Will Anyone Mourn When the Whites Are Gone?
Posted here for 6-23-08

There's a major demographic change currently underway, and it's likely to have profound world-wide consequences.

Quite simply, whites aren't multiplying, but other races are. As the chart shows, the white population (red bars) in 1900 was 30 percent of the world's population, but by 2000 it had dropped to 15.5 percent. Projections suggest that in 2060 it will be 10 percent and in 2100 just 3 percent. On the other hand, blacks for example (yellow bars), were just 9 percent of the world's population in 1950, but jumped to 14 percent in 2000, and are expected to exceed 25 percent in 2060. (Data for the chart was obtained from a variety of Internet websites. Google "World white population" and "World black population" to find articles on the subject and sources of the numbers.)

As the white proportion of the world's people drops over the next hundred years from 15.6 percent to 10 percent and then into single digits, what will happen? As other races take over the reigns of power where whites now dominate, how will the races interact? When white rule in African countries was replaced by black rule, there were unsettling consequences. In Zimbabwe, for example, Premier Robert Mugabe was quoted as saying, "Our party must continue to strike fear in the heart of the white man, our real enemy."

Right here in the good old U.S.A., Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall quipped, in 1971, "You [white] guys have been discriminating for years. Now it is our turn."

And Khallid Abdul Muhammad, Nation of Islam minister and National Assistant to Minister Louis Farrakhan said, "This is the time of the black man's rise and the white man's demise."

Of course there are more races in the mix than just black and white, but the white man's future looks dim.

Anticipating a Democrat-Dominated Government
Posted here for 6-16-08

There's a good deal of speculation Democrats will sweep both the House and Senate in the fall election, and possibly the White House, too. If so, what happens? What can we expect from an all-Democrat government with filibuster-stopping majorities in congress? Let me list a few expectations.

The U.S. will withdraw from Iraq, in effect surrendering to the terrorists. Islamic terrorism will quickly spread around the world.
The citizens will see the largest tax increase in the nation's history.
Same-sex marriage is likely to be allowed across the land, resulting in the trivialization and ultimate collapse of marriage.
The hoax of man-made global warming will be embraced, tens of billions of dollars will be squandered in attempts to "fix" the global-warming "problem" (with absolutely no beneficial results), and our lifestyles and standard of living will be drastically lowered.
The "Fairness Doctrine" will be resurrected and become law, killing off much if not all of talk radio.
Billions of dollars of private company profits will be seized by the government because they're considered "excessive" by the liberals in office.
An energy catastrophe will ensue as liberals continue their policy of refusing to drill for oil, build new nuclear plants, and erect new coal-burning electrical-generating facilities.
One or two far-left Supreme Court Justices will be named and approved, giving the Court a dramatically-leftist majority for probably decades.
Socialized medicine will be imposed, and the quality of health care will begin to tumble. Rationing of health-care services will follow in a few years, probably with denial of services for some of the elderly.
Politically-correct speech will be imposed, making a mockery of the First Amendment.
Reparations will be approved by congress, legalizing the transfer of billions or trillions of dollars from the successful to the unsuccessful.
The United Nations will impose a tax on all non-poor people worldwide. Internet transactions will also be taxed.
Each and every American will be issued a carbon allowance. Severe penalties will be imposed if they're exceeded. The airlines industry will collapse.
The government will move to seize all guns owned by the people, as has been mandated by the United Nations for years.
There will be one or more major terrorist attacks on U.S. cities. WMDs will be used and tens or hundreds of thousands of civilians will be killed.
A UN army will be created with power to enter any country, including the U.S., to quell "disturbances." The UN will determine what is considered a "disturbance."
The International Criminal Court will be strengthened and U.S. citizens and companies will be found guilty of breaking UN laws. There's a good chance U.S. military people will be tried and convicted of "crimes against humanity."
The U.S. Constitution will be overruled, as UN mandates preempt our sovereignty.
The U.S. dollar will collapse, sending our economy and the world's into a tailspin.

Barack Obama promises "change" if he's elected. He ain't kiddin'!

The Minority Rules
Posted here for 6-9-08

Consciously or unconsciously, California's homosexual marriage ruling is another step -- a big step -- on the road to tearing marriage apart. Redefine what the institution is, loosen the meaning, broaden it, turn it into a hodgepodge of social relationships, marginalize it, disrespect it, trivialize it, and you have successfully destroyed the fundamental element of a peaceful and prosperous society.

