A Detour in Life

Folks, I am sorry I have not been writing. My life has been on a detour for some time now and the things I need to attend to are more important than saving the world one post at a time. I have no idea when or if I will be returning to posting, but it will not likely be before fall. I wish all my blog friends the best.

AICS

Presidential Election December 23, 2007 Snapshot

By now I thought the nomination would be pretty sown up on both sides. Instead things are so dynamically changing every day it is nearly impossible to determine what will happen. That will not stop me from making my assessments.

First, on the Democrat side it has been a little fun watching Hillary taking some well deserved blows. I spoke of her glass jaw in a previous post and right now it appears she had one. Back in the Philadelphia Debate all it seemed to take was one clear firm question asking her about her position on giving drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. When Russert did not allow her to skate by without a clear answer, the glass jaw shattered. Hillary Clinton has been on a downward spiral ever since. There are several theories out there to explain this rapid decline. Some claim they have some serious dirt on her and the party has demanded she take a dive. Indeed many of the missteps since appear to be purposeful they are so bad. The second theory is that it is a setup to announce she is another “Comeback Kid” like Bill was in his first election. For awhile I also thought this, but her descent has been much further than I would expect for such a ploy. I think the real reason she has crashed, is that her public image was so completely based on vapor that the first un-sequestered glimpse of reality has completely pulled the curtain away from the man in the corner.

I think the DEM race is still a 50/50 shot. Hillary will not win Iowa, but she has time to re-surge given the right mixture of action and the help of a few missteps from the inexperienced Obama. The media may also want to keep thinks interesting. They have an investment in the Clintons I think they will be reluctant to throw away. If Hillary loses, she and Bill will be thoroughly damaged goods afterwards. At this point, I think Hillary will pull out of this by February and surge to the nomination by April. Of course, in the interest of full disclosure I think she is the easier candidate to beat in the General.

Now for those head scratching GOP voters – what are ye thinkin’?!! While I strongly have maintained that the worst GOP candidate is better than the best DEM candidate, a Mike Huckabee nomination would be disastrous on multiple fronts. First, I do not think there is a remote possibility of him winning the general election if nominated. Second, his likely un-conservative actions in office would be frustrating for the conservative movement and an embarrassment for Christians. The Bush presidency has opened the door for many comedians and pundits to take cheap shots at Christianity. Huckabee would throw open that door quite widely. The fact is that whether in leadership or among the masses, people today are not representing the Christian faith very well. This is a fact that is highlighted and underscored when there is an Evangelical Christian in high office. A break from that would be welcomed on my part.

Fortunately, I think Huckabee surged early enough to draw enough attention to what he really is about that his rise is now ebbing. I am also happy that Giuliani seems to be sinking across the board. I am not very enthusiastic about a Giuliani or McCain nomination. The GOP candidates can be divided into three categories: 1) They have a chance at winning 2) They have no chance at winning and unless things are exceptionally close will have very little impact on the election 3) They have very little chance at winning the nomination, but will likely pull enough votes to act as a spoiler for at least one other candidate. Giuliani and Romney are the only candidates that have a good shot at winning. Among the 2^nd category, on Ron Paul has enough votes to upset a close election. In spite of Huckabee’s current popularity and possible early success, he will not survive the larger states. Huckabee, McCain and Thompson will carry enough votes to possibly spoil the nomination for either Romney or Giuliani. If too many votes are diverted away from Romney in the early states, Giuliani will likely begin to gain momentum after the first 4-5 states. If Romney can win either Iowa or New Hampshire, he may be strong enough to take South Carolina – especially if Huckabee is 3^rd or 4^th in New Hampshire. If Romney is mediocre in Iowa and New Hampshire, he will be toast in South Carolina and not likely to regain traction. I am still hopeful Romney will persevere.

So in summary for this snapshot my money is on Hillary and Romney for the DEM and GOP nominations. I am planning the next snapshot after Iowa.

CNN Betting the Farm on DEM Victory in 2008

Can any objective thinking person view the election cycle antics of CNN and not come to the conclusion that they are betting the farm that the Democrats will win the 2008 elections, especially the White House? Last night's GOP debate was yet another example of CNN stacking the deck in favor of the Dems. Michelle Malkin has documented proof that four of the questioners are not only extremely liberal, but have declared their support for a Democrat candidate. Citing You Tube videos, personal blogs and a Union website, Michelle shows how they have clearly put their support behind one of the DEMs. In fact one is pictured wearing a John Edwards '08 T-shirt.

Comparing these antics to the CNN DEM debate where it was one softball question by Wolf Blitzer after another ending with the pearls or diamonds debacle, if becomes obvious that CNN is barely trying to hide its actions. Hillary Clinton flipped, then flopped, then flipped on the Drivers License for illegals issue. On Hillary's third position in such a short time on the same issue, Wolf simply let it go without follow up.

So the question is what is behind all this? There are only two explanations. One is that the staff and decision makers at CNN are so rabidly liberal that all of this seems normal to them. They simply have no ability to rationally realize the role of objective mediator they claim to represent. They lean so far left their ears touch the ground and they think the visual perspective they see is normal. If they were on the ship the hit the iceberg in Antarctica they would think the view was normal. They also fail to notice the foam on their chins. They have a right to this perspective, of course. All I ask is that they declare their bias. However, they claim no bias because to them leaning 90 degrees to the left is the norm. Somebody standing up straight is a radical right wing fanatic in their eyes.

The second explanation is that CNN is making conscious decisions to stack the deck in favor of the Dems. They know and admit their bias to themselves, while claiming objectivity in front of the camera. Perhaps decision makers have gathered in a smoke filled room and clearly determined they cannot survive another 4-8 years under a GOP administration without the "fairness" doctrine. They have the educational institutions locked up in their corner. They have the lawyers associations locked up. They have the unions locked up. They have the libraries locked up. They have the senior citizens associations locked up. They have the medical associations locked up. They have the UN locked up. They have the scientific community locked up. They have the television, movie and radio entertainment community locked up. They have almost all of the major magazine publications locked up. They have live theater locked up. They have the major newspapers locked up. They have almost all of the television news and commentary locked up. They have just about every aspect of American life locked up in their hip pockets. However, they don't have talk radio locked up and they cannot stand it.

