Ok, so Al Gore thinks the planet is burning up, over heating, the green house gasses are going to burn up the atmosphere...It's too bad there are so many gullible people in DC. See the articles below.

With Al Due Respect, We're Doomed
By Dana Milbank
Thursday, January 29, 2009; A03
The lawmakers gazed in awe at the figure before them. The Goracle had seen the future, and he had come to tell them about it.
What the Goracle saw in the future was not good: temperature changes that "would bring a screeching halt to human civilization and threaten the fabric of life everywhere on the Earth -- and this is within this century, if we don't change."
The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, John Kerry (D-Mass.), appealed to hear more of the Goracle's premonitions. "Share with us, if you would, sort of the immediate vision that you see in this transformative process as we move to this new economy," he beseeched.
"Geothermal energy," the Goracle prophesied. "This has great potential; it is not very far off."
Another lawmaker asked about the future of nuclear power. "I have grown skeptical about the degree to which it will expand," the Goracle spoke.
A third asked the legislative future -- and here the Goracle spoke in riddle. "The road to Copenhagen has three steps to it," he said.
Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho) begged the Goracle to look further into the future. "What does your modeling tell you about how long we're going to be around as a species?" he inquired.
The Goracle chuckled. "I don't claim the expertise to answer a question like that, Senator."
It was a jarring reminder that the Goracle is, indeed, mortal. Once Al Gore was a mere vice president, but now he is a Nobel laureate and climate-change prophet. He repeats phrases such as "unified national smart grid" the way he once did "no controlling legal authority" -- and the ridicule has been replaced by worship, even by his political foes.
"Tennessee," gushed Sen. Bob Corker, a Republican from Gore's home state, "has a legacy of having people here in the Senate and in public service that have been of major consequence and contributed in a major way to the public debate, and you no doubt have helped build that legacy." If that wasn't quite enough, Corker added: "Very much enjoyed your sense of humor, too."
Humor? From Al Gore? "I benefit from low expectations," he replied.
The Goracle's powers seem to come from his ability to scare the bejesus out of people. "We must face up to this urgent and unprecedented threat to the existence of our civilization," he said. And: "This is the most serious challenge the world has ever faced." And: It "could completely end human civilization, and it is rushing at us with such speed and force."
Though some lawmakers tangled with Gore on his last visit to Capitol Hill, none did on the Foreign Relations Committee yesterday. Dick Lugar (Ind.), the ranking Republican, agreed that there will be "an almost existential impact" from the climate changes Gore described.
As such, the Goracle, even when questioned, was shown great deference. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), challenging Gore over spent nuclear fuel, began by saying: "I stand to be corrected, and I defer to your position, you're probably right, and I'm probably wrong." He ended his question by saying: "I'm not questioning you; I'm questioning myself."
Others sought to buy the Goracle's favor by offering him gifts. "Thank you for your incredible leadership; you make this crystalline for those who don't either understand it or want to understand it," gushed Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), who went on to ask: "Will you join me this summer at the Jersey Shore?"
The chairman worried that the Goracle may have been offended by "naysayers" who thought it funny that Gore's testimony before the committee came on a morning after a snow-and-ice storm in the capital. "The little snow in Washington does nothing to diminish the reality of the crisis," Kerry said at the start of the hearing.
The climate was well controlled inside the hearing room, although Gore, suffering from a case of personal climate change, perspired heavily during his testimony. The Goracle presented the latest version of his climate-change slide show to the senators: a globe with yellow and red blotches, a house falling into water, and ones with obscure titles such as "Warming Impacts Ugandan Coffee Growing Region." At one point he flashed a biblical passage on the screen, but he quickly removed it. "I'm not proselytizing," he explained. A graphic showing a disappearing rain forest was accompanied by construction noises.
The Goracle supplied abundant metaphors to accompany his visuals. Oil demand: "This roller coaster is headed for a crash, and we're in the front car." Polar ice: "Like a beating heart, and the permanent ice looks almost like blood spilling out of a body along the eastern coast of Greenland."
The lawmakers joined in. "There are a lot of ways to skin a cat," contributed Isakson, who is unlikely to get the Humane Society endorsement. "And if we have the dire circumstances we're facing, we need to find every way to skin every cat."
Mostly, however, the lawmakers took turns asking the Goracle for advice, as if playing with a Magic 8 Ball.
Lugar, a 32-year veteran of the Senate, asked Gore, as a "practical politician," how to get the votes for climate-change legislation. "I am a recovering politician. I'm on about Step 9," the Goracle replied, before providing his vision.
Prospects for regulating a future carbon emissions market? "There's a high degree of confidence." The future of automobiles in China and India? "I wouldn't give up on electric vehicles." The potential of solar power in those countries? "I have no question about it at all."
Of course not. He's the Goracle.

