Islam and Wife Beating

Borrowed from Wikislam.com

Islamic Terror is Real

Islamo-fascism and the Death of Feminism in America

I wrote this in early November. It was published in our local paper, but today I decided to post it here:

In my lifetime I have witnessed the bravery of countless women who have risen to the challenge of ending the oppression of women worldwide. It is puzzling to me why at this time in our history when women in this country in particular have made tremendous gains in their own status, they have willingly stalled their work toward freedom for certain women; especially the violent oppression of the Women in Islam. To be sure, the overwhelming majority of Muslims practice their faith while living in democracies, following man-made laws and treating everyone with the dignity and respect due any human being. There are however, those that do not.

Islamo-fascism, a term originally used by moderate Muslims both in Iran and Algeria in the 1970’s (and still used today) to describe the efforts by radical Muslim (clerics) to thwart efforts toward equality, moderation, democracy and freedom of religion.

Islamo-fascists insist in a fundamental Islamic ideology where men and women are not equal; women are considered physically, emotionally, intellectually, spiritually and morally inferior to men. Public facilities therefore are separate (and often inferior) for women; a “gender apartheid” as many call it.

All democracies and laws of the land governing people are opposed by Islamo-facists because they are laws of man, not God. Islamo-fascists believe only God’s law (Sharia) is to be obeyed. They believe they are advancing women’s rights by “protecting” them from the kind of harassment and violence imposed by Americans and other western cultures.

Some Hollywood types have compared Islamo-facists with the Christian Right. Such a comparison is dreadfully uninformed. No where does Christ call us to beat, rape, mutilate the genitals, honor kill and especially remove the free will of women, homosexuals, Jews or any non-Christian. Christ called his disciples to do his work through prayer, alms-giving, good works and teaching (peaceful proselytizing). To be sure, there are people in our history and today who use the good name of Christ to advance a violent cause or to insist on adherence to a biblical teaching…we prosecute those people and fortunately they are rare. Islamo-facists ideology and their terror methods are not rare; they are pervasive.

It is very easy to look at the plight of Muslim women world wide through our privileged eyes and not respond out of “sensitivity” to the Muslim culture. If we do not work to ensure the universal application of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, we become trapped by the concept that all cultures are equal and cannot be criticized. Who loses? Women first, then the rest of the civilized world.

It is not imperialistic or disrespectful to condemn the violent oppression of the women of Islam. It is a moral imperative…especially for anyone, feminists in particular who say they care about women.

I believe that if we work together, the words of Maryam Rajavi, an Iranian “freedom fighter” will come true:

“I do believe that a woman’s emancipation begins the moment she breaks this spell and believes that rebellion and resistance against tyranny are her inalienable rights. It is from this moment that no power in the world can prevent the liberation of a woman who has decided to be free. “

In America, we know this liberation; let’s not withhold it from our Muslim sisters.

Excellent work by Spencer

Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch has assembled a five-part video series refuting the "Islam is Peace" ad campaign.

When you open the page, part V in the series is automatically there. In order to view the other videos (all about 3 minutes) I had to right-click on the roman numeral and open the link in a new page.

Videos

You will notice I have included one of Robert's books in my reading list to the right of the page. I haven't included them all because I haven't read them all...but one day will attain that goal.
I just ordered "The Truth about Muhammed"

Wafa Sultan at Restoration Weekend

Wafa Sultan at Restoration Weekend

I attended this event and spent some time with Wafa. This video is worth watching...if you can't link to it from the text above, search for the text on Google or Youtube.

Sliding anyone?

Sunday, Dec. 16 2007 - Note the blue slide is barely visible and the seat of the swing is well under the snow.

Where's the deck?

10:00 am Sunday Dec. 16, 2007...Snow is up to deck railing. Not visible is the snow 1/2 way up the first pane of the double hung window!.

Trampoline-time in Stowe, VT

10:00 am Sunday December 16, 2007 - Note, the platform of the trampoline is approximately 40 inches off the ground.

I'm Back

After several weeks off, I've decided to get back into blogging. During the past few weeks I've been reading and discovering there are people out there who know a lot more about the topics of interest to me than I do. I will frequently be linking to them, rather than having yet another voice out there. Of course you will still get my conclusions and opinions.

A Message From Iraq

Click here to read the entire article from which the following excerpt is taken. It was in today's ediction of The Washington Post

It was written by Hoshy Zebari, foreign minister of Iraq.