If not for Talk Radio, the US would be more left leaning today than Europe. Before Talk Radio even existed as it does today Ronald Reagan took the country by storm and physically moved it to the right several notches. Talk Radio helped move it to the right a few more notches in 1994. Since then regardless of Talk Radio, the country continues to drift back to the left. Talk Radio only slows down the drift.

Conservatives have two things going for them: Talk Radio and barely a Supreme Court that leans about one degree to the right. These two things are equivalent to the Dutch boys finger in the dike. So the second explanation for CNNs embarrassing behavior this election cycle is they know a Democrat in the White House is the only chance at taking away this finger in the dike. They are pressing ahead with no thought to their credibility or how they are going to salvage any reputation after this. They seem to be betting that if a Dem wins in '08, the spring feeding any ill will for them will dry up and this will all be forgotten in a few years. They are fantasizing over the good old days when they could say what they want without challenge and exposure.

Of course it could be a mixture of both. Like Al Gore and the UN on global warming and the Dems on Iraq, CNN is pressing ahead without any fear of becoming a laughing-stock or worse.
They are investing 100% of their stock into the immediate need. If conservatives hold the line this time, CNN and others just might be setup for a world of hurt. Of course, they can always deny, deny, deny while their friends circle the wagons around them like they always do. It is amazing how public ignorance is their best friend.

Hugo Chavez Questions Patriotism of Those Who Disagree With Him

Hugo Chavez, the darling of the American Left, is questioning the patriotism of any Venezuelans that vote against granting him the ability to be dictator for life. According to AP:

President Hugo Chavez warned his supporters on Friday that anyone voting against his proposed constitutional changes would be a "traitor," rallying his political base before a referendum that would let him seek unlimited re-election in 2012 and beyond.

The usual knee-jerk reaction of American liberals is to cry that their patriotism is being questioned whenever they are criticized for positions that are contrary to those of the current administration. While I have rarely heard claims against their patriotism, the left simply cannot abide any criticism of their beliefs. I have heard several key liberals question the patriotism of some conservatives. Since they will be unwilling to relinquish their love affair with Chavez, look to the left for similar inconsistency in dealing with Hugo's new label for dissenters.

Where in the World is AICS?

Sometimes my life is hit by very busy waves and I find myself at the bottom of the sea looking up at the waterline and pray I can surface in time to breath. Such has been the last few weeks and it looks like it will be that way through next week. Of course one of the reasons I am so busy is that I must get my work done before I take a trip to Hawaii at the end of the month. Looking forward to it, but I don't want things hanging over my head. Of course I will be busy when I return catching up. So while I may add a post or two here and there, don't expect too much until mid-December or the beginning of next year.

Everybody have a Happy Thanksgiving

Speaking of Waterboarding

I know some may think I am minimizing waterboarding here, but I believe I am intimately familiar with the practice every time I go to the dentist. While when I was a kid, I compare my dentist to Dr. Frankenstein due to his brutal pain inducing ways, he did let me hold the suction and use it when I wanted.

Now that I am an adult, the dentist never offers to allow me to hold the suction. Somehow I never remember to ask to hold it until it is too late. I have always thought the dentist was just busy and forgot until I was at a specialist last week and he had an assistant holding the suction. No, they just are not concerned about the lake of saliva that accumulates in the back of my throat during the work until the level is so high it reaches the tooth they are working on at the moment. If it happens to be a tooth near the front, forget about it. However, even the last tooth way in the back leaves enough liquid to drown you.

It is a tricky job to navigate this situation. The dentist is working on your teeth. You are constantly moving your tongue around to keep from getting a hole drilled in it. It's "Open" then "Close", "Relax", "Open Wider", etc. Then there is the chronic nagging to satisfy the automatic reflex to swallow. Ever try to swallow with your mouth open? Last week the dentist put a jack in my mouth so it was quite a feat to swallow with my mouth open at its widest. When swallowing it is important not to actually swallow anything. First, you don't actually want to swallow that accumulation of liquid, drilled particles and chemicals they have placed in your mouth. Second, you cannot swallow the entire lake in one action. To try to swallow some, opens the gate for the whole mass to shout "Once more unto the breach" and dive for the gap. It is at this point that the waterboarded feeling takes full effect.

You can't really tell the dentist anything because your mouth is wide open. He would only hear, "I xcheed thouexseambn". Since your tongue is blocking the gap for dear life, it cannot assist in producing distinct consonants and diphthongs; so that representation is probably much clearer than the actual words that you say. The dentist will politely act as if he understands every word and keep drilling as more water flows to cool the drill. You try curling your finger like an upside-down 'J', but he thinks you are making some strange attempt to give him the finger. He knows everybody hates him, so he is used to it.

Your thoughts begin to get frantic. "I am going to drown in my own saliva and drill water. How long will it take for the paramedics to get here to revive me? Who will give me mouth to mouth - the dentist or the matronly assistant? If I survive the drowning, will the chemicals get me? Aghh, more chlorine based chemicals. Don't breath. Don't breath. If I swallow, will that force my tongue next to the drill? Will I feel it now or after the Novocaine wears off? When is this going to be over? Oh no, the dentist has to take a phone call and he forgot to suction me before walking away. Maybe when he comes back I can just turn my head and let it all dribble out onto his knee." And so it goes. When the procedure is over and all instruments, liquid and chemicals are out of your mouth, you breath fully and freely; enjoying every moment of stale dentist office air.

Yes, I will be accused of taking a serious subject and minimizing it. However, I truly believe I have a clue as to what this treatment is like and nobody is going to convince me otherwise.

Give Him Something Broken

I continuously resist the urge to break out into a full scale Science Fiction / Fantasy topic. While I have not read much new SF in years, it is something near and dear to my heart - as R2W can attest. I would love to start an SF blog, but I hardly have time for this one so today I will simply drop a reference.

One of my favorite SF series is The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant The Unbeliever by Stephen R. Donaldson. He wrote the first and second chronicles and is now on a slow path to writing the third. As he is no spring chicken, I am biting my nails that he will finish. I also am waiting until he finishes to begin reading it. I had a long haul wait when he was writing the second set. In fact I did not even know it was a second series until I read the last page. I have been in the same camp with some of Terry Brooks books and others, so no thanks - I'll wait.