Tens of thousands of years of history have proven that the family unit -- a mother and a father and their children -- is best for them, best for the community, and best for the nation. Yet, homosexual activists have now prevailed with a ruling that sacrifices wellbeing, stability, and common sense for the selfish interests of a small minority. Political correctness will destroy us!

Pay heed to the words of Dennis Prager in his May 26, 2008 article in The Washington Times -- National Weekly Edition, "Radical Consequences of the California Decision":

Nothing imaginable -- leftward or rightward -- would constitute as radical a change in the way society is structured as this redefining of marriage for the first time in history. Not another Prohibition, not government taking over all health care, not changing all public education to private schools, not America leaving the United Nations, not rescinding the income tax and replacing it with a consumption tax. Nothing.

Unless California voters amend the California Constitution or Congress amends the U.S. Constitution, four justices of the California Supreme Court will have changed American society more than any four individuals since Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Madison.

In a real marriage -- between a man and a woman -- look at the influences at play: the man's tendency to roam is curtailed as he focuses on his family; both man and woman take comfort in a relationship that is uniformly respected -- highly respected -- around the world; the man senses the sanctity of marriage and dedicates his life to the family; when kids are born, each has a role model who loves him or her; young boys aren't looking for a role model in the members of a neighborhood gang; the offspring are brought up in an environment that reinforces heterosexuality, for the continuation of the positive influences marriage instills; family composition is balanced and uniquely oriented to act in the best interest of all the family members; the structure of marriage is defined through the wisdom of time, not through the whim of some activist judges; and finally, the family unit develops an attitude of self-reliance, confidence, and optimism based on its fundamental structure.

As Prager points out, the California Supreme Court produced a ruling not based on what's good for marriage, family, or society at large, but a ruling based on "compassion." Let history, society's needs, and common sense go to hell! The court was compassionate! What more would you ask for in this age of multiculturalism?

When That Day Comes
Posted here for 6-2-08

When the American public finally realizes the whole global-warming frenzy has been a scam, a deception, a hoax; what do you suppose the consequences will be?

Will the mainstream media mock and ridicule Al Gore? Will they print countless front-page articles about how foolish he was, how naive he was, how wrong he was? No, they won't, because they have been fully committed themselves to Gore's global-warming position. They will have to save face somehow, perhaps by saying their reporting of the issue alerted the public and changed lifestyles, thereby reducing the production of greenhouse gases and consequently stopping the global-warming trend. Of course such an assertion would be nonsense.

Will apologies be forthcoming to folks like scientist Fred Singer, talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, Senator James Inhofe, and all the others who bravely stood up from the very beginning and tried to alert the public to the truth? No, that won't happen either. Apologies tend to reinforce the idea that those who issue them were in the wrong, and folks on the left usually aren't willing to make such admissions.

Will all the draconian schemes proposed to curb global warming be discarded? Oh goodness, no! Implementing these schemes has been to a large extent the reason global warming has been so enthusiastically embraced in the first place. The media story line will become: maybe we were misled about the science behind global warming, but all the proposed remedies are right for the world and must be implemented. We (the media) may have been wrong on temperature projections, but we were absolutely right on target with public policy.

This line of thinking has already been expressed. Way back in 1990, Timothy Worth said, "We've got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy." [Aka: liberal policy.]

Will the media suffer any consequences as a result of their biased, misguided, false reporting? The answer again is, I suspect, no. Some consumers of what the media produce may decide to cancel subscriptions or get information from reliable sources, but in general the public probably will stick to its old habits of reading, watching, and listening-to the mainstream "news." The invalidity of the global-warming predictions will be just another story that comes and goes. The great moral of that story will be missed.

Will politicians suffer any consequences from their errors? Hardly! They seem largely impervious to all the errors they create. With re-election rates of 90 percent or more (even though congressional approval rates are abysmal), U.S. House members, for example, seem pretty much immune to voter wrath. As long as they don't say or do something that might be considered politically incorrect, their futures are assured.

Will anything change? Well, maybe. Maybe we won't be blaming hurricanes and tornadoes on global warming. Maybe we won't feel sorry for the "poor" polar bears because the temperature has warmed one degree in the last century. Maybe we'll realize CO2 production isn't a bad thing after all. Maybe the whole "carbon footprint" fixation will fade just like Y2K fears. Maybe . . . but then again . . . maybe not.