DON'T ABANDON US

"Iraqis are standing up every day, and we persevere because there is no other option. We will not surrender our country to terrorists. They have failed to cripple the elected government, and they have failed to intimidate us into submission. Iraqis reject their vision of a future whose hallmarks are bloodshed and hatred.

Those calling for withdrawal may think it is the least painful option, but its benefits would be short-lived. The fate of the region and the world is linked with ours. Leaving a broken Iraq in the Middle East would offer international terrorism a haven and ensure a legacy of chaos for future generations. Furthermore, the sacrifices of all the young men and women who stood up here would have been in vain."

Offsets = Indulgences

This image was borrowed from CCNet a great site set up by Benny Peiser (the scientist who debunked the "consensus theory" of human influence on global warming. An excerpt from the email I recieved today says it all...

"The worst of the carbon-offset programs resemble the Catholic Church’s sale of indulgences back before the Reformation. Instead of reducing their carbon footprints, people take private jets and stretch limos, and then think they can buy an indulgence to forgive their sins. This whole game is badly in need of a modern Martin Luther."

Denis Hayes, Bullitt Foundation, The New York Times, 29 April 2007

That Dang Global Warming

This photo was taken at 8:30 this morning (EST) after we received yet another bunch of snow. I estimate we got 10-12 inches...ugh!

CONSENSUS THEORY DEBUNKED

Benny Peiser debunks Naomi Oreskes' claim of SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS that humans are responsible for global warming. Any bold print is my addition.

Dr. Peiser's letter to the journal Science:

On December 3rd, only days before the start of the 10th Conference of Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP-10), Science Magazine published the results of a study by Naomi Oreskes (1): For the first time, empirical evidence was presented that appeared to show an unanimous, scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of recent global warming.

Oreskes claims to have analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the ISI database using the keywords "climate change". However, a search on the ISI database using the keywords "climate change" for the years 1993 - 2003 reveals that almost 12,000 papers were published during the decade in question (2).

What happened to the countless research papers that show that global temperatures were similar or even higher during the Holocene Climate Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period when atmospheric CO2 levels were much lower than today; that solar variability is a key driver of recent climate change, and that climate modeling is highly uncertain?

These objections were put to Oreskes by science writer David Appell. On 15 December 2004,
she admitted that there was indeed a serious mistake in her Science essay. According to Oreskes, her study was not based on the keywords "climate change," but on "global climate
change" (3).

Her use of three keywords instead of two reduced the list of peer reviewed publications by
one order of magnitude (on the UK's ISI databank the keyword search "global climate
change" comes up with 1247 documents). Since the results looked questionable, I decided to
replicate the Oreskes study.

METHOD

I analysed all abstracts listed on the ISI databank for 1993 to 2003 using the same keywords ("global climate change") as the Oreskes study. Of the 1247 documents listed, only 1117 included abstracts (130 listed only titles, author(s)' details and keywords). The 1117 abstracts analysed were divided into the same six categories used by Oreskes (#1-6), plus two categories which I added (# 7, 8):

1. explicit endorsement of the consensus position
2. evaluation of impacts
3. mitigation proposals
4. methods
5. paleoclimate analysis
6. rejection of the consensus position.
7. natural factors of global climate change
8. unrelated to the question of recent global climate change

RESULTS

The results of my analysis contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially falsify her study:

Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (or 1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'.

322 abstracts (or 29%) implicitly accept the 'consensus view' but mainly focus on impact
assessments of envisaged global climate change.

Less than 10% of the abstracts (89) focus on "mitigation".

67 abstracts mainly focus on methodological questions.

87 abstracts deal exclusively with paleo-climatological research unrelated to recent
climate change.

34 abstracts reject or doubt the view that human activities are the main drivers of the
"the observed warming over the last 50 years".

44 abstracts focus on natural factors of global climate change.

470 (or 42%) abstracts include the keywords "global climate change" but do not include any
direct or indirect link or reference to human activities, CO2 or greenhouse gas emissions,
let alone anthropogenic forcing of recent climate change.

DISCUSSION:

According to Oreskes, 75% of the 928 abstracts she analysed (i.e. 695) fell into these first three categories, "either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view". This claim is incorrect on two counts: My analysis shows that only 424 abstracts (or less than a third of the full data set) fall into these three categories.