WEATHER CHANNEL FOUNDER BLASTS GORE OVER GLOBAL WARMING CAMPAIGN
JOHN COLEMAN, NOW A WEATHERMAN AT SAN DIEGO'S KUSI, WRITES ON HIS STATION'S WEB SITE THAT AL GORE IS IGNORING THE FAULTY RESEARCH BEHIND GLOBAL WARMING.
FOXNews.com
The founder of the Weather Channel is ridiculing Al Gore over his calls for action on global climate change, saying in a column that global warming is a "hoax" and "bad science."
John Coleman, now a weatherman at San Diego's KUSI, wrote on his station's Web site Wednesday that Gore refuses to acknowledge the faulty research on which the idea of global warming is based.
Coleman's lengthy scolding came as the former vice president and Nobel Peace Prize winner addressed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and urged lawmakers to pass a bill that would put caps on heat-trapping gases and take the lead on a global climate treaty.
Coleman wrote that the Environmental Protection Agency is "on the verge" of naming CO2 (carbon dioxide) as a pollutant, and that seemingly all of Washington is on board with such CO2 silliness."
"I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it," Coleman wrote, describing the decades-old theory that increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere leads to global warming.
"Global Warming. It is the hoax. It is bad science. It is a high jacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history," Coleman wrote.
The Amazing Story Behind Tho Global Warming Scam

By John Coleman
January 28, 2009

The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax we citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way, the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have lead to a rise in public awareness that CO2 is not a pollutant and is not a significant greenhouse gas that is triggering runaway global warming.

How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government we have to struggle so to stop it?

The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle saw the opportunity to obtain major funding from the Navy for doing measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute’s areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago, who was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle tagged on to Suess studies and co-authored a paper with him in 1957. The paper raises the possibility that the carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. It seems to be a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle’s mind was most of the time.

Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1960 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels.

These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.

Now let me take you back to the1950s when this was going on. Our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution from the crude internal combustion engines that powered cars and trucks back then and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. Cars and factories and power plants were filling the air with all sorts of pollutants. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution and a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action. Government accepted this challenge and new environmental standards were set. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed for cars, as were new high tech, computer controlled engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer big time polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. Likewise, new fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced, as well.

But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. So the research papers from Scripps came at just the right moment. And, with them came the birth of an issue; man-made global warming from the carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants began to flow and alarming hypothesis began to show up everywhere.

The Keeling curve showed a steady rise in CO2 in atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. As of today, carbon dioxide has increased from 215 to 385 parts per million. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. While the increase is real, the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about .41 hundredths of one percent.

Several hypothesis emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. Years have passed and the scientists kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up.

Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation’s bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meeting.

Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations, a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government. But, he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis. So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This was not a pure climate study scientific organization, as we have been lead to believe. It was an organization of one-world government UN bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who craved the UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels. Over the last 25 years they have been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international meetings and reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, the UN IPCC has made its points to the satisfaction of most and even shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.

At the same time, that Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle. He had been very politically active in the late 1950’s as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla. He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus.

He left Scripps finally in 1963 and moved to Harvard University to establish a Center for Population Studies. It was there that Revelle inspired one of his students to become a major global warming activist. This student would say later, "It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates. Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!" The student described him as "a wonderful, visionary professor" who was "one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming," That student was Al Gore. He thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book Earth in the Balance, published in 1992.

So there it is, Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming. His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the anti-fossil fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road to his books, his movie, his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits business.

What happened next is amazing. The global warming frenzy was becoming the cause celeb of the media. After all the media is mostly liberal, loves Al Gore, loves to warn us of impending disasters and tell us "the sky is falling, the sky is falling". The politicians and the environmentalist loved it, too.