All that to point out that in the war between the "protagonist" (read it to find why it is in quotes) and the antagonist, it is stated that "The only way to hurt a man who has lost everything is to give him back something broken".

While George W. Bush is far from having lost everything, he is a lame duck so it fits in a way. The nomination of Michael Mukasey for AG was a clear attempt on the part of Bush to avoid controversy. Many across the aisle had a favorable opinion of Mukasey including Chucky Schumer. The confirmation should have been a slam dunk. Then, as always, the Dems began playing games. They threw in the red herring of waterboarding demanding that Mukasey declare the treatment to be torture. The choking hypocrisy of the Dems is apparent as we have yet to see any real attempt to outlaw the use of waterboarding by non-Pentagon agencies. As usual the Dems blubber and bluster about this or that, yet do not do anything about it. They do not want to be in the position of waking up to news of a terrorist attack where tactics like waterboarding were not used because they passed a law against it.

In the case of Mukasey, if they really had a problem with waterboarding they would not have confirmed him. Yet Mukasey was confirmed by a vote of 53-40. In short, the Dems could have praised Bush for the nomination of a mutually acceptable candidate, instead they threw a fly in the ointment by demanding action of the nominee they are unwilling to do themselves. The goal here as always is to avoid EVER, EVER giving Bush even the slightest word of having done something good. No matter the area, no matter big or small, the Dems and their water carrying media cannot allow the notion that Bush did something good or right to ever pass their lips unless it is well contaminated with offsetting criticism.

The Dems have taken a bipartisan, compromising nomination and returned Bush something broken. Instead of allowing him to begin his AG duties with an excellent reputation and moral authority, they have branded Mukasey with a mark of Cain and primed the public for the slightest criticism of Mukasey's actions if he does not do their full bidding. At the slightest controversy the media will immediately toe their party line and take the side of the Dems in undermining Mukasey's character and reputation.

After looking at the continuous behavior from both sides of the aisle, it never ceases to amaze me how the GOP has alone been the saddled with the reputation of "dirty tricks". The Dems never, ever miss a dirty trick and this is just another one.

Sarkozy a Breath of Fresh Air

After suffering for years under the arrogant Chirac, it is refreshing to see Nicolas Sarkozy embracing the United States and remembering what the US did for France. I think he is probably nice enough he won't mind me having a little fun.



Separated at Birth?

John Kerry Chooses Weapon Instead of Truth

There may be times when during a campaign people come to the conclusion they can think of one or two reasons to vote for a candidate. A good true test comes after a few years can you still name even one reason you would have voted for the losing candidate. I would think most former John Kerry supporters would have a hard time naming anything specific.

The media has allowed John Kerry and other liberals to coin the term "swiftboating" in a misleading manner. The newly coined term is now generally accepted by the liberal media as making a strong assault using false accusations against a candidate in order to discredit them. The incorrect coinage of the term centers around the word false. The problem is that neither Kerry nor the media ever did prove that the allegations of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were false. In fact John Kerry danced around and around when it came to releasing the documents that should support his claims. It took him over a year to finally sign the form 180 to release his full military record. However, even then he could not give a full release, but only allowed friendly media such as AP, LA Times and Boston Globe to have full access to the records.

Now John Kerry instead of using the truth to fight any future battles, has compiled a power dossier on many of the Swift Boat Veterans in order to use against them in the future. The Patriot Ledger states:

Kerry, whose service as a U.S. Navy Swift boat skipper during the Vietnam War came under attack in his race against President Bush, said he has compiled a dossier on his war record critics that he wishes he had as the Democratic presidential nominee.

``We have put together a documented portfolio that frankly puts their lies in such a total light of absurdity and indecency, that should they ever rear their ugly heads again, we have every single ‘t’ crossed and ‘i’ dotted, and I welcome that in a sense,'' Kerry said following a morning address to the South Shore Chamber fo Commerce. ``It’s a shame we weren’t able to produce all that at the time.''

John Kerry dodged and weaved instead of just releasing his records. Now in the future he has a weapon. Bitter times for a bitter man.

Newt Says Hillary Chances Down to 50-50

The National Review provides comments by Newt Gingrich on Sean Hannity's radio show:

Newt Gingrich called in to Sean Hannity's radio program to discuss Hillary Clinton's debate performance. Highlights:

“Her performance in that debate was so bad, on issues that matter so much, she may not be able to recover from it… This issue of Spitzer trying to give out d l to people at a time when your driver’s licenseallows you to vote – for her to trap herself into saying that creates a big wound…

The fact that she said she’s basically sympathetic with Rangel’s trillion dollar tax increase – that’s going to arouse some deep opposition. The huge Democratic tax increase allowed us to win in 1994… Then, I saw in a ticker on Fox News, when Sen. Edwards said nominating her would be ‘a victory for a corruption machine’… it brings back a lot of memories of the Chinese funding scandals of 1996… It takes her winning the nomination from an 80 percent likelihood to a 50 percent. It’s even money. If she doesn’t turn this around quick, I may have to call back in and take it even lower.”

I'm not so sure the damage is that bad - Yet. I would say she had a 99% chance before and this combined with other recent developments lowered her to 70%. Hillary is on fly paper right now. I don't see how she will be able to release herself from it. She has based her whole campaign on avoiding locking herself into key positions. Until the Philadelphia debate, she has been able to get away with it. Her performance, however, was so bad that the media simply could not cover for it. The genie is out of the bottle now and it will be very difficult for the media to go back to allowing her to get away with such across the board ambiguity. She is sunk in the general election if she continues on this route. However, being forced to take positions that will satisfy the far left enough to get the nomination will slaughter her in the general.

If Hillary does lose the nomination, she will likely lose it to Obama. That move will be a gift to the GOP. Obama has been very clear on his positions, but most are deal-killers. Some have said that unless the GOP can make 2008 about National Security they will lose. An Obama nomination where he has clearly stated he supports giving illegal immigrants drivers licenses can easily make 2008 about immigration. A strong policy that opposes amnesty and drivers licenses is a clear winning position. If Hillary has ceded the nomination to Obama, it may prove that the debate was the first domino that leads to a GOP victory in 2008.