It also shows that many abstracts on "evaluation of impact" and "mitigation" do not discuss which drivers are key to global climate change, instead often focusing exclusively on the possible effects of elevated CO2 levels on plant growth and vegetation.

Many do not include any implicit endorsement of the 'consensus view' but simply use certain assumptions as a basis for often hypothetical impact assessments or mitigation strategies. Quite a number of papers emphasise that natural factors play a major if not the key role in recent climate change (4). My analysis also shows that there are almost three times as many abstracts that are sceptical of the notion of anthropogenic climate change than those that explicitly endorse it (5, 6, 7). In fact, the explicit and implicit rejection of the 'consensus view' is not restricted to individual scientists. It also includes distinguished scientific organisations such as the American Association of Petroleum Geologists: "The earth's climate is constantly changing owing to natural variability in earth processes.

Natural climate variability over recent geological time is greater than reasonable estimates of potential human-induced greenhouse gas changes. Because no tool is available to test the supposition of human-induced climate change and the range of natural variability is so great, there is no discernible human influence on global climate at this time" (8)

This is not to deny that there is a majority of publications that, although they do not empirically test or confirm the view of anthropogenic climate change, go along with it by applying models based on its basic assumptions. Yet, it is beyond doubt that a sound and unbiased analysis of the full ISI databank will find hundreds of papers (many of which written by the world's leading experts in the field) that have raised serious reservations and outright rejection of the concept of a "scientific consensus on climate change". The truth is, that there is no such thing!

In light of the data presented above (evidence that can be easily verified), Science should withdraw Oresekes' study and its results in order to prevent any further damage to the integrity of science.

References
1. N. Oreskes (2004). The scientific consensus on climate change. Science, Vol 306, Issue
5702, 1686, 3 December 2004 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/con
2. ISI Web of Science (http://www.webofscience.com/)
3. http://davidappell.com/archives/00000497.htm
4.) C. M. Ammann et al., for instance, claim to have detected evidence for "close ties
between solar variations and surface climate", Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-
Terrestrial Physics 65:2 (2003): 191-201. While G.C. Reid stresses: "The importance of
solar variability as a factor in climate change over the last few decades may have been
underestimated in recent studies." Solar forcing of global climate change since the mid-
17th century. Climate Change. 37 (2): 391-405
5) H.R. Linden (1996) The evolution of an energy contrarian. Annual Review of Energy and
the Environment, 21:31-67.
6) Russian scientists K. Kondratyev and C Varotsos criticise "the undoubtfully
overemphasised contribution of the greenhouse effect to the global climate change". K.
Kondratyev and C Varotsos (1996). Annual Review of Energy and the Environment. 21: 31-67
7) M.E. Fernau, W.J. Makofske, D.W. South (1993) Review and Impacts of climate change
uncertainties. Futures 25 (8): 850-863.
8) L.C. Gerhard and B.M. Hanson (2000) AAPG Bulletin 84 (4): 466-471
From: science_editors@aaas.org [mailto:science_editors@aaas.org]
Sent: 04 January 2005 11:07

What good is War?

I found this image on another great blogsite mobyrebuttal.blogspot.com It kinda says it all. If you have a minute go take a look at her site. She has a great picture as you scroll down of the Clintons at the podium with the Bushes in the background and has asked readers to "caption it". The responses (mine included) are great.

Government Run Healthcare

The New York Times article below describes quite well what we would be in for if we get the universal/government run healthcare the democrats are advocating. Actually I believe it would be worse since in general the military runs a pretty tight ship. I suspect the care recieved is actually better than what we are being led to believe with occasional mishaps like described in the article and the conditions at Walter Reed.


For War’s Gravely Injured, Challenge to Find Care
By DEBORAH SONTAG and LIZETTE ALVAREZ
Traumatic brain injury cases, the signature wound of the Iraq war, are leaving the military health care system scrambling.

Walter Reed Fiasco is Government Run Healthcare

Let me begin by stating what occurs in civilian (and not government run) health care facilities i.e. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center (DHMC) in New Hampshire. DHMC and other health care providers are required by the federal government to be Medicare Certified; otherwise they cannot provide services and receive payment for any Medicare or Medicaid patient.

In order to obtain/maintain this certification, DHMC must submit to accreditation surveys. This requires them to submit reports to the accrediting organization (most use the Joint Commission of Accreditation of Health Care Organizations = JCAHO) and host on site visits minimally every 3 years (some facilities are reviewed annually). If the accrediting organization finds deficiencies, the visits and required reporting occur more frequently.

