Al Gore: Profiteer from Global Warming & Diane Sawyer

This is a great article by David Dick on Al Gore and his profit motives and global warming. The former VP is making billions and billions by escalating and manipulating scientific data to perpetuate global warming hysteria.

http://www.examiner.com/x-12465-Washington-County-Independent-Examiner~y2009m11d4-Al-Gore-pushes-Global-Warming-for-personal-profit


Diane Sawyer of Good Morning America here actually asks Gore some difficult questions.

I'll inbed the video when I track it down.

Why Gay Initiatives keep Failing

31 states and (counting)...to 5 (plus some states with civil union provisions) and all 5 states were initiatives by their state legislatures or face a state constitutional vote.

"Gay marriage" lost its initiative in Maine while civil unions passed in Washington state. The gay community is still reeling from the reversal in California last year as Prop 8, the biggest mishandled referendum to date, still scorns homosexuals.

California and Maine are two liberal states, in fact, their idea of "Conservative" and electable Republicans are Olympia Snowe or Arnold Schwartzenegger.

So why are they failing?

I'm reminded of a blog post I read some time ago: "Marriage is a Religious Rite, not a Constitutional Right." Gay activists expect to overturn thousands of years of universally recognized morality and practice a "right"?

This is NOT just a battle with Bible thumpers from Southern Baptists Churches, homosexuality is NOT accepted by Jews or Muslims -- they murder homosexuals in the streets or Iran.

In May, a poll of 500 Muslims in Britain revealed zero tolerance towards homosexual acts. compared to their counterparts in France and Germany, according to a survey published today.¹ NONE! Even in France and Germany, the figure never tops 48%!

Activists CANNOT continue to pretend that they are fighting just the Christian Coalition, Pat Buchanan, but rather ALL RELIGIONS.

Likewise, a series of discrimination lawsuits against churches have followed legalizing gay marriages. In April the Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller posted this on his website:

"If necessary, we will explore legal actions to enforce and implement the court's ruling, working with the Iowa Dept. of Public Health and county attorneys."

Now we have lawsuits answering to lawsuits creating a larger and larger divide between both sides. It's hard to believe the gay community in sincere that "marriage" is what they desire, when churches are being FORCED to marry couples or face legal action.

Likewise, we already have a lawsuit in Maine against a teacher (Don Mendell) who appeared in an anti-gay marriage ad who is having his license brought into question. There is no such lawsuit against other educators who appeared in ads supporting the amendment. (Complete story below)

Next are the comparisons to civil rights and the civil rights movement itself.

Approximately 77% of the Black California voters, 92% of which voted for President Obama, voted DOWN Prop 8. They obviously DON'T see it as a RIGHT and definitely NOT a "civil right" comparable to the oppression of blacks.

There have been horrible crimes against gays, Matthew Shepard is the most famous case, but there are no separation of bathrooms, seats on a bus and certainly no lynchings like those in the 60's.

Most of us have people close to us that we care dearly for who are gay. Even Dick Cheney is NOT trying to lynch his daughter because she's a lesbian or his new grandchild.



Then we have a lack of leadership.

Sure President Obama can talk out of the other side of his mouth at a GLAAD fundraiser, but he's been enigmatic on the topic since taking office. He's just NOT willing to burn political capital for gay rights.

Where's the leaders of Congress: Barney Frank, Jared Polis (Colorado) or Tammy Baldwin (Wisconsin) -- how many of you reading this NEVER heard of Polis or Baldwin???

I'm sure you'll hear about the massive amounts of money funding anti-gay ads, blaming out-of-staters swaying the votes in each of these states, but the pattern is clear -- no.

You are NOT going to undo someone's religious perspective on traditional values in this manner. You are NOT going to garner support by comparing your plight to that of the civil rights movement. You can't expect Christians to believe that "getting married" is the endgame when activist follow successful votes with attacks on churches.