Glass Jaw Clinton Has Vacuous Supporters

An article in The Hill contains some insight into Hillary supporters. They seem to be quite vacuous and not quite in touch with reality. The article provides some response to the debate during a campaign conference call. Even the writer of the article seems way out of touch with reality. It states:

"Clinton came under withering assault in the Philadelphia debate..."

Give me a break. Withering assault? This is like moving the first pawn in a chess game and portraying that the opponent came under "withering assault". The job of the candidates in these debates is to show why they are different and better than the other candidates. It has always been common for trailing candidates to place most of their focus on the lead candidate. Instead of recognizing this, these vacuous supporters picture it in terms of piling on:

Those female voters are saying, “Sen. Clinton needs our support now more than ever if we’re going to see this six-on-one to try to bring her down,”

As pointed out in the previous post, this is one of the first real attempts by the other candidates to actually score points against Hillary. I have seen the video and heard the clips. In reality it was a very weak attempt by Obama and Edwards. They tapped on her glass jaw with their pinkies and she dropped to the ground. To picture this as ganging up on her unfairly is a continuation of Hillary's supporters to lay down rules that because Hillary is a woman, nobody can challenge her. They want all the pluses of her being a woman, but they want special rules because she is a woman. Isn't this the heart and soul of the modern feminist movement? The supporters are going so far to paint the weakest of challenges by Obama and Edwards as worthy of a "backlash":

He also said criticisms from Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) would backfire and that he was already “detecting some backlash,” particularly among female voters.

If questioned about this, Obama and Edwards should state "If Hillary Clinton wants special rules protecting her from any challenge whatsoever, she will be setting the women's movement back 50 years if she gets her way". Hillary is going right along with this 'Eek, I'm a woman, you can't challenge me' approach:

The Clinton campaign released a video Wednesday, entitled “The Politics of Pile On,” showing clips of the senator’s rivals going after her by name during the debate.

Wow, she might as well wear a sandwich sign that states she has a glass jaw and can't take it.

The supporters also attacked Tim Russert and Brian Williams for their role in simply asking a question about her position on a current policy trend:

He, Mantz and several supporters hinted repeatedly on the call that Clinton was unfairly targeted by Tim Russert, debate moderator and host of NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“Russert made it appear that President Clinton had done something new or unusual,” Penn said, before adding that it “is, in fact, an extremely confusing situation … I think there will be further clarification.”

“I hope so,” a female caller responded. “To me, it was the most uncomfortable part of the debate.”

Penn turned again to Russert. “The other candidates were asked questions like, ‘Is there life in outer space?’ ”

Russert asks a question that made them uncomfortable so he is a bad guy. As for the space topic, do you think Kucinich supporters were comfortable that he claimed to see a UFO? Did that advance his chances of getting the nomination? This question is also very appropriate for Hillary because aside from the fact she is a carpetbagger, Hillary is Senator from the same state as Governor Spitzer. The policy is going to be enacted in her state. Asking her what she thinks of that is totally appropriate. The fact she was unwilling to clearly state her position is what caused the trouble. One supporter on the call was so angry at Russert for asking the question she declared he "should be shot".

The Obama campaign did follow up the next day to score a few more points. His campaign spokesman Bill Burton underscored the situation:

Burton wrote that Clinton dodged questions on Social Security, Iran and the National Archives issue. And on one of the more talked-about moments from the end of the debate, Clinton’s position on a move by New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D) to grant driver’s licenses to illegal aliens, Burton said, “Twelve hours after the debate ended, the American people are still waiting for an answer on Sen. Clinton’s position … She didn’t answer the question in the debate and her campaign couldn’t answer it afterwards.”

Hillary has an opportunity to clearly state her position. Instead she engages in meaninless rhetoric:

The senator did not appear ready to surrender Wednesday, though. When accepting the AFSCME endorsement, Clinton handed McEntee a pair of boxing gloves.

“When it comes to fighting for America’s working families, I’ll go 10 rounds with anybody,” she said.

From her debate performance and follow up afterwards, it appears she wants 10 rounds of swinging wildly in the air and rules that forbid her opponents from making contact with her. Hillary can't take powder punches from the Democrat 'weanie' candidates. How will she take challenges from leaders of other countries if she is elected?

Hillary Cracks at First Tough Question

AFP reports on the aftermath of last night's debate:

For the first time, Hillary Clinton woke after a 2008 presidential debate Wednesday roughed up by rivals finally showing the capacity to draw blood in the Democratic race for the White House.

Clinton's top foes John Edwards and Barack Obama painted her as unelectable, facilitating war with Iran, untrustworthy, and claimed to have caught her in a political flip-flop on immigration during the campaign clash in Philadelphia.

Volley after volley of attacks rained in on Clinton, offering the first hints of potential political vulnerabilities, just 65 days before Iowa holds the 2008 race's first party nominating contests.

Was it "attacks" by Edwards and Obama? Or rather was it simply the first time tough questions were able to squeak through to Hillary. If a media interviewer of Hillary is not already favorable toward her, the interview climate is carefully controlled. We have seen with the GQ story suppression how the Clintons crack down on the media in order to get their way.

We have all seen how the GOP candidates get grilled with tough questions and multiple follow-ups if the answer isn't considered complete. With Hillary it has been powder puff softballs or shameless fawning. Then in the debate, the unthinkable happened. A tough question got through. The question about giving drivers licenses to illegal immigrants is pretty tough to give a middle ground. She tried pretty hard though. She can see how Governor Spitzer thinks it is necessary because Congress won't pass comprehensive immigration reform. Huh? Of course when Chris "Bread Slice" Dodd called her on supporting it, she snaps back that she didn't say she supported it. So does she or doesn't she? She is not saying and she wants the right to not say anything.

When combined with her weak answer on releasing documents from when she was First Lady, it is obvious that Hillary is not used to tough questions. The other candidates smelled blood in the water and tried to capitalize on it. However, they were very weak in their attacks. They left some points on the table. Obama, made a few points picturing Hillary as an ambiguous waffler; but then fell flat on his face by claiming clear support for giving illegals drivers licenses. He slit his political wrist on that one. No way he can win the general election with that one statement hanging out there. He will be beaten mercilessly over the head with it if he wins the nomination.