This oversight means that the alleged conditions at Walter Reed would not occur in civilian (and not government run) facility. To my knowledge, there is not this high level of scrutiny in the military facilities as there is in civilian ones.

My rage is: If we really support our troops and veterans, why do we require them to receive care in facilities that lack oversight by an independent (and usually) non government entity? They have little or no choice and no one really knows what the quality of care is since they are not "accredited". It floors me to think of the number of legislators, reporters, actors, etc. that visited our injured soldiers at Walter Reed and no one noticed problems?

Also, the expense of operating two like facilities must be huge. For instance, rather than have all of the Vermont veterans travel to White River Junction to the VA hospital there, why not either have them go 20 minutes further to Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center and receive state of the art care; or care at their local (accredited) hospital if they so choose.

One of the lessons for me that I draw from the Walter Reed fiasco is this: Government run healthcare does not work. If we move to "universal healthcare" we all will receive the treatment/conditions that the troops at Walter Reed did; or worse.

The answer isn't renovated, bigger and better government facilities. It is allowing our veterans and troops to choose where they receive their care once stateside. And for our sake, let's learn from this and stop the move for government run healthcare!

Islamic Threat

Carolyn Glick has an article up on the Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME) site that I recieved via email titled JIHAD'S CAMPUS COLLABORATORS (originally published in Jewish World Review on February 27, 2007).It's worth reading as she points out (again) the threat we face from Radical/Millitant Islam.

Global Warming-loco cooling

Well, our vacation's over and we're back in Stowe...I've posted below some photos you all might find interesting...especially you global warming supporters. By the way have you heard that despite the recent concerns raised by the New York Times about the fate of the Maple Syrup Industry in Vermont due to global warming we've so far had a colder winter than last year?

It was -14 when I got out of bed and it's now warmed up to -7.

Global Warming-loco cooling

This was our trampoline before we went to Florida - and after picture is posted below...these were taken approximately 10 days apart.

Global Warming-loco cooling

This sunrise was outside our condo in Florida yesterday.

Global Warming-loco cooling

This is our trampoline after we returned from Florida, taken today (March 6, 2007)

Global warming-loco-cooling

Finally, this is the entry-way from the garage to the kitchen. When standing on dry ground (no snow), I cannot see in these windows from outside...they are level with my head. I am 5'6" tall and the snow is a minimum of 18 inches beyond that. Click on to enlarge.

This is POWERFUL

The letter that follows was published in The Burlington Free Press today. Although I am not certain, I believe the author to be a former state Senator from Chittenden County. I also believe he is a Democrat. Whatever his political affiliation, he articulates well what I and many others have been meaning to say all along.


A son, a father and the Iraq war

Published: Monday, February 26, 2007
J. Dennis Delaney

My son Luc is a naval officer, a 1999 graduate of the United States Naval Academy and a recent recipient of a master's degree in mechanical engineering. He is married and the father of the sweetest daughter a grandfather ever fell in love with. To say that I am profoundly proud of my children would be a great understatement. At times I just sink back into the warmest contentment. Life could give no more.

Yet in all this bright sunshine of family happiness a dark cloud looms on the horizon: Luc tells us that he is at serious risk of being sent to Iraq. This threat, I think, gives me a firmer place to comment on the Iraq war.

With every fiber of my being I want the Iraq war finished. It is like a hair shirt I cannot pull off. The daily list of our young women and men killed in the fighting brings heartbreak, full and overflowing, to us all. I have always thought I could not bear the loss of a child, so I just don't know how the families of those killed in the war endure. I just don't.

Several weeks ago the New York Times published, as it does every day, the Names of the Dead in Iraq. Eight were on the list that day, all aged 25 and under. One was just 19.

On a straight horizontal line to the right of that list was the continuation of an article on the day's harsh violence in Baghdad. The story described the destruction of a family -- father, wife and three children-- "trapped in a burning car after a bomb exploded. The father, screaming for help, escaped. (B)ut two young children and an infant died with their mother in the fire." (New York Times, Dec. 27, 2006)

None of us can possibly imagine such stunning horror slamming into the life of an American family. The incident I just described was not an accident, it was war.

To those who say that the daily numbing chant of the names of our dead or the nameless Iraqis slaughtered, means that we must quit Iraq and do so immediately, I understand. But I see beyond. I see countless Iraqi innocents -- fathers, mothers, children -- killed, if not by war then by that country's own endemic sectarian violence.