Death Wish
Posted here for 5-26-08

Let's see, now. The world's population of polar bears in the 1960s was 8,000 to 10,000, and the world's population of polar bears today is about 25,000. That suggests to me that if the trend continues, the world's population of polar bears in 2050 will be more than 41,000.

Based on that analysis, what would be about the most stupid thing in the world to do regarding polar bears? Yes, I think that would be LISTING THEM AS ENDANGERED!

So why, then, have they been so listed? According to Robert Bluey, "Classifying the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act would put America’s energy policy in the hands of activist judges. Environmentalists who want to halt construction of a power plant in Minnesota, for instance, could simply run to court complaining how it would harm the polar bear."

Ben Lieberman of The Heritage Foundation says, “Alaska is America’s last best frontier for domestic oil and natural gas. Closing off these potential resources would add to energy prices for decades to come and increase reliance on imports.”

Apparently that's just what liberals want. They don't want to drill in ANWR (where there are some 10 billion barrels of oil). They don't want to drill off our east or west coasts (where there are some 86 billion barrels of oil). They don't want to access the tar sands oil resources in Utah (where there are some 12-19 billion barrels of oil). They don't want to drill in Alaska's Chukchi Sea (where there are some 15 billion barrels of oil). They don't want the U.S. to use coal. They won't permit new nuclear plants. They won't allow new refineries.

Liberals have such loathing for America, they wish its inhabitants to get by with less and less energy. And of course without energy, US cars, factories -- our entire economy -- will come to a grinding halt. That seems to be the liberals' game plan.

James M. Taylor, environmental policy expert at the Heartland Institute, says, "The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has just taken its place alongside Miss Cleo and the Psychic Friends Network in terms of a complete divorce from scientific reality. FWS apparently believes it has the clairvoyance to forecast sharp declines in polar bear populations even though temperatures for most of the past 10,000 years have been warmer than today and polar bears have flourished. [. . .] [T]he only plausible basis for ruling polar bears as threatened is blind faith in alarmist computer models that have been no more accurate than Chicken Little's claim that the sky is falling."

We Can Blame the Sun
Posted here for 5-19-08

Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4.

I found these figures in the February 18, 2008 issue of The New American, a publication I've subscribed to for years. The article, entitled "Analyzing Global-Warming Science," was written by William F. Jasper, and it contains an interview with Dr. Arthur Robinson, professor of chemistry and cofounder (in 1980) of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. New American articles are consistently good and this one is outstanding. Figure 1 shows the surface temperatures in the Sargasso Sea, a two million-square-mile region of the Atlantic Ocean. The black horizontal line at about 23 degrees C is the average for the entire 3,000-year period. Notice that the temperature has gone up and down, but now is just about at the average. Notice also that the temperature has been going up since about 1700 AD. That's hardly what you'd expect if CO2 production was causing the warming. Further, the sea-surface temperature was several degrees warmer during the 500-year period at the left of the chart. This clearly did not spell doom for the planet. Figure 2 shows the average length of 169 glaciers from 1700 to 2000. Isn't it interesting that the trend has remained quite constant for some 190 years or so, and most of that period was before accelerated CO2 usage (shown by the coal, oil, and gas lines). Also: it should be noted that while an average of the 169 glaciers represented shows they are receeding, there are lots of other glaciers around the world that are growing. In Figure 3 we see that although CO2 production (hydrocarbon use) increased significantly from about 1935 to 1970, the arctic air temperature decreased significantly during that period. Another consideration: why was the arctic air temperature increasing from about 1890 to 1940? Can't blame that on man-made CO2! Figure 4 shows surface temperature compared to solar activity from 1880 to the present. Well, well, well! Looks like the two curves track rather nicely. As Dr. Robinson said, "In those curves [Figures 3 and 4], the temperature goes up before the CO2, and goes down before the CO2. The C02 lags the temperature. And the reason it does is that the C02 rise is caused by the temperature rise rather than vice versa. As temperatures rise, carbon dioxide is released from the oceans, just as the carbon dioxide is released from soft drinks when their temperature rises. [Al] Gore shows the curves [in his movie] with poor resolution, so that this cannot be seen by the viewer. His film is filled with dozens of other deliberate errors and misrepresentations." What a novel idea: temperatures on earth rise when the sun's intensity increases. And, if you can believe it, the temps here on earth go down when the sun's intensity decreases. Who would have thunk? Dr. Robinson sums up: "Climate science is a very primitive science. The atmosphere is a complicated system, somewhat similar to human biochemistry. We know some things, but we don't know most of the needed facts."