But the tide was turning with Roger Revelle. He was forced out at Harvard at 65 and returned to California and a semi retirement position at UCSD. There he had time to rethink Carbon Dioxide and the greenhouse effect. The man who had inspired Al Gore and given the UN the basic research it needed to launch its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was having second thoughts. In 1988 he wrote two cautionary letters to members of Congress. He wrote, "My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways." He added, "…we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer."

And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge negative impact on the economy and jobs and our standard of living. I have discussed this collaboration with Dr. Singer. He assures me that Revelle was considerably more certain than he was at the time that carbon dioxide was not a problem.

Did Roger Revelle attend the Summer enclave at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California in the Summer of 1990 while working on that article? Did he deliver a lakeside speech there to the assembled movers and shakers from Washington and Wall Street in which he apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore onto this wild goose chase about global warming? Did he say that the key scientific conjecture of his lifetime had turned out wrong? The answer to those questions is, "I think so, but I do not know it for certain". I have not managed to get it confirmed as of this moment. It’s a little like Las Vegas; what is said at the Bohemian Grove stays at the Bohemian Grove. There are no transcripts or recordings and people who attend are encouraged not to talk. Yet, the topic is so important, that some people have shared with me on an informal basis.

Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam.

Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle’s Mea culpa as the actions of senile old man. And, the next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate, From 1992 until today, he and his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when ask about we skeptics they simply insult us and call us names.

So today we have the acceptance of carbon dioxide as the culprit of global warming. It is concluded that when we burn fossil fuels we are leaving a dastardly carbon footprint which we must pay Al Gore or the environmentalists to offset. Our governments on all levels are considering taxing the use of fossil fuels. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of naming CO2 as a pollutant and strictly regulating its use to protect our climate. The new President and the US congress are on board. Many state governments are moving on the same course.

We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways. Our energy policy has been strictly hobbled by no drilling and no new refineries for decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas. On top of that the whole thing about corn based ethanol costs us millions of tax dollars in subsidies. That also has driven up food prices. And, all of this is a long way from over.

And, I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.

Global Warming. It is the hoax. It is bad science. It is a high jacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history.

John Coleman
1-29-09

I find this one pretty interesting. It seems the libs are feeling pretty threatened by little ole Rush. Is it that they are afraid of the truth? Are his ideas too radicle for them? I think they are just a bunch of punks that don't like it when someone wont back down when they start trying to shut them up...

Democrats Launch Petition Against Rush Limbaugh After Firing Back at Obama
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee launches an online petition to express outrage at Rush Limbaugh after he said he wanted President Obama to fail.
FOXNews.com
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has launched an online petition to express outrage at conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh for saying he wanted President Obama to "fail."
"Jobs, health care, our place in the world -- the stakes for our nation are high and every American needs President Obama to succeed," the petition reads. "Stand strong against Rush Limbaugh's Attacks -- sign our petition, telling Rush what you think of his attacks on President Obama."
The petition comes after Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill Friday that they need to quit listening to Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.
"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.
One White House official confirmed the comment but said he was simply trying to make a larger point about bipartisan efforts.
On Monday, Limbaugh shot back at Obama, opening his show by saying, "I'm the man you should not be listening, according to President Obama."
"I think [Obama] wants me to fail," Limbaugh said. "He's more frightened of me than he is of John Boehner, which doesn't say much for our party."
The remarks came after Limbaugh said last week on his radio show: "If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to this guy, say 'okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails'."
The committee's online petition includes a YouTube video featuring audio clips of the radio host's recent remarks.

God sure is good! What a provider.
I found some more 'info' that I thought was pretty funny, at least to me...