What is happening in Iraq is a humanitarian disaster. Those are not just big words, those are real people. The Iraqis are no less sisters and brothers to us in Vermont than are Americans in Indiana, Montana or Maine. The time to argue about this war's reasons for being, or the lack of them, rests with the future, with history's clearer eye. The present demands, however, that we Americans not abandon the helpless.

It is easy to talk about courage, about generosity until it hurts, about responsibility for others, and about not quitting on those who need us. It is infinitely more difficult to belly up to the bar and make them real when the price is relentless anguish and more "Names of the Dead" writ large each day.

I remember the story about an American prisoner of war who, when offered release from a prison camp, said no, that it wasn't his turn. Is it our turn to abandon the innocent and helpless of Iraq? I say no.

If we Americans want to begin earning the respect of the Muslim world, then we should begin that long journey by showing them that Americans do not turn their backs on Muslims or anyone else in awful jeopardy. Like it or not, and I know that we don't, it is our time to stand tall once again.


J. Dennis Delaney lives in Charlotte.

EXTRA EXTRA

PAUL BEAUDRY to appear on CPR Radio!!!

Monday February 26 at 3:30 pm.

Update

I posted yesterday about the lone conservative talk radio host, Paul Beaudry’s plight of “someone” trying to get him off the air. I would like to clarify a statement I made regarding the threat of bodily injury. I spoke with Paul last evening and he clarified that it was a threat made to another person and passed on to him and not a direct threat to him. The threat was in effect “that he better not be seen out in public or he might get slapped”.

Be that as it may, it saddens me to think that there are people with so much hate and intolerance that they can’t even hear another voice without such violent intentions or actions, which brings me to another point of clarification. I mentioned yesterday that 2 tires on Paul’s vehicle were slashed. The analysis of Paul’s tires determined that they were punctured, not slashed. A slash would result in a flat tire and the vehicle rendered unable to be driven. A puncture with subsequent slow leak could result in internal pressure differences as the tire contacts the road. What would that cause…a blowout!! I estimate Paul’s daily commute to be about 60 miles. That’s a lot of time for a blowout to occur. Thankfully the punctures were discovered and Paul is safe.

Paul announced today that he received an email from the Bill O’Reilly show requesting he make an appearance this evening. At the close of the Paul’s show, it was not certain that he would be on O’Reilly Factor tonight, I plan to watch Bill anyway.

Also I mentioned that they would accept donations. I want to clarify that any monies received will be used to keep the show on the air. Unlike other talk shows that are paid to be aired by local stations, Paul’s show has to pay an hourly fee to the local stations to buy the one hour air time!!!

True North Radio
PO Box 652
Burlington, VT 05402

Conservative Danger Zone

Outright Vermont Creating A Queer Youth Community Since 1989

The above organization was exposed for their attempts to infiltrate our Vermont schools by Paul Beaudry the lone conservative voice on talk radio over the past few months. Despite their alleged efforts to silence him, suport for his show in the 11-12 am (est) time slot is growing and remains number one.

Intolerate people have called his advertisers and some have stopped supporting him; others in true Vermont fashion will not be bulled. They have directly mailed his frequent callers, petitioning them to not support the show. Now, they've taken it to a higher level with threats of personal bodily injury and slashing his tires.

Paul announced on the show today that the police are now involved. He has also notified all the local news affiliates and Fox News via Bill O'Reilly of the threats and actions of the intolerant cowards. You may recall that Paul has appeared on The O'Reilly Factor a few times regarding the senseless sentencing of child predators here in Vermont (i.e. 60 days sentence for the man who repeatedly raped a young girl).

If anyone would like to support this effort to continue the lone conservative voice in Vermont, donations are accepted at:

True North Radio
P.O. Box 652
Burlington VT 05402-0652

Here we go!!!

I received this picture in an email, so I can't take credit for it.

From SPME - Scholars for Peace in the Middle East

As usual, Caroline Glick has again accurately described one of the most disturbing positions of the "left" (see below) and "progressive Zionists". To read the entire article click here.

Instead of accepting this paradigm-shattering truth, "progressive Zionists"
have chosen the path of radicalization. Rather than calling on the
Arabs to abandon jihad and accept Israel, they have turned to
criminalizing Israel for defending itself from the jihadist forces bent
on the wholesale slaughter of its citizens.