CO2 -- by the Numbers
Posted here for 5-12-08

All greenhouse gases. The amount of CO2 produced. The amount of man-made CO2. 22 percent of the man-made CO2.

Let's look at the global warming "problem" this way: If the blue-and-purple box at left represents all greenhouse gases, then the purple portion represents CO2 and the blue portion represents all other greenhouse gases. The amount of CO2 is just 3.6 percent of the total. That little purple portion is represented as the green-and-yellow box. It's the same size -- it has the same area. Now, the yellow portion of that box -- the barely-visible sliver on the right -- represents man-made CO2 (3.2 percent of the total) and the green represents natural causes of CO2. Next, the red-and-teal box represents man-made CO2. Again, it's the same area as the yellow portion of the green-and-yellow box. Finally, environmentalists tell us we must cut back on the production of CO2. We must make drastic reductions. Just for the sake of argument, let's say we're able to reduce CO2 emissions by 22 percent. That's a lot! It would be an enormous hit to our way of life and the U.S. economy. That 22 percent is represented by the teal portion of the red-and-teal box. The very tiny black box at left represents the total reduction in CO2 if we reduce emissions by 22 percent. Compare it to the blue-and-purple box. It's miniscule. It's absolutely insignificant. It's noise level. Perhaps we can now appreciate why a lot of people believe the whole global warming "problem" is nothing more than a diabolical scheme to seize power, redistribute wealth, and institute world government and socialist policies.

AT&T Marketing Disasters
Posted here for 5-5-08

What is heaven's name is going on with AT&T? I've received four or more calls in the last month or so and every one of them has enraged me.

First of all, I've had trouble understanding what the caller is saying. Don't you think AT&T would know enough to get callers who can speak clearly enough to be understood? It seems not. I assume most or all of the calls are from India, at least that's what the accent suggests to me.

All the calls start out asking for me, inevitably mispronouncing my name. They then go through the "nicety" of asking how I am today. Then they launch into the sales pitch.

The first caller said that because I was such a good customer, AT&T was going to give me Called-Number ID service at no additional charge. That's nice, I thought. But wait a minute. What's the catch?

"There'll be no extra charge," the caller said. Extra charge, I thought. And there began a verbal battle.

"There'll be no extra charge," I said, "but what will the basic charge be?"

"There'll be no extra charge," the heavily-accented voice said again, as though the caller didn't understand my question.

"Are you saying my bill will be the same after I accept this service?"

"There'll be no extra charge," came the reply. My patience was growing thin. I tried again.

"Let's say my bill for this month is $50," I began. "After I accept this service, if I accept this service, will my bill remail $50?" I thought I had posed the question clearly and unambiguously.

"There'll be no extra charge."

We went around and around like this for five or ten minutes until I had reached my point of ultimate exasperation. And that was just the first call.

The second caller said that because I was such a wonderful customer, AT&T wanted to upgrade my DSL service to a higher speed. Gosh, that would be nice, I said to myself. Maybe competition is forcing the company to make an improvement in its DSL offering. "Will this upgrade cost me anything," I inquired.

"There'll be no extra charge." Oh no, here we go again!

By the third or fourth call I was at my tipping point. "Look, I said," trying to remain courteous, "I've received several calls like this and they've all been disasters. I think it's in yours and my best interest to terminate this call right now." I waited for a response. I assume the caller was frantically looking through his script for what to say. Several seconds slipped by.

"You have been such a good customer, we'd like to . . ." I interrupted him right there. My aggravation level was reaching "boil-over." "Look," I said, speaking very slowly, "I've had a number of calls from AT&T recently and they have all been very upsetting. I think it's best that I hang up right now."

"But you have been a very good customer," the India-accented voice responded . . .

Click!

You Can Influence Terrorist Plans
Posted here for 4-28-08

What do you think of this reasoning:

Let's say you're a terrorist and you're thinking about the next big terrorist attack. Should it be in the U.S.? Well, certainly not any time in the next six months, because such an attack would enrage the American public, it would motivate them to vote for a real anti-terrorist candidate -- that would be John McCain -- and Mr. McCain would be a whole lot tougher on terrorism than Hillary or Barack. Therefore, perhaps we can conclude there won't be any major terror activities here in the states at least until after election day.