So while the others lost a full opportunity, the media for whatever reason has decided to grant the public a glimpse of the real Hillary by actually covering this. She is cold, calculating, unwilling to take clear positions, and folds at the first tough questions to ever hit her. The nomination is hers to lose. If there was another Democrat candidate with any promise, Hillary would sink fast after her stumbles in the last month. On the other hand, Democrat voters seem to like corruption and flaws. Remember William Jefferson? I think in this debate, Hillary rose like Smaug the dragon and exposed the flawed patch in her armor. The question is which of the GOP candidates is going to be Bard the Bowman?

Either You Are With Us or You Are With the Terrorists

President Bush has taken a lot of flak for making the claim that other countries are either with us or with the terrorists. The liberals try to expand that statement into a claim that other counties must agree with us and follow the US on every foreign policy position or they are our enemy. I did not come away with that interpretation when he said it, and thought it was very clear. The paragraph of the speech this was in is the following:

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

Liberals have chafed and complained about that clear statement for several years now; morphing the meaning into something it is not. The recent developments in Yemen remind us of the reason and meaning behind those words. We all remember:

On October 12, 2000, USS Cole, under the command of Commander Kirk Lippold, set in to Aden harbor for a routine fuel stop. Cole completed mooring at 09:30. Refueling started at 10:30. Around 11:18 local time (08:18 UTC), a small craft approached the port side of the destroyer, and an explosion occurred, putting a 35-by-36-foot gash in the ship's port side. The blast hit the ship's galley, where crew were lining up for lunch.[1] The crew fought flooding in the engineering spaces and had the damage under control by the evening. Divers inspected the hull and determined the keel was not damaged.

The Bomb Monkey behind the plot was captured and imprisoned. According to this World Tribune story:

In 2004, Al Badawi was convicted of plotting and conducting the bombing of the USS Cole. A Yemeni court condemned Al Badawi to death, but the sentence was reduced to 15 years in prison.

As if the sentence reduction were not bad enough, there are reports that the Yemeni government has released the Bomb Monkey and the National Security Council has responded angrily to the report:

The Bush administration expressed disappointment with Yemen's decision to release the man regarded as the mastermind [sic] of the Al Qaida attack on the USS Cole in Aden in 2000.

"The United States is dismayed and deeply disappointed in the government of Yemen's decision not to imprison [Al] Badawi," National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said. "This action is inconsistent with a deepening of our bilateral counterterrorism cooperation."

Two daysafter Johnroe made these statements, the Yemeni government responded that he "...was still in detention. But the Yemeni Interior Ministry would not elaborate." There were reports that Badawi was home and receiving guests.

A follow-up story by CNN now states that the US Embassy confirmed yesterday that the bomb monkey is in a jail cell. According to CNN:

Additionally, an official from the U.S. Embassy in Yemen reported seeing al-Badawi in his jail cell Monday, another official with the State Department told CNN.

The Interior Ministry official said that when Al-Badawi surrendered earlier this month, he asked to meet with his family before going back to prison.

So either the bomb monkey was released temporarily (some kind of house arrest?) and the Yemeni government changed their mind after the US blasted them, or they allowed this scumbag time to visit his family in his home before reporting back to prison after escaping and being recaptured.

The reduction in sentence and later playing footsie with this terrorist leaves the Yemeni government in a position where they might claim to be "with us", yet have a lustful eye toward the "against us" column. The sentence reduction is a slap in the face to our country and the loved ones of our fallen sailors of the USS Cole. I have serious doubts this bomb monkey will even serve the full 15 years. Regardless, the day they let this creep go is the day Yemen will clearly go into the "against us" camp. He has no right to take another breath, much less a free one. We can only hope that the US will have a sniper ready to take him out upon release.

Condi Rice and the Bloody Hands Woman Video

Here is the video from the picture in the previous post. It shows Condi Rice walking into the hearing and this woman seemingly coming completely out of nowhere. She has full access to Condi for a few seconds before Condi's security team see her and has to run around people to get to her. The angle of the video shows that they get to the crazed woman before anybody on the open free side of Condi arrives. It was one of the slowest responses I have seen. The question is: you have a hearing about to start and an administration official is coming in. Wouldn't a trained security officer be fully attuned to somebody walking around in close proximity? It would be like a flight attendant honing in on a passenger walking around just before take-off.

I would also point out the context of the photo in the last post. When you watch the video, you see that the photo does not at all represent how Condi reacted to the incident. However, the photo is the only moment she is giving the woman any attention whatsoever. She does not give the disdainful look shown in the photo, but how her face looks in turning. Funny how one slice of time can fail to capture the context of a situation.

The video then ends with all the Code Pinkos being dragged out of the room. Of course they are dragged kicking and screaming. The first one seems to give a lot more trouble. I have a feeling that with the second one, the security guy has a handlock on her that will cause quite a lot of pain if she tries to drop on the ground like the first one. The first one screams repeatedly "What are you doing! What are you doing!". A telling sign of the intelligence level of the group. It will be interesting to see if they let them back into hearings in the future.

Effectiveness Killing Photos

So they know the media is watching, cameras are rolling and they want their message to the public to be in the best light, right? Apparently not. The radical anti-war left always seems to send a message of lunacy and seems to beg people to latch onto the opposing view. The wild eyed woman in this picture will no doubt draw thousands to her cause. The photo also speaks volumes on what is more important on Capital Hill: security of high ranking officials or pacification of the radical left.

Mitt Romney Promises a Top to Bottom Audit of the Government

In this video, Mitt Romney talks about his experience in the business world and as Governor. His message is simple - the government shouldn't spend more than it receives. Mitt promises when President to do a complete audit of the government from Top to Bottom! Sounds like a great plan. I'd like to see him get in just to see the results of that audit.

Another Democrat Machine Going Down?

The people of Louisiana have taken a big step in the dismantling of another Democrat Machine. I predicted over a year ago that the Democrats of Louisiana would be facing trouble in the next Governor's election. GOP Bobby Jindal has made history by being the first man of Indian descent to become governor of one of the United States. He is the first non-white LA Governor since the Reconstruction. He is the youngest governor at 36 and has overcome the Louisiana Democrat machine to do it. During his campaign, Jindal was clear about the nest of corruption the Democrats had built in the state. According to the Washington Post:

"We've got a government that's out of control," he said in his stump speech. "We've got a government that spends our money without any regard. We're in the top five in having the most crooked politicians in America. We're going to change that."