Book Review

I received a free book because I suscribed to Newsmax. The book was "The Enemy at Home - The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11" by Dinesh D'Souza. I found it puzzling and difficult to accept many of the claims made in the book. Today's email from Frontpage Magazine is a review of this book by Robert Spencer. It is not only very well written, but explains why I found the claims in this book difficult to digest.

Pardon our Border Agents

PLEASE client the link Pardon our Border Agents and sign the petition. It is absolutely egregious that these men were sentenced for doing their jobs. If we don't help them, they (all border agents) won't help us.

Too Good to Pass Up

I found this on a website humor
and couldn't pass it up.

Support Our Troops

Taken from the site thirdwavedave

THE NRSC PLEDGE

"If the United States Senate passes a resolution, non-binding or otherwise, that criticizes the commitment of additional troops to Iraq that General Petraeus has asked for and that the president has pledged, and if the Senate does so after the testimony of General Petraeus on January 23 that such a resolution will be an encouragement to the enemy, I will not contribute to any Republican senator who voted for the resolution. Further, if any Republican senator who votes for such a resolution is a candidate for re-election in 2008, I will not contribute to the National Republican Senatorial Committee unless the Chairman of that Committee, Senator Ensign, commits in writing that none of the funds of the NRSC will go to support the re-election of any senator supporting the non-binding resolution."

***If you agree with this pledge, sign the petition now and have your name and blog listed too. Many names--big and small--are on the list. Join the effort and let them know you're not going to be played for a sucker any longer.

Humans Cause Global Warming???

Our local "news" paper recently opined that we must do something about global warming. My husband who holds a degree in Aeronautics and studied meteorology responded. It is too good to pass up, so it follows. {Note: The Democrat controlled Vermont legislature has made this their number one issue this session}

My Husband wrote...

The Stowe Reporter editorialized that even if global warming isn't happening we should do something about it. This is like saying "Even if the earth isn't flat we should act as if it is, less someone falls of the edge."

The Stowe Reporter repeats the claim that "almost all scientists agree that humans are causing global warming." This claim is repeated so often it is accepted as fact. Yet I have yet to hear of a poll of all scientists or even all scientists in relevant fields to prove this statement is true. Lacking such a poll there is no basis for claiming how many scientists do believe humans cause global warming.

The bases for this claim appears to be the fact that 2500 so called "scientists" participated in the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I say "so called" because the UN is fundamentally a political organization not a scientific one. Every country was allowed at least one scientist on the panel. Some countries are not exactly world super powers in science. Therefore some of these "scientists" had their degrees in Pharmacology.

Then again it is irrelevant how many scientists believe in human caused global warming. Science is not advanced by the most popular theories, but by the correct ones.

Before Galileo, almost all scientists said the earth was the center of the universe. In 1904 virtually everyone thought that Newton's F=MA was as far as things went . Then in 1905 Einstein showed that F=MA was not enough, now E=MC² was needed. In the 1940's many aerodynamicists thought that the "sound barrier" was a real barrier that could not be "broken" (they thought that drag builds up infinitely at supersonic speeds). Chuck Yeager proved them wrong.

There are very many flaws in the global warming theory and a book could be written on these problems. In fact many excellent books have been written about the flaws in the theory, but not just books, a number of articles in peer review journals point out flaws. Do to lack of space I will discuss just a few of the flaws.

One of the claims made in the general press and in recent movies on global warming is that Antarctic ice core samples shows an increase in CO2 followed by an increase temperature, however as Dr Robert Carter points out, the increase in CO2 is preceded by the increase in temperature not the other way around, and the increase in temperature precedes the increase in CO2 by 100 to 1000 years. For this he cites: Mudelsee, M. 2001, "The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature & global ice volume over the past 420 ka" Quaternary Science Reviews 20, 583-589.

Global warming theory claims that the poles will warm faster than the equator, yet 80% of the Antarctic has cooled and there has been no net increase in polar temperatures my sources for this are: Comiso, J. C. (2000): "Variability and trends in Antarctic surface temperatures from in situ and satellite infrared measurements." J. Climate 13, 1674-1696 and: Doran, P. D., Priscu, Et Al. (2002): "Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response." Nature 415, 517-520.

This is very significant, because many claimed that warming at the poles would be proof positive that global warming was occurring, and because computer models known as General Circulation Models (GCMs) use the temperature trends at the poles in many of there calculations (Computer are only mathematical model run on computers. If the mathematics is wrong so is the whole model). If these GCM are totally wrong in one very significant aspect then they are totally invalid. This is because GCM are suppose to represent the real world.