On the other hand, if the level of violence is raised in Iraq, if more U.S. soldiers are blown up or shot down, then the voters will increase their call to bring the troops home. And of course that's exactly what the terrorists hope and pray to Allah for. Further, it plays right into the hands of the Democrats, enhancing the chance Hillary or Barack will be elected. If a Democrat is in the White House, our enemies will be emboldened. Thus, it seems an escalation of death and destruction is likely in the Middle East in the next several months.

What will happen after the election? Well, if McCain is President, the terrorists will continue to be reluctant to stage terror attacks. McCain has made it clear he'll aggressively fight those who commit acts of terror here.

If Barack is President, all nature of terrorist activity will be unleashed, because Mr. Obama has indicated he wants to talk not fight. He wants to sit down and "reason" with our enemies and by his powerful and wondrous personality convert them away from their terror ways. Maybe Barack doesn't understand it, but you can bet our enemies understand that if they're dealing with President Obama, they can spread terror at will -- with probably few to no recriminations.

If Hillary is President, however, it's a little more complicated. She hasn't been as adamant in her anti-terrorist statements, and additionally to prove her "toughness," she may decide to aggressively fight back. Certainly not as aggressively as McCain, but let's say she might fight aggressively relatively speaking, considering she's a Democrat.

If I were a terrorist, that would be my thinking.

A Dozen Things You Can Do to Celebrate Earth Day (April 22, 2008)
Posted here for 4-21-08

Earth Day isn't just another day on the calendar. It's a day to "get close to nature", to move into a zone of oneness with all things wild and wonderful. So here are twelve specific activities you can undertake to honor this day called "Earth."

Pee in the bushes. It will conserve precious toilet water and I'm sure you know water is the world's most precious commodity. Showers only once a week would also be a good idea. Preferably in the rain.
Shoot your dog or cat. Do you know how much CO2 your little "pets" produce each day? Their breathing is killing the planet!
Don't go to work. Imagine the emissions you'll prevent from your car, the bus, or train. If everybody stayed home, businesses could close down and prevent enormous amounts of greenhouse gases from being produced.
Sit quietly in a chair and think nice thoughts about the environment. The less time the TV is on, the more savings of electricity.
Cancel your subscriptions to the New York Times, Washington Post, Newsweek, and all the other mainstream media publications you receive. Just imagine all the happy, fun-loving trees that will be spared.
Stop all that exercise you've been doing. Remain calm and sedate throughout the day so your breathing will be minimized. Reducing your production of CO2 is something only you can do (or, of course, an assassin).
Plant ten trees in your yard. It doesn't matter if they spoil the appearance of your property. Hey, what's important here? Some debatable aesthetics or the salvation of Planet Earth?
Don't go on vacation. Ever again. Vacations are expensive, they waste fuel, and they produce a whole lot of CO2. That's bad.
Repeat after me: "All animals are Mother Nature's creation. We must honor and respect them. And we must hold all trees and plants in high esteem, too. Natural things are more important than anything else." Now, make sure you say that at least five times a day.
Encourage everyone you know to join VHEM, the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. Clearly, mankind is the biggest blight on Earth, so do your part to eradicate the problem.
Tithe to Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, PETA, World Wilderness Fund, Nature Conservancy, the Audubon Society, or any of the hundreds of other organizations dedicated to advancing the idea that animals and/or plants are more important than human beings.
Kiss an environmentalist. Tell him or her that environmentalism is the most important pursuit in society. To hell with economics, capitalism, the nation's safety, the rule of law, terrorism, immigration, the education of our kids, and everything else we used to think was important. And if you should run across Al Gore, give him a big hug and whisper in his ear: "You are god."

And the most important thing to do to celebrate Earth Day is to realize Earth Day should be celebrated every single day of the year. This isn't Easter, Thanksgiving, or Christmas. We're talking Earth Day, something we should dedicate our lives to.

Charlton Heston, 1924-2008
Posted here for 4-14-08


I had the pleasure of shaking hands with Charlton Heston during the 2001 Conservative Political Action Conference at the Crystal Gateway Marriott just across the river from Washington DC. He was signing copies of his book, The Courage to be Free, and I went through the line and got my book signed. The next day I went through the line again, to shake his hand a second time and to give him a copy of my book, You Don't Say.

I like this excerpt from page 153 of The Courage to be Free:

"As a boy roaming the woods of northern Michigan, I imagined I was a thousand different heroes. I was free to dream about all I might become. Maybe you remember that feeling of real freedom, when you were a kid. [. . .] Before life and its liars built fences around your dreams, when possibility was limitless and freedom flowed through you like fresh air. [. . .] That's the very essence of freedom -- the sheer exhilaration of exploring one's potential and possibilities defined by one's values in life. [. . .] It was in these moments of unbridled gallop that your sense of freedom intersected with your set of values, and your life gained the guideposts that would define its geography forever."