You might be a liberal if …
You think that if someone is getting richer, someone,
somewhere, must be getting poorer.
You think that protestors outside nuclear power plants are
dedicated activists, but protestors outside abortion
clinics are dangerous zealots interfering with a legal
activity.
You believe that more federal regulations will make your
life better.
You believe that even though the top 20 percent of
taxpayers pay 80 percent of income taxes, that the rich
are not paying their “fair share.”
You think that Rush Limbaugh’s listeners are
mindless “dittoheads,” but you have never doubted anything
that you heard from Michael Moore.
You believe in global warming today just as firmly as you
believed in global cooling back in the 1970s.
You believe that the network news is a better indicator of
what “real” news is than talk radio, Internet news sites,
and blogs.
You believe that there was never, ever a problem with
biased news coverage until Fox News went on the air.
You believe that Mikhail Gorbachev deserves more credit
for losing the Cold War than Ronald Reagan deserves for
winning it.
Your parents gave you an acre of preserved rain forest for
your first birthday.
You cannot name a single NASCAR driver.
You mentally subtract 100 points from someone’s IQ if the
person speaks with a Southern accent.
You think that Dan Rather got a raw deal.
You panic if you discover that you’re out of chick peas.
You think that the phrase “separation of church and state”
is in the Constitution.
You pride yourself on your global awareness, global
sensitivity and global outlook, but can’t name your state
legislator or school board representative.
You are dedicated to helping the poor, the downtrodden and
the less fortunate, but you have never given blood.
You have not seen "The Passion of the Christ," and you
don’t know anyone who has seen it.
You believe that a woman should make it on her own,
without depending on her husband (except for Hillary
Clinton).
You believe that professional, working women should never
be judged on their appearance (except for Katherine
Harris).
You believe that rich people should not be allowed to
contribute so much money to candidates for office (except
for George Soros).
You believe that government should make a special effort
to hire members of traditionally oppressed groups, such as
African-Americans (except for Clarence Thomas, Colin
Powell and Condoleezza Rice).
You feel a deep sense of common cause with oppressed
groups, such as Hispanic immigrants (except for Cuban
Americans fleeing Castro).
You believe that a mother’s wishes for her child,
especially a mother’s last, dying wish for her child,
should outweigh the wishes of a father who had long before
deserted his family (unless the child is named Elian
Gonzalez).
You think people in south Florida, who can’t figure out
how to work a butterfly ballot, ought to have the final
say in choosing the president of the United States.
You have no problem with Hollywood movie starts flying
around in private jets to give speeches on the evils of
SUVs.
You think that raising taxes will reduce the budget
deficit.
You deplore prejudice and bigotry in all its forms, but
think that everyone in the “red states” is an idiot.
You are more concerned, more often, with the rights of
convicted felons than you are with the rights of small
business owners.
You uphold a woman’s right to choose, unless a woman
chooses adoption, chooses to be a stay-at-home mom,
chooses to homeschool, or chooses to start a business.
You are more concerned with Vice President Cheney’s links
to Halliburton than with Saddam Hussein’s links to
international terrorism.
You have used the phrase, “in Europe, the government pays
for health care and vacation,” without irony.
You are worried about how the French view Americans.
You believe that nativity scenes should be banned from
public view, but that anyone objecting to
pornography “only has to look the other way.”
And finally, you are almost certainly a liberal if you
refuse to admit that you’re a liberal, and accuse anyone
of calling you a liberal of McCarthyism.


ON another note, I have to say that I find it disturbing that the guy in charge of the IRS is an admitted tax evader. Doesn't seem to make much sense to me. I found the following article to be pretty interesting.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Obama’s Wounded Treasury Man
by Lawrence Kudlow