Jindal is for lower taxes and against corruption. It will be fun to watch the rest of the Democrat machine in the state get dismantled. In my May 2006 post I stated:

We saw the overthrow of the Democrat machine in neighboring Georgia a few years ago. I think the LA. Dems should be quaking in their boots about now.

I have a feeling they are. Congratulations to Bobby Jindal on his win. Now if only we could dismantle the Democrat Machine in Chicago at the city level and Illinois at the state level.

Presidency Killing Photos

We all remember the Dukakis Tank picture. Some say, that after this photo he began to drop in the polls.


Then there was John Kerry in the cute powder blue jumpsuit. Is there negative power in bad photos when it comes to Presidential elections?


If so, this picture of Hillary (as Sum Ting Wong according to Texas Rainmaker) may be the deal killer. It not only looks goofy, it underscores her ties to China. As such, it can be used as a prop photo again and again. Of course, if bad pictures of Hillary is your cup of tea, click on over to this site and see a bunch of 'em. Warning! Do not go right after a meal. I cannot be help responsible for your wasting good food that way.

AICS TV Critic-Journeyman aGood Idea a Good Plot a Bad Script

When I saw the lineup of NBC this year I thought it was pretty good. On top of one of my favorite shows last year, Heroes, they added Chuck, Journeyman, Bionic Woman and Life. Of these, the one that had me most excited was Journeyman. Since I was a kid and read The Time Machine by H.G. Wells, time travel has been one of my favorite subjects in a book, movie or show. In addition to getting to see the past or future, the notion of changing either is fascinating. Journeyman began well and I was eager to see the next episode. By the second episode, I was still liking the show but getting pretty irritated with the guy's wife and brother.

The Journeyman is another flawed hero (which I tend to like, 'cause there's nothing worse than a perfect hero). He was addicted to gambling and somehow became married to his brother's ex-wife (yuck). During his gambling spell, they almost divorced but he was able to overcome it and the marriage survived but remains rocky. He had a girlfriend, Olivia, before he married his wife and everybody seems to know Olivia was the love of his life. She died in a plane crash, but her body was never found.

If things were not exciting enough, he suddenly starts uncontrollably leaping through time. Ok, it is nearly a rip-off of Quantum Leap but he leaps to the past and back home. He finds that where he leaps to, he is to help somebody. He sometimes leaps at the worst possible moment: when on an airplane, when he is fixing the plumming and the water is running, before the biggest night of the year for his wife. That is where the bad scripting comes in. The reaction of the wife is completely unrealistic. First, she thought he was just going places (maybe gambling?) until he proves he is leaping. She gets mad at him like he can control it. She is a walking bomb of "issues" and a complete nag. She completely lacks any curiosity about his adventures in time and in general acts like it is "all about her". The viewer is tempted to throw things at the screen and call her the same thing most are tempted to call Hillary Clinton.

At the lowest point, he goes back to the past and sees Olivia. He finds out she did not die and is a time traveler like him. He had a chance to, you know, but he was honorable. Now he keeps seeing her. Bad news, though. The harpy found out when Olivia loaned him her watch - the watch he had given to Olivia. The one inscribed "With Love Forever" or something like that. So basically every time he is home, his wife is a nagging witch and when he is in the past things are so nice with Olivia. Can we predict where this is going? And in spite of the moral side of things, can we guess who the audience is cheering for?

There are some funny scenes. The funniest is when he goes back to the early '80s and meets a guy talking on one of those old and BIG early cellphones. He has a bluetooth in his ear and the guy with the big phone is laughing about it. I am going to keep watching it, but I risk a splitting migraine when the wife is on. My wife "Olive Oyl" would be so into my time traveling. She would be jumping up and down on the bed asking me to tell her what happened this time. She would be begging me to try and pick her up and take her with. She would be giving advice on how to help the person and helping me do research. In short, the show could be written so much better. Maybe he will go back in time and smooth things over with his wife and brother and they will stay together. We can only hope.

Another China Toy Recall

I saw this over at Blonde Sagacity blog and had the best laugh in days. Hopefully you all will enjoy it too.

Cool Marine Video

Here is a cool Marine Video. As many of you know my oldest son is a new Marine and we are so proud of him. Seeing videos like this is meaningful as a United States citizen, but as the father of a Marine it is hard not to bust my buttons.

Will China Buy an American President?

The United States currently has a Congress where the majority is bought and paid for by George Soros and MoveOn.Oink. Are we soon to have a president who was bought and paid for by China, our biggest economic and military rival? If Hillary Clinton becomes President, my opinion is the answer is Yes. The circumstantial evidence is nearing a level that should be undeniable that China is funneling money to Hillary Clinton using a variety of methods. Below are four key areas that point strongly to the heavy Chinese cloud that hangs over Hillary Clinton. A key theme in all four is the continued lack of media curiosity when it comes to Hillary Clinton. The surface is always barely scratched and then with a big yawn the media goes lumbering off like a bear going back to the woods to do what bears do in the woods.

The Ties to China Under the William Jefferson Blythe Clinton Administration

The readers should avail themselves of one of my favorite links in the list to the right of this page. This link shows why Bill Clinton's Administration is the Gold Standard of Corruption. During the Clinton Administration we saw one Asian fund raising scandal after another. There was John Huang, who was investigated for violating campaign finance laws. In 1999 he obtained a plea deal that only gave him 1 year of probation, a $10,000 fine and 500 hours of community service. According to this Washington Post Campaign Finance Special Report on Huang:

Huang organized the fund-raiser at the Hsi Lai Temple outside Los Angeles, where Vice President Al Gore helped collect $140,000 – most of which has since been returned.

Investigators are also exploring whether Huang may have served as an "agent of influence" of the People's Republic of China, perhaps funneling money from Beijing into American political campaigns.

The temple fund raising flap was only a brief embarrassment for Al Gore instead of the criminal scandal it should have developed into. In another WP report on the event:

Gore suffered considerable embarrassment from the temple visit. He initially said it wasn't a fund-raising event, but memos prepared by the DNC for his staff clearly show that those joining him for lunch at the temple had to contribute $2,500 per person to the party.