As a child, he may have imagined himself as a thousand different heroes, but as an adult he became a hero to millions. And not just on the movie screen. His values were rock-solid American, and he fought bravely for them. He saw those values eroded and ignored and he stood up gallantly to protect them. In remarks June 24, 1999 at the Young Republicans Association Convention in Cincinnati, Ohio, he said,

"I've come to realize our nation is engaged in a great cultural war [. . .] a war between the cynical and the sincere [. . .] between the principled and the duplicitous. It's a war waged with intolerance, dishonesty, intellectual tyranny and hatred [. . .] a conflict that could lead to actual tyranny the likes of which our young nation, thank God, has never endured. And it's a war your generation must fight or lose."

Charlton Heston is no longer with us to engage the enemy in this war. But by his example we know what we must do.

ABC: Always Be Careful What You Watch and Listen to on Television
Posted here for 4-7-08

A friend of mine sent me a video tape with two recent National Geographic Channel programs: "Aftermath," and "Glacier Meltdown." (Thanks, Bill.)

What a load of garbage! "Aftermath" described what would happen if every human being suddenly disappeared from the face of the Earth. The moderator described how over time the planet would slowly "recover" from all the pollution and disfiguration nasty mankind had inflicted on the otherwise beautiful globe. But first, our bad, bad, bad nuclear power plants would explode, if there's no human oversight, and shower deadly radiation on all the poor, innocent animals.

Given enough time, our buildings and statues and infrastructure would slowly crumble and tumble. Carefully-crafted graphics showed the Statue of Liberty's raised arm falling off, then the head, then the entire structure. How wonderful. The Eiffel Tower was likewise shown in its various stages of disintegration. All of this was a good thing, because the dogs and cats and escaped animals from the zoos could roam wild. They could inhabit the empty towns and cities and live free. Dirt and seeds would be distributed over dozens of years and trees and weeds and other plant life would gradually overtake everything, and in a few hundred years all signs of man's "desecration" of the planet would be gone. And of course this would be a good thing.

The other program, "Glacier Meltdown," was based on the assumption that not only is global warming man-made, it's about to cause untold damage to civilization. The voiceover guy spoke in serious and alarming tones saying all the ice on Greenland is about the melt. And all the ice in the antarctic is about to melt, too. The oceans will rise not inches or a foot or two, but twenty feet or more!

Was there any mention that all these apocalyptic predictions are speculative? That thousands of scientists disagree with the speculations? That recent findings show the oceans are cooler than expected? That although some glaciers are melting, others are growing, substantially? That historically speaking, rising CO2 levels are an effect not a cause of rising temperatures? Absolutely not! Our doom is sealed. New York City will be under water. Much of Florida will be gone entirely.

I can imagine millions of kids watching these programs and being scared to death. Thanks, National Geographic. And I suspect millions of grown-ups have been scared out of their wits, too. I'm glad my cable doesn't carry the National Geographic Channel.

Such distorted, dishonest, disgusting "reporting" is a disgrace. It reminds me of the hit job ABC did recently on distinguished scientist Fred Singer: "Global Warming Denier: Fraud or 'Realist'?" Outrageous! (For the video, Dr. Singer provided ABC with an hour's worth of scientific insight and wisdom. The network threw all that away, took a few seconds of comments, and turned them into an indictment of Dr. Singer. ABC, you make me sick!)

I knew the media were biased and corrupt, but I didn't realize they were that biased and corrupt. If you get your news from mainstream television, newspapers, or magazines, you are not getting news, you are getting propaganda. The days of honest, mainstream reporting are gone!

Meeting the "Prince of Darkness"
Posted here for 3-31-08

A little over a month ago I attended a program sponsored by the Young America's Foundation at the Ritz Carlton, a little south of Palm Beach, Florida. It was a thoroughly impressive afternoon and evening with interesting presentations, a sumptuous dinner (steak and salmon!), and to conclude the event, a talk by Robert Novak. We each received as a gift a copy of Novak's book, The Prince of Darkness -- 50 Years Reporting in Washington, and the author kindly agreed to autograph our copies.