Over a third of the Senate voted against Tim Geithner’s confirmation as Treasury secretary, though he did pass the test by 60 to 34 early Monday evening. That is the closest post-WWII margin for a Treasury secretary. According to Bloomberg, seven of the last 23 Treasury-secretary nominees -- under which actual Senate roll-call votes were taken -- were confirmed by an average vote margin of 95 to one. (The others were confirmed without an official vote count.)
Interestingly, three Democrats voted against: Tom Harkin of Iowa, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. Independent Bernie Sanders also voted no. Noteworthy on the Republican side, Susan Collins of Maine voted against Geithner, accusing him of "inexcusable negligence" in his non-payment of taxes ($43,000) during his IMF days.
Arlen Specter told reporters early on Monday that he would vote yes, but he changed his mind and voted no. Robert Byrd, by the way, captured the sentiments of John Kyl, Jim Bunning, and many others when he said: "Had [Geithner] not been nominated for Treasury secretary, it’s doubtful that he would have ever paid these taxes."
The surprising number of no votes suggests that both parties will keep Geithner on a short leash. And it was President Obama who ran over to the Treasury Department to swear Geithner in right after the Senate vote. This was unusual, but it’s clear the new president is trying to stop the bleeding of his new Treasury man. Instead of a hoped-for early confirmation to get the next stage of the financial-bailout package moving, Geithner wound up being one of the last cabinet officers confirmed.
But Geithner’s gaffes are not all tax related. He tripped up again last Friday when it was discovered that he attacked China in written responses to Senate Finance Committee questions. This caused quite a stir on Wall Street, as gold soared and the dollar fell. Mr. Geithner will be the biggest bond salesman in American history as he attempts to successfully finance what will be trillions of dollars in new debt obligations. That’s why it’s hard to understand how he would poke a stick in the eyes of his biggest banker, namely China, by labeling them a "currency manipulator."
Currency manipulator is an actionable phrase that could trigger a 27 percent tariff on Chinese imports, according to the highly protectionist resolution sponsored by Republican Lindsey Graham and Democrat Charles Schumer. Henry Paulson took great care to avoid that phrase during his tenure.
The yuan appreciated close to 20 percent in recent years, before falling as China moved to help its sagging economy by stopping its deflationary currency policy. And during Obama’s presidential campaign there were numerous protectionist overtones aimed at halting trade deals with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea, and at rewriting NAFTA. But the China card is a new one.
During the Clinton years, Treasury man Robert Rubin and economic advisor Larry Summers, under whom Geithner served, maintained a strong and stable dollar policy. So with all these government bonds to sell, you would think Mr. Geithner would also want a stable currency to help his funding efforts. But his attack against China undermines the stable-dollar idea, and could force Treasury rates much higher during his term.
Since Geithner is something of a wounded warrior from the tax non-payment controversy, Team Obama’s economic policy is shifting toward a Larry Summers power-center right now. So it is equally important to note Summers’s clear statements on Meet the Press on Sunday, when he called for repeal of the Bush tax cuts on investors and successful high-end economic activists.
However, investor capital is on strike against stocks, real estate, and distressed toxic assets. So it’s puzzling that Summers told NBC’s David Gregory that the Bush tax cuts must be repealed. He left open the date. But he left no uncertainty about the intent.
Of course, this could have a significant deterrent effect on investor decisions. It certainly connects the dots between Obama policy and the rantings of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has similarly called for repeal of the Bush tax cuts. One would think, in today’s deflationary investor environment, that pro-growth economic policies would seek to reward investors, not punish them.
If Summers and Geithner propose a new government "bad bank" to purchase toxic assets, then somebody in the private sector is going to have to buy them at resale. This is why some economists have proposed a multi-year capital-gains tax holiday, including a significant increase in capital-loss write-offs against future tax liabilities. Or at a minimum, the new administration could spur interest in distressed assets by extending the Bush tax cuts, not repealing them.
But even before Mr. Geithner settles into his new job, prosperity-killing threats from investor tax hikes, protectionism, and a weak dollar could throw a wet blanket over economic recovery.

And then of course there's that brilliant idea of closing gitmo. I believe the following article speaks for itself...maybe we should just open the gate and let Cuba deal with them, or better yet, I'm sure there are a few extra rooms available on Pennsylvania Ave...


Bomber's Martyrdom Tape Renews Fears Over Consequences of Closing Gitmo
Tuesday, January 27, 2009

As President Obama pushes for the closure of Guantanamo Bay prison, the debate over where to house the terror detainees being held there is heating up.
An exclusive video of a former Gitmo detainee's martyrdom tape, obtained by FOX News, is a reminder of the concerns that terror suspects — who have been held but released from Guantanamo Bay — are increasingly returning to the fight against the United States and its allies.
Abdallah Ali al-Ajmi was transferred back to his home country of Kuwait after his release from Guantanamo in 2005. Last April he blew himself up in a homicide attack that killed 12 people in Mosul, Iraq.
Al-Ajmi, known in Guantanamo as Detainee 220, made his martyrdom tape before the attack.
"In the name of Allah, most compassionate, most merciful and prayers and peace be upon our Prophet," al-Ajmi says in the video. "I thank Allah, Lord of the Worlds, who freed me from Guantanamo prison and, after we were tortured, connected me with the Islamic State of Iraq [ISI]. And it is the gift of Allah to follow the path of this nation, the ISI."
In the video, translated by the NEFA Foundation, a non-profit that tracks terror groups, al-Ajmi mentions Guantanamo Bay right away. For many jihadists, having served time at Guantanamo is seen as a badge of honor.
Al-Ajmi's attack is one of the most well known and well documented cases of an ex-Gitmo detainee returning to the battlefield as a homicide bomber. His video renews concerns of many in the intelligence community of the potential consequences by releasing these prisoners.
Sixty-two detainees released from the U.S. Navy base prison in Cuba are believed to have rejoined the fight, said Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell, citing data from December. That's up from 37 as of March 2008, Morrell said.
The new figures come as President-elect Barack Obama issued an executive order last week to close the controversial prison. It's unlikely, however, that the Guantanamo detention facility will be closed anytime soon as Obama weighs what to do with the estimated 250 Al Qaeda, Taliban or other foreign fighter suspects still there.
FOX News' Catherine Herridge and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

Check out this link. My daughter is on a robotics team and they were featured on the web site of a local news paper!
http://videos.nctimes.com/p/video?id=2960177

Well, I'm done for now...maybe more in a little while.