More than anything let me state here that gay marriage, to me, is first and foremost a STATES issue and NOT a Federal one. To argue that the Constitution guarantees equal treatment to all citizens, both men and women, does not say anything about what constitutes marriage, or a family, or a business enterprise, or a university, or a friendship.

An appeal for equal treatment would certainly not lead a court to require that a small business enterprise be called a marriage just because two business partners prefer to think of their business that way.

Nor would equal treatment of citizens before the law require a court to conclude that those who pray before the start of sporting event should be allowed to redefine the NFL or NBA as churches.

The simple fact is that the civil right of equal treatment cannot constitute social reality by declaration. Civil rights protections function simply to assure every citizen equal treatment under the law depending on what the material dispute in law is all about. Law that is just must begin by properly recognizing and distinguishing identities and differences in reality in order to be able to give each its legal due.

This is where civil unions take the lead. Partnered with medical surrogates, power of attorney and other provisions, a gay couple would probably be better covered and bound than most married couples. In fact, I'd rather see these legal documents become a requirement, but that's another topic all together.

Forcing their perspective, always crying "homophobe" or playing the victim card will NEVER result in any changes. Attacking Christians or forcing churches to marry gay couples isn't going to win support. Marginalizing the black community with inappropriate comparisons to the "Civil Rights Movement" isn't going to garner any favor.

Maybe you disagree with me, but maybe you can understand where so many folks are coming from.

SPECIAL NOTE: I purposefully left the children our of the debate. One could write pages and expand on statements that I've made here, but I've tried to be simplistic and straight to the point. As a father of five children, I'm too biased to even speak on the effects of Kevin Jennings² and the Gay Tolerance in school movement. I find it divisive for the government, school board or even my Pastor, to DICTATE to me how I'm going to raise my kids and there's NO WAY I'd even try to defend their tactics.


1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/may/07/muslims-britain-france-germany-homosexuality

2. http://brandon7221.blogspot.com/2009/10/their-own-words-kevin-jennings.html

Press release on Maine lawsuit against Don Mendell:
http://www.asmainegoes.com/content/yes-1-situation-guidance-counselor-worse-we-thought

Doug Hoffman & the 3 GOP Victories!

Yes, the 3 BIG GOP victories.

Overcoming the antics of ACORN, SEIU et al. and the visits by Obama, Biden, the races in New Jersey and Virgina went the Repubican's way. The powerful campaigning of the Obamanation and the luster from the Presidential election may finally be wearing off.

But the real story is the no name accountant in New York, Doug Hoffman, who survived smear campaigns by BOTH the Democrats and the Republican candidates. Both the Democrat and Republican candidates were pro-stimulus, pro-choice, pro-spending, supported by ACORN -- what was the difference?

That's when Hoffman through his hat in the ring two months ago and came within 3 points of defeating the politcal machine. As support began to pour in from Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and others, Hoffman seemed to be shooting past the competition.

So why is this a victory?

The media will overanalyze the words of Rush Limbaugh:

"If Hoffman wins -- and polls suggest that he will -- the race there will be dismissed as an outlier... Folks, I want you to print these words out. I want you to get the transcript off my website. I want you to print these out, I want you to distribute them, I want you to carry them with you, and we'll just see how close I am to being right. (When Hoffman wins) the State-Run Media will say, "New York-23, the race is more about the demise of the Republican Party and anger on the right than Obama or his policies." -- Limbaugh, November 3.

See Rush and others are out of touch. Hoffman didn't lose. Beck, Palin, and other conservatives lost.

Within days of dropping out of the race, the "Republican" (Dede Scozzafava) began campaigning, NOT for Hoffman, but for the Democrat Owens. She still received 6% of the vote as millions from HER supporters focused their attention on defeating Hoffman.

What this should be is a wake up call NOT just for Democrats, but for all incumbants.

The difference between McCain Obama was Right leaning Democrat and Socialist. The same was true in New York and it took a no name accountant to rise up and shake up the machine.