In an article titled "New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?" published in the Journal "energy and environment" Dr. Theodor Landscheidt predicts that the world will enter a cooling trend that will be coldest around 2030. He predicts that we will notice this cooling well before that.

He basis this on his and many others studies of solar activity. He also states that the IPCC estimates of human induced warming are way over stated. He points to a number of studies that shows flaws with GCMs. He cites too many studies to mention here.

Even if man made global warming is occurring it might make sense to "do something about it" if there was no cost to "doing something." However there is a cost. I have heard estimates from $500 billion to $1trillion per year for the United States to implement the Kyoto accords. That is real money.

Then again can Vermont even do anything? It is estimated that If California stopped producing all CO2 It would reduce world wide CO2 by .02%. Because Vermont has a population of about 1/100th the size of California it is fair to guess that if Vermont stopped producing CO2 it would represent about .0002% of the world wide total.

It is imposable to completely stop producing CO2 (we have to exhale) therefore realistically Vermont would have even less of an impact, yet the cost would be huge.
It makes no sense to attempt to stop something that might not be happening and that we can not stop anyway and will cost a fortune to try to stop.

Thank You Tom!!!

Milton Friedman Knew The Threat

This from the Opinion Journal

"Milton Friedman @ Rest
Email from a Nobel Laureate.

Monday, January 22, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

In July last year, the late Milton Friedman, Nobel laureate in economics in 1976, granted an interview to The Wall Street Journal. Today we publish material from a question-and-answer exchange he had by email--shortly after their meeting--with his interviewer, Tunku Varadarajan, the Journal's editorial features editor.


What is the biggest risk to the world economy: America's deficits? Energy insecurity? Environment? Terrorism? None of the above?

Friedman: Islamofascism, with terrorism as its weapon.



Milton Friedman died on Nov. 16, 2006, age 94. There is a memorial for him today at Stanford University. "

God rest is soul...

Why is Jimmy Carter so Oposed to Israel?

Although I haven't read Jimmy Carter's book, I've read the reviews and heard the news of the exodus of his staff since the day it was released. I have more important things to do than read what is opined to be not only a rewrite of history, but blatantly anti-Israel/Jew.

It has puzzled me...why would a former president not only say the horrible things he has said about America and subsequent presidents in public on foreign soil, but why would he put such controversial language in print?

Today, some clarity came to me via my inbox. Below is an excerpt from a Frontpage Magazine article written by John Perazzo. The link to the full article follows.

"Some members of the Arab lobby in America are heavily financed with money from the Arab world. As Jacob Laksin recently detailed in FrontPageMagazine, for instance, the Atlanta-based Carter Center (founded by Jimmy Carter in 1982) has been a longtime recipient of Arab funding. Before his death in 2005, Saudi Arabia’s King Fahd made several large donations to the Center, including a 1993 gift of $7.6 million. As of 2005, the king’s nephew, Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, had given at least $5 million to the Carter Center. In 2001 the United Arab Emirates (UAE) gave the Center $500,000. The previous year, ten of Osama bin Laden’s brothers had jointly pledged $1 million, as did Sultan Qaboos bin Said of Oman in 1998. The Saudi Fund for Development has been another major contributor, as has the Kuwait Fund for Arab Economic Development. And Morocco’s Prince Moulay Hicham Ben Abdallah has collaborated with the Carter Center on various initiatives."

Well, that explains everything!!!

Frontpage Article

Troop Restrictions

"And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have."

President Bush said these words early on in his speech last evening and quite frankly I was surprised that none of the pundits picked up on them.

Most people might infer that this refers to the Iraqi imposed restrictions on our troops from setting up checkpoints and restrictions on which cities/areas they can enter to ferret out the enemy.

I am hopeful it means more than that. As I have said all along, more troops on the ground will only be minimally helpful if the "rules of engagement" are not eased. I certainly hope the president will finally allow our troops to fight like they know how to fight, to engage preemptively when threatened and send a clear message "we intend to kill you before you kill us".

{We were without internet access for far too long - our DSL went down, but finally got back on last evening}

Celebrate

Our long "inter"national NIGHTMARE is over - Kofi Anon is GONE (and Saddam too).

Happy New Year

Click here for a fun video
Happy New Year