So, we're done with week 1 of the new admin. Not real productive unless of course you count promoting world wide abortion paid for via our taxes, the closing of Gitmo (which many believe will only result in the release of individuals who are more than willing to contribute to the destruction of our country), most of his senior staff being subponenaed in the Blago case,and not a lot of progress on the promised tax cut for 95% of America-not to mention that the new treasury secretary (the guy in charge of the IRS)just kind of forgot to pay his taxes. This guy is supposed to be a financial genius??? Give me a break, he was supposed to head up TARP and can't even figure out where the money went or what it was used for...It'll be interesting to see what happens this coming week.
I know, I know...give the guy a break, it was only his first week for cryin out loud! Well, by this time in Bush's administration, he was already being bashed throughout the media...not praised as our new savior!!!

Anyway, I really just wanted to post the folowing:

How to spot a liberal….

 They are driving a Prius or other trend-hybrid vehicle to satisfy their eco-snobbery
 Their car has multiple stickers on the back; namely, “Bush Lied and People Died��? or something about “faith based missile defense systems”
 They are wearing a shirt with a “peace" sign; probably with several psychedelic colors and objects. Perhaps a Bob Dylan and/or Beetles shirt too.
 They have long, un groomed facial hair and they get emotionally bent out of shape when someone brings up President Bush
 Attend a Cindy Sheehan rally and you’ll be surrounded by them; most likely holding up anti-Israel signs and comparing the Bush Administration to Adolph Hitler
 Most likely employed by local, state, or federal governments that perform menial tasks
 They are wearing a tie dye shirt, a fanny pack, Birkenstocks most likely walking around an art & wine festival.
 Go to the Al Gore movie “Inconvenient Truth” and look around. Most likely you will be sitting right next to one.
 Most everyone in Portland; especially if they riding a bike or playing a musical instrument on the sidewalk, have several facial piercings and often shooting their mouths off about something ridiculous
 College Professors at Harvard, Columbia, and Berkeley who believe the US government is responsible for 9/11; YES, they are out there.

Jan 23, 2009- First entry

Well, this is my first entry on my blog. I'm new to this stuff (though I've read plenty of blogs), I'm not one to really put my thoughts out there for the world to see. I figured why not.

I guess my big interest for some time now has been politics. With the last year (or more) spent watching the candidates run and now the inaguration of a new president, I can't seem to get enough information. I find myself watching Fox News when home, or listening to the radio programs/talk shows constantly.
I'd consider myself a conservative (some consider me an ultra right wing, bordering on obsessive conservative). I find the liberal left wing to be hypocritical, two-faced, and completely without a clue as to how to make things work. I know, there's a "Change we can believe in" on the horizon...well, after watching just the first few days of the new regime, I'm already dreading the next several years. Don't get me wrong, I certainly hope that BHO can make a positive difference. The key there is positive. If his change means those of us who pay the majority of the taxes end up paying even more so the majority can get even bigger handouts and not pay any taxes at all, then I hope he fails miserably. I agree that we need to make some changes and get things back on track, but what the left seems to forget is that they have had a huge hand in getting us where we are today regarding the econmy.

"Government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem."
Ronald Reagan

Unfortunately, the left doesn't seem to get that. We don't need government to make more policies and give more hand outs to those who don't want to help themselves. What we need is for people to get off their butts and take some pride in actually earning a living instead of feeling they are entitled to their cut of the living/profit that hard working people make.
Less government spending, lower taxes, more incentives for small business...are only a few of the things that I believe will help. Not that the conservatives have all the answers or have done a stellar job in handling things, but I think they are closer to knowing what we should do.

In any event, I have rambled on enough for now. Time to finish watching Hanity interview Limbaugh.
Be well and God belss.