When I got to the head of the line, I said, "I've spoken to you on two prior occasions. The first was during the United We Stand convention in Dallas. After one of the sessions, a lot of convention goers assembled in the hotel lobby to talk. I was in a group of eight or ten and we were missing a chair. I found one fairly close by, right next to you, and I asked, 'May I take this chair?" You had a one-word answer for me: 'No!'

"The second occasion was during a C-PAC Conference at the Marriott Crystal Gateway Hotel just outside of Washington DC in 2001. You had spoken to the gathering and were racing to catch a taxi. I followed in hot pursuit because I wanted to give you a copy of my book, You Don't Say. You hurried down the escalator and out the front door, where I finally caught up with you. 'I'd like to give you a copy of my book,' I explained, a little out of breath. You looked at the cover, then replied: 'I'll read every word.'"

By the time it took to tell my tale, Mr. Novak had written in, and signed my book. He wrinkled his forehead, turned his head, and looked at me. "You hate me," he said, matter-of-factly.

I certainly do not hate "The Prince of Darkness". As a matter of fact I've admired him for many years. I thought Novak might get a chuckle from my little story. I must say, however, I didn't hear anything that sounded like a chuckle.

(Thanks to the Young America's Foundation for making the photo available.)

Transforming Society
Posted here for 3-24-08


There are some who seem to have an uncontrollable urge to transform something with natural beauty into something really rather ugly. To them, presumably, the God-given characteristics of their own faces, for example, must be "enhanced" by hideous piercings, tattoos, and other disfigurations.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I believe the vast number of beholders would judge the alterations above unattractive, distasteful, even repulsive.

And so it is on the political scene. What if someone comes along anxious to transform our political system into something most Americans would consider foreign, inappropriate, or totally unacceptable? What if he or she wishes to remake our society into his or her distorted, convoluted vision of society? Very often it is difficult or impossible to restore conditions to their original state after dramatic transformations have been achieved.

Thus, we must be especially suspicious of the politician who beguiles us with honey-sweet words and alluring rhetoric. Once in power, such a person may take action directly in opposition to the people's desires.

It is my opinion that this political season in particular, we must be vigilant in the selection of our leaders.

(Photos from the Internet. Photographers not known.)

We're Safe . . . for a While
Posted here for 3-17-08

I'm going out on a limb with this one, but here's my prediction: The U.S. will be safe from major terrorist attack through at least the end of January, 2009. My reasoning is this:

Terrorists know an attack before the November election will benefit John McCain, possibly tipping the election in his favor. Obviously, that's not what they want. They're praying to Allah daily that either Barack or Hillary is our new Commander in Chief, and if either is, then they'll launch their attacks.

Why? Because Mr. Obama said he'd be willing and anxious to discuss peace with any leader, friend or foe, and that would play nicely into the terrorists' plans. Talk, not action from the U.S. military, is what our enemies crave. Talk takes time: finding whom to talk with, setting a place, setting a time, setting an agenda, setting expectations, etc.

If Sweet Lady Hillary is running things and there's an attack, what will she do? Probably turn the matter over to the United Nations, where meetings will be held, bold statements will be made, threats issued, but no significant action will result for months or even years. Terrorists call that "success."

It looks like both the House and Senate will be dominated by Democrats, all anxious to "bring our troops home." So those wishing us harm are just waiting with giddy excitement for their chance to leap. And that chance may be upon them when the new president and congress are sworn into office.

I expect the next four years are going to be devastating for the United States. Agents of terror around the world will see a major Democrat victory in November as proof the American people also want to "bring our troops home," and will have no stomach to resist a terrorist takeover. That will be their green light to unleash unprecedented death and destruction upon our soil.

Stifling Debate
Posted here for 3-10-08

The science is settled, Al Gore tells us. Man-made carbon-dioxide emissions are heating up the planet. All the scientists agree.

Well, like so much of what issues forth from the lips of Global-Warming Al, this isn't exactly true. Let me say it another way: it's a lie!

There are thousands of highly-qualified scientists who believe the former vice president is, well, full of hot air. For example, last week, hundreds of scientists and engineers and others met in New York City at The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change to present solid arguments refuting the contention global warming is caused by man. As I understand it, Apocalypse Al was invited to present his views, but refused the invitation. Here's what some experts (as opposed to politicians) have to say:

"The relationship between the air temperature and the amount of ... consumed fossil energy is not obvious at all. [. . .] [I]t is not possible to say with confidence that [an earth temperature increase] is mostly caused by the greenhouse effect." -- Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, director, International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska-Fairbanks.

