraqis, in the meantime, they will try to explain that they go complying their obligations. Neither it is certain neither will be sufficient, although they announce the destruction of some missiles.

PB. This is like the Chinese torture of the water. We have to put an end to it.

PA. I agree, but would be good to include the maximum number of possible people. Have a little patience.

PB. My patience is exhausted. I do not think to go beyond the half of March.

PA. You do not I ask that have an infinite patience. Simply that do the possible thing so that all square.

PB. Countries as Mexico, Chile, Angola and Cameroon they should know that what is in play is the security of the the United States and to act with a sense of friendship toward us.

[the president Ricardo] Lakes should know that the Agreement of Free Commerce with Chile is alert of confirmation in the Senate and that a negative attitude in this theme would be able to endanger that ratification. Angola is receiving funds of the Millenium Account and also they would be able to remain compromised if themselves they are not shown positive. And Putin should know that with its attitude is endangering the relations of Russia with the United States.

PA. Tony would want to arrive to March 14.

PB. I prefer the 10. This is like the play of bad police and good police. It does not matter to me me to to be the bad police and that Blair be the good one.

PA. Is certain that some possibility exists that Saddam Hussein exile itself?

PB. Yes, that possibility exists. Even that be murdered.

PA. I exile with some guarantee?

PB. Any guarantee. Is a thief, a terrorist, a war criminal. It compared with Saddam, Milosevic would be a Mother Teresa. When we enter we are going to discover many more crimes and we will carry him al World Court of It Have. Saddam Hussein believes that already has escaped. It believes that France and Germany there are person under arrest the process of their responsibilities. It believes also that the demonstrations of last week

[Saturday 15 of February] They protect him. And it believes that I am very weakened. But the people of his environment knows that the things are otherwise. They know that its future is in the exile or in a coffin. Therefore it is so important to maintain the pressure on him. Gaddafi says us indirectly that that is the unique thing that to can put an end to him. The only strategy of Saddam Hussein is that of delaying, to delay and to delay.

PA. In reality the major success would be to win the departure without shooting a single shot and entering Baghdad.

PB. For me would be the perfect solution. I do not want the war. I know what are the wars. I know the destruction and the death that they bring with himself. I am the one that has to console the mothers and to the widows of the dead persons. Of course, for us that would be the best solution. Besides, it would save us 50.000 million dollars.

PA. We need that help us with our public opinion.

PB. We will do everything that we be able. Wednesday I am going to speak on the situation in the Middle East, proposing a new plan of peace that you know and on the weapons of massive destruction, of the benefits of a company free, and I will situate the history of Iraq in a more extensive context. Perhaps he serve you.

PA. What we are causing is a very deep change for Spain and for the Spaniards. We are changing the politics that the country had followed in the last 200 years.

PB. To me me guide a historic sense of the responsibility the same as to you. When inside some years the History judge us do not I want that the people be asked why Bush, or Aznar, or Blair did not face its responsibilities. Al final, what the people wants is to enjoy liberty. It does little, in Rumania they recalled me the example of Ceausescu: sufficed with which a woman called him liar so that all the repressive building went downhill. Is the uncontrollable power of the liberty. MYSELF am convinced that I will obtain the resolution.

PA. Better than better.

PB. I decided to go al Security Council. In spite of the divergences in my Administration, I told them my people that we had to work with our friends. Will be stupendous to include a second resolution.

PA. The unique thing that worries me of you is your optimism.

PB. MYSELF am optimist because I believe that I am in the certain thing. I am in with me same peace. Has corresponded us to face a serious threat against the peace. It irritates me a lot to contemplate the insensitivity of the Europeans on the sufferings that Saddam Hussein inflicts to the Iraqis. Perhaps because is dark, distant and Moslem, many Europeans think that all is on good terms with he. I will not forget what told me once sunny Spot: that why the Americans we think that the Europeans are antisemites and incapable to face their responsibilities. That defensive attitude is terrible. I have to recognize that with Kofi Annan I have some magnificent relations.

PA. It shares your worries ethics.

PB. The more me they attack the Europeans the more strong I am in the United States.

PA. We would have that to do compatible your fortress with the appreciation of the Europeans.

First of all, this was not on the eve before the war with Iraq. This was February 22, 2003, about a month prior.

Secondly, when Aznar said "The only thing that worries me is your optimism," and Bush replied, "I'm optimistic because I believe I'm [in the certain thing]," they were talking about getting a second UN resolution - not optimism about the war itself.

It is apparent from the transcript that the Andrew Sullivan assessment is flat wrong. While Gil and Andrew are entitled to their opinions, to reprint such nonsense without providing an opposing viewpoint is misleading and socially irresponsible.

Calendar Chaos

YearlyKos Circus

It's been awhile since I posted a YouTube on here, but this one is worth it.

"We want every Florida vote to count" - or not.

Florida Democrats sue their party for blocking early primary




MIAMI (AFP) — Two top Florida Democrats on Thursday sued their own party in a dispute over the timing of the presidential primary in the state famed for the chaos that held up the 2000 presidential election results for five weeks.

The bitter battle has its roots in Florida's decision to hold its primary elections on January 29, earlier than allowed under the Democrats national rules.

The Democratic National Committee retaliated by voting to exclude the 210 Florida delegates from the 2008 convention where the party's presidential candidate will be picked.

The lawsuit filed by US Senator Bill Nelson and Representative Alcee Hastings claims the DNC's decision would deny millions of voters a say in the electoral process.

"Every one of the more than 4.25 million registered Democratic voters in Florida will be completely disenfranchised and their constitutional rights ... rendered meaningless," Nelson and Hastings said in the lawsuit they filed in Tallahassee, Florida's state capital.

The lawsuit argues that the right of voters trump the rights of a political party, including its right to enforce rules for primary elections.

"The right to vote and have your vote matter is the cornerstone of our democracy," said Nelson. "As to our right to vote, and have that vote count, there can be no debate," he said.

But, who will represent the Democrats in Afghanistan?

This is the liberal concept of "free speech"

Senator Censor



While Harry Reid may claim to believe that talk radio is "by and large" to be tolerated by the American people, the truth is that his new attempt to bring down Rush Limbaugh merely caps a decade-long effort to destroy talk radio critics.

Far from being new to this destructive game, Reid polished his censorship craft while a little- known Nevada senator, long before he would rise to the national stage as majority leader. From talk radio to grassroots political organizations, Mr Searchlight has always been known in the Silver State for his thin- skin and thuggish, mob- inspired antics.

How does your Radio Equalizer know this? From having once been a target of Reid's Hugo Chavez- like zeal for media control.

MORE

Clear Channel replies to Hairy Rod

PDF File

(Summary: Ever heard of the First Amendment?)

Democrats go nuts, go on McCarthy witchhunt for Rush Limbaugh

Full Story



Would someone please can this asshole?