From Politico: "Obama now faces a much tougher challenge persuading these mostly moderate Democrats to put themselves further at risk by backing such liberal priorities as expanding government’s role in heath care or limiting greenhouse gases."

Eric Cantor added: "This is a shot across the bow to the moderates and Blue Dog Democrats as they decide votes on health care and other issues."

Sure that's true, but don't buy that the "Cram and Ram" approach is going to change. In fact, if the White House and Nancy Pelosi feel their power waning, expect an acceleration NOT a slow down of radical policy making.

Obama disses Dalai Lama, losing the Jews but awards Mary Robinson

A recent poll (August) in the Jerusalem Post revealed that only 4% think President Obama is pro-Israel. That's a staggering number and if nothing else, it's the MOST NEGATIVE Israeli view of the President.

From the article:

"Fifty-one percent of Jewish Israelis consider Obama's administration more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israel, according to the survey, while 35% consider it neutral and 10% declined to express an opinion. The poll of 500 people representing a statistical model of the Jewish Israeli population had a margin of error of 4.5%."

As the article notes, the decline began after the meeting with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. Israelis have declining faith that Obama and his support.

Perhaps we can consult the Dalai Lama.

Well, we could if Obama met with the exiled Tibetan leader when he visited, but the meeting was postponed to "strengthen relations with China."

As US News & World Report reported, "The U.S. decision to postpone the meeting appears to be part of a strategy to improve ties with China that also includes soft-pedaling criticism of China's human rights ..."

Got that...

For the first time since 1991, the Tibetan spiritual leader will visit Washington this week and not meet with the president.

This President is going to STAND UP the Dalai Lama because of China. I'm sure it will help.

The last time he was here, in 2007, President George W. Bush became the first sitting president to meet with him publicly, at a ceremony at the Capitol in which he awarded the Dalai Lama the Congressional Gold Medal, Congress's highest civilian award.

For decades we've stood firm to support the Israelis and now they question our leader's commitment. Sean Penn visits and condones the dictator Hugo Chavez and White House members (or czars) praise Chavez. Meanwhile Jewish synagogues are attacked and the Jews retreat from the country.

Lastly, Obama has awarded the Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson, who is recognized as secretary general of the 2001 "World Conference Against Racism" in Durban, South Africa. This dismissed the virulent anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, and at least implicitly anti-American.

John Bolton, ambassador to the UN, referenced that the conference was so vile that the "...draft declaration that Secretary of State Colin Powell correctly called it "a throwback to the days of 'Zionism equals racism,'" referring to the infamous 1975 U.N. General Assembly resolution to that effect.

Bolton continued: "Outrage over Durban reignited earlier this year when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did her best to get the United States to attend the successor conference (“Durban II”) to polish Mr. Obama’s 'multilateralist' bona fides. Because the Durban II draft declaration reaffirmed Durban I’s hateful conclusions, even the Obama administration couldn’t swallow attending."

No surprise that the "Right Wing" don't care for Ms. Robinson. This 2002 article by Michael Rubin on National Review calls her a "War Criminal" -- too harsh?

It's no denying Robinson's support of Palestians and the likemindedness of the Obama administration to walk a thin line with a hallow support of Israel. If Israel representatives at the UN were asked about Robinson, I got a feeling that they would not support Obama's selection.

So, while we still remain unpopular in the Middle East, the President seems to go to extreme lengths to limit support for our one ally - Israel. Instead, the White House will extend good will sentiments to polish relations with the Chinese Communists.

We can keep head scratching trying to understand the "Hope and Change" on the global scale, but for me, it's both saddening and disturbing.



http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug/07/nation/na-obama-jews7

http://pajamasmedia.com/claudiarosett/mary-robinsons-medal-for-bush-bashing/

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/08/who_really_selected_mary_robin.html

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/75001


http://jewagainstobama.wordpress.com/

Ron Paul tackles Michael Moore, healthcare

Thanks to Robert Herriman for sending me this: Ron Paul on Larry King answering to Michael Moore and his views.