What early on appeared to be a mystery – how monks and nuns living on $40 monthly stipends could afford to make hefty campaign contributions – was at least partly solved by reports that the temple repaid individuals who donated.

It is illegal to finance a political donation officially listed in the name of another.

Gore was allowed to apologize and move on. Thank you Janet Reno for holding the Guinness Record for turning a blind eye. Though the media briefly touched on the unlikely ability of the monks to raise that kind of money on their $40 a week stipend, they never seemed curious about where the money actually did come from. Gore's apology and the money being returned was good enough to move on.

There was another Chinese fund raiser during the Clinton Administration, Johnny Chung. Chung visited the White House 49 times, but the Clintons falsified this info only reported a fraction of those visits. We later found out why. Chung admitted to investigators that some of the campaign money came from China's Military Intelligence.

There was also the giving away of missile technology to China under the Clinton Administration. According to Salon.com:

The Clinton administration between 1993 and 1996 allowed numerous exports of potential ballistic-missile technology to the Chinese government despite China's refusal, in some instances, to allow inspections to assure that the technology was only being used for civilian purposes, according to classified documents and four U.S. government officials.

We all derided Jimmy Carter for giving away the Panama Canal, but thanks to Bill Clinton the Chinese obtained the technology to start aiming Nuclear warheads at us. No wonder we see so much Asian money coming to the Clintons.

The Speeches of Bill Clinton

I posted some time back on how the paid speeches of Bill Clinton while his wife is a sitting Senator is the biggest loophole imaginable. This vehicle, if used as such, could be compared to the "perfect murder". Instead of murder it could be used as the perfect bribe an money laundering scheme in politics. Somebody wants something. The Clintons are approached. All they have to do to obtain favors for money is hire Bill to give a speech for big bucks. He has raised millions in speeches, yet nobody has even raised an eyebrow over the possibility of impropriety. Here is an interesting site that maps out the locations of Clinton's speeches. Drill down and you will see over $1 million in speeches in China alone. Of course money can come from China while he gives speeches anywhere in the world. No, there is no proof here but once again the media seems to be asleep at the wheel on this one.


The Felonious Fundraiser - Norman Hsu

Since this is so fresh and already hashed over, I will not go into detail. The important point is that the media once again seems to lack interest over where the money from Hsu comes from. There were several examples of large donations coming from individuals that were not likely able to afford such sacrificial donations.

When the Hsu flap surfaced, Hillary returned a whopping $850,000 of the money bundled and given to her campaign. The media fawned over her integrity, but feigned deafness when a short time after Hillary sent a not so subtle message to the original donors (whoever they are) to re-donate the money directly. A brazen act that only a media darling could get away with.

Money keeps coming in. Asian principal characters are involved. However, the media yawns.

The Chinatown Army of the Impoverished

The newest link to the Clintons and China is (surprisingly)being reported by the LA Times. A surprising number of large donations are coming from some of the lowest wage earners from New York's Chinatown. According to the Times:

Dishwashers, waiters and others whose jobs and dilapidated home addresses seem to make them unpromising targets for political fundraisers are pouring $1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton's campaign treasury. In April, a single fundraiser in an area long known for its gritty urban poverty yielded a whopping $380,000. When Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) ran for president in 2004, he received $24,000 from Chinatown.

Also:

Many of Clinton's Chinatown donors said they had contributed because leaders in neighborhood associations told them to. In some cases, donors said they felt pressure to give.

The $1000-$2000 donations are coming from from tenants of dilapidated homes, from low income workers, under pressure from local associations and some listed donors cannot be found. Some donors are denying they gave at all even though their name appears on the list. I wonder where the money from those are coming from?

In conclusion, I would point to the tale of two Hillaries. When you see Hillary Clinton making her rounds on The View and other morning shows, the news shows; when you hear reports from all of the media outlets you get a picture of an intelligent triumphant woman. Every scrap of evidence that can be twisted or amplified into the appearance of humanity in Hillary is highlighted. Even though it is difficult to point to any one thing that Hillary has actually accomplished in her political life, her record is given the appearance of success and the appearance that she has done a lot to help people. Contrast that tale to the constant leaks of reality that show Hillary to be a phony, conniving, iron lady that is hounded by a cloud of corruption ready to break into scandal at any given moment. Add the Marxist element that oozes out of her pores and the almost daily announcement of a new way to expand government and spend our hard earned money.

As I have stated before, I have yet to see anyone give a clear supported offensive declaration of why Hillary Clinton should be the next President of the United States. Instead we see one after another leaping to her defense. Tell us why people should vote for her. Don't just argue against those who state why people should not vote for her. Yet that is just it. It is tough to come up with a scrap of a list of reasons to make her President.

No One Mourns the Wicked - Except the Liberal Media

Last year about this time I went to see the musical Wicked and absolutely loved it. One of the songs in Wicked is No One Mourns the Wicked. It is after they announce to the crowd that the Wicked witch is dead and nobody seems to grieved over it. In real life that is likely so, except when it comes to the media. When evil people die, you can get some really weird reactions from the media. Pay attention next time when somebody like Yassar Arafat or Saddam Hussein dies. While I guess they cannot get on their desks and dance a gig, their glumness is quite noticeable. There was even the reporter that broke down crying for Arafat, the father of modern terrorism. When a death row inmate gets his final justice, once again we see the surreal glumness. Contrast that to the time I heard local WLS talk show host Don Wade declare gleefully, "Today is the day John Wayne Gacy wakes up in Hell!"

Perhaps the most obvious time the media seems to mourn the wicked is when a law abiding citizen is forced to defend his life with a gun and shoots an intruder. You almost expect them to start breaking down like the professional wailing woman of Lebanon. Then they get angry. Captains Quarters has a post and a video of a reporter hounding a 70 year old man because he has been forced to shoot 2 intruders within weeks. The video shows the man walking to his car with a long box and the reporter leaping up to him demanding "What's in the box!" as she aggressively taps on it. He tells her it is a shotgun and she starts grilling him asking if he is "trigger happy". It is obvious from the video that the man wishes he did not have to do this, but has no qualms about doing it again if necessary.