Let's just say that this isn't a fair fight.



Health care is NOT a right!

Ron Paul was a doctor, so maybe we should listen to him on health care reform. He explains the free market solutions to fixing managed care and the "mischief" of government.

I Larry King's come back was "half socialism" which Paul refutes the government intervention and the track record of failure. The intervention and big government has ballooned over the last 30 years and Ron Paul is spot on.

Likewise, unlike Moore who is soft on Obama, Paul is critical of both.

I've grown to respect Ron Paul more and more as the most consistent Congressman. He's nicknamed "Dr. NO" for a reason.

Limbaugh wrong to call Obama salute a photo-op

I'm no Obama fan. Read "State of the Nation" for any length of time and you'll know that. With that said, I think I've been critical and backed up my point of view as fairly as I can.

Rush Limbaugh recently spoke out against Obama who visited Dover Air Force base and was photographed saluting our fallen soldiers.

"It was a photo op precisely because he's having big-time trouble on this whole Afghanistan dithering situation." - Limbaugh

Just unfair.

How or when could the President have shown these soldiers proper respect and it WOULD NOT/COULD NOT be called a photo op?

I don't what's in the President's heart and I'm not going to debate Limbaugh on the "dithering" but sometimes things should just go unsaid. Afghanistan is a mess and well discuseed. The President's efforts at Dover, good intentioned or not, should stand on their own merit.

Attacks on Pro-FOX Democrats: they say: FOX is most FAIR!

Bob Beckel, who worked for Bobby Kennedy, answered to critics during the "War against FOX" saying: "I talk to more persuadable voters in a month than anybody on MSNBC and CNN talks to in a year."

Liz Chadderdon openly discussed her gaffe in which she referred to Guantanamo Bay detainees as "victims" and immediately received complaints, up to and including death threats.

Why bother to be on FOX -- it's all about the ratings. FOX is #1 and beating CNN, MSNBC and CNBC combined.

"You know how I know nobody watches CNBC?" said Chadderdon. "I compared the pope to my 11th-grade algebra teacher, and nobody sent me a letter."

That was hysterical to me. Can you imagine if Rush Limbaugh made that comment.

Lanny Davis made the left very, VERY angry with a comment that FOX was the fairest in the treatment of Hillary Clinton and claiming the FOX bias is overstated.

Davis answered critics: "Is there a difference between Fox and MSNBC? You count the number of guests on Rachel [Maddow] and Keith [Olbermann] who are conservative Republicans. If you get to double digits, I’ll buy you dinner for each one."

Doug Schoen, who joined FOX Nation, stated this about FOX: "They are the most professional network of any I have dealt with. If you are a Democrat who wants to deliver mindless talking points on Fox, it's probably best to go to MSBNC and hope you get a chance to recite them. I think Fox encourages critical views of all sides, asks different kinds of questions and wants to have diversity of view."

Recent surveys have shown that a larger number of Democrats and Independents watch FOX compared to Republicans watching their competition.

The answer is even more simplistic: FOX isn't treating you like an idiot and analyzing news like a Saturday Night Live sketch (which CNN analyzed)

We all know there's bias and an agenda. Journalism in the traditional sense is dead and the 2008 election kicked in the last bit of dirt of their grave. No one wants to hear Chris Matthews talk about the tingling in his leg when Obama speak or sit through Olbermann bash big business while cashing his GE backed check from MSNBC.

Just like politicians, the media needs to stop treating us like nitwits. For now, FOX does a better job of that than their competition.





Image from: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ofb.net/~epstein/sl/20030410-foxnews-lies.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.thebigfelafel.com/fox-news-invasion/&usg=__z5aPB9sGf4MKRaWAkjoirERj728=&h=375&w=500&sz=133&hl=en&start=10&um=1&tbnid=HVYdxjSUIX8UeM:&tbnh=98&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dfox%2Bnews%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox%26rlz%3D1I7ADBS_en%26um%3D1