The man lives in a residence that is part of his business. He has a huge tall fence surrounding him. He had called the police on intrusions 41 times and when he had to shoot they had broken into the residence portion of the property. So it is obvious that counting on the police to save your life in this situation is not the answer. I guess the media thinks he should lift up his chin and let the intruder slit his throat.

I always hate when there is a reported shooting and the reporter states there are no charges or leaves the matter open about charges. This snippy reporter does the same thing stating the police said "No laws have been broken" but that it would be turned over to the Grand Jury to determine. I would love to see the reporter state, "Of course having defended his life, there will be no charges against him. He has rid the world of one of its problems."

So while those of us with two feet in reality feel a sense of relief and justice when the wicked die, in a world of liberal journalism gone wild we must try to stomach when they mourn the deaths of those most deserving.

Control Freak Targets Six Year Old Cutie Pie

In a recent post I spoke about Control Freaks; how much trouble they cause me and how much they annoy me. In that post among other things I stated:

The funny part is that the desire for control usually does not center around anything really important. It usually is focused on petty details.

There is a story in the Brooklyn Paper about such a control freak. His target? A six year old girl drawing with chalk on the sidewalk near her home. The control freak called 311 to report the incident and another bureaucratic control freak at city hall sends what amounts to a "cease and desist" letter.

The girl gets the last laugh, though. As you can see she is a cutie pie and that her mother dressed her up for the photos the newspaper took. I'm hopeful the neighborhood control freak gets his share of dirty looks and / or verbal grief about this. Sheesh.

Presidential Election October 16, 2007 Snapshot

It has only been two weeks since my last snapshot. However, some very interesting events are unfolding that interest me. The last snapshot, I predicted that Mitt Romney will likely encounter some problems in the South. While I still think he has some rough territory there due to some bias against his Mormon faith, some key changes in the wind are beginning to blow. The most important changes are taking place in South Carolina. Hugh Hewitt is posting on Mitt's lead in key early states:

The mayor is betting the political farm on taking a number of losses in the early states but rising again on 2/5
...
Romney leads in the first three contests in Iowa, New Hampshire and Michigan, and some polls have him ahead in Nevada and South Carolina as well.

If the primaries are like the play-offs, losing the early games isn't a great way to set up getting to the big show.

He also is posting on a huge South Carolina endorsement - Robert Taylor of Bob Jones University. The University carries a lot of weight among a large Christian Conservative group in the state and around the country. There is also an endorsement from the school's Chancellor, Bob Jones III. However, I see his support as more than just an endorsement. Bob Jones III is sucking up his religious differences to show even someone as conservative as him can vote for a Mormon for President. His political qualifications carry greater weight than worrying about his faith. That is the angle that will carry the most punch.

Another presidential candidate, John McCain seems to be sensing what is happening and seeing South Carolina as the Waterloo of the GOP front runner. However, McCain is seeing it for Rudy Giuliani instead of himself. McCain must by now realize he has no chance of winning. It seems he would prefer Giuliani. Perhaps he is even thinking VP. He rejected it in the past when he thought he had enough capital to go for the top. Now that he is irrevocably beyond that, he might settle to be Rudy's VP. If such is the case, it would make sense why he and Giuliani are suddenly ganging up on Romney. This Politico article covers the attacks, but starts out wrong with the first two words: "Sensing weakness...". It should be "Sensing strength..."

Since my last snapshot I have begun sensing something really off about Fred Thompson. I have not put my finger on it until today. I think Thompson has been vying for VP all along and that he will be Mitt Romney's running partner if Mitt wins the nomination. I may be sticking my neck out a bit on that one, but it just does not feel like he is in it to win the gold.

The best developments are against Hillary. Obama has a large amount of money he can use to weaken Hillary. He has been a gentleman so far, but the gloves are going to have to come off some time. Giuliani is already going on the attack against Hillary stating (courtesy Drudge):

"Honestly, in most respects, I don't know Hillary's experience. She's never run a city, she's never run a state. She's never run a business. She has never met a payroll. She has 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 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 Hillary has ever had any experience with."

Running against Hillary is a popular thing to do among conservatives, so I expect to see all the GOP candidates joining the fun. Since she is a media darling, they will attempt to circle the wagons around her, and will succeed until she gets the nomination. It will be too late to prevent. There is so much ammunition against Shrillary, it will be fun to watch. Texas Rainmaker has embedded a video in a post about her and the "Largest Election Law Fraud in History". Click on over there an view it. You will be fascinated.

Finally, to make clear these snapshots are not predictions. They are slices of the campaign history for the 2008 election as I see them. Momentum may come and go. Candidates may rise and fall. Right now it looks like the momentum is going back to Mitt Romney.

Dr William Gray Gives Eye Opening Lecture Bound to Keep You Awake

Anybody who knows me, knows that when it comes to meetings and lectures I can either get the wiggles of a school boy or struggle not to fall asleep. I think if I were at a recent lecture by Dr. William Gray, a foremost meteorologist, I would have been on the edge of my seat and wide awake. Dr. Gray pummeled the recent awarding of the Nobel Puke Prize to Al Gore and took swipes at the Global Warming Theory itself. According to the Sydney Morning Herald (does the best US news come from outside the country?) Dr. Gray "...told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth" and called the theory that humans are responsible "ridiculous". He accused Al Gore's movie of "brainwashing our children".

Dr. Gray gives his theory on the warming temperatures (of one degree). According to the article:

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.

I have stated in a recent post my desire to live long enough to see when the foolishness of the Global Warming theory is apparent to all. Even though with the rise of the economy of China and India we are burning more fossil fuels and producing more CO2 gases than ever, we have not seen a rise in temperatures since 1998. If people like Al Gore do succeed in some reduction in greenhouse gases somewhere, they will never succeed in the next 20 years in reducing below late 20th century levels with the growth of the developing countries. They may fool Europe, Canada and the US into some reduction (probably just a reduction in growth to boot). This small reduction cannot in the mind of any reasoning person be enough to account for the cooling that Dr. Gray predicts. The question is, will the left allow the modicum of reduction to take the credit for saving us from Global Warming in order to save face from their alarmist propaganda machine? Or will the masses actually realize the truth? I hope to be here to find out.