"The planet may rest assured: this hypothetical catastrophe [rapidly melting ice sheets] could not take place anytime within the next thousand years. [. . .] The period of warming was tangible, but now it may be drawing to a close. Most natural processes on the earth are cyclical, having shorter or longer rhythm . . . [and] a temperature rise is inevitably followed by a decline, and vice versa. Studies of the ice core retrieved by Russia's Vostok Antarctic station show that this is what has been happening on earth for at least the last 400,000 years." -- Glaciologist Nikolai Osokin, Institute of Geography and member of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

"My biggest concern is their [computer models'] lack of ability to adequately handle water vapor and clouds, which are much more important as climate factors than anthropogenic [human] contributors. Until we can realistically simulate types of clouds, their optical thicknesses, and their altitudes, which we have a difficult time doing for short-term weather forecasts, I can't have much faith in climate models." -- Dr. James P. Koermer, Director of the Meteorological Institute at Plymouth State University.

"In the Southern Hemisphere, the land-area mean temperature has slowly but surely declined in the last few years. [. . .] Further, the sea surface temperatures over world oceans are slowly declining since mid-1998, according to a recent world-wide analysis of ocean surface temperatures." -- Dr. Madhav Khandekar, IPCC 2007 expert reviewer and meteorologist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project.

"[My conversion from believer to skeptic] probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not where activists want me to go." -- Dr. Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist at Carleton University in Ottawa.

"In a way, their situation [that of Al Gore and his supporters] is very similar to that of the software engineers who sold the concept of the Y2K bug a decade ago. The 'reputation stakes' have become so high that it is absolutely necessary for some form of international action (any action, whether sensible or not) to be forced upon mankind. Then, should disaster not in fact befall, the avoidance of doom can be attributed to that action rather than to the probability that the prospects for disaster were massively oversold." -- Dr. Garth W. Paltridge, atmospheric physicist and professor emeritus from the University of Tasmania.

"I urge [those who support the IPCC report] to browse through recent issues of major international journals in climate and related science. Hardly a week goes by without a significant paper being published questioning the science. [. . .] The IPCC and its authors have closed their minds and eyes to this evolving science which points to solar variability as the prime driver of earth's climate and not the human-added greenhouse gases." -- Dr. Madhav Khandekar, IPCC 2007 expert reviewer and meteorologist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project.

"It appears to be the policy of the [UK] Royal Society to stifle dissent and silence anyone who may have doubts about the connection between global warming and human activity. That kind of repression seems more suited to the Inquisition than to a modern, respected scientific body." -- Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace and former director of Greenpeace International.

"Warming is not a big deal and is not a bad thing. [. . .] In the oceans, major climate warming and cooling is a fact of life, whether it is over a few years as in an El Nino or over decades as in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or the North Atlantic Oscillation. Currents, temperatures, salinity, and biology changes rapidly to the new state in months or a couple years. These changes far exceed those expected with global warming and occur much faster." -- Dr. John T. Everett, former chief of the NOAA Fisheries Division of Research.

A recent report by Senator James Inhofe and minority members of the Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works cites "over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries [who] voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called 'consensus' on man-made global warming." (Source for above quotes: "Climate-Change Dissenters," by Dennis Behreandt, The New American, February 18, 2008, pages 22-27. Published by American Opinion Publishing Incorporated, 770 Westhill Boulevard, Appleton, Wisconsin 54914. Phone: 920-749-3784. Fax: 920-749-3785. E-mail. Website.)

How Will Obama's Election Effect Race Relation in the U.S.?
Posted here for 3-3-08

If Obama is the Democrat nominee and if indeed he is elected President of the United States, do you suppose the guilt police will stop brow beating whites with accusations of prejudice, unfair treatment, and disrespect?

Will the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world immediately discontinue their practice of racing to every locale in the country where they can appear in front of TV cameras with stern faces and accusatory language to blame whites for whatever transpired there?

Will Democrats in Congress give up with their push for legislation to pay reparations to blacks for all the bad treatment their great-great-great-great grandfathers received so many decades ago?

Will blacks cease and desist in their demands for special privileges -- like affirmative action -- for themselves?

Will the Black Caucus, Black Entertainment TV, the United Negro College Fund, Black History Month, million-man marches, and the NAACP all be discontinued?

Will blacks for the first time be subjected to serious accusations of thought crimes?

Will everyone realize that if a black man is elected President, then African-American relations have been resolved? Prejudice in this country has been overcome? Whites and blacks respect and honor one another?

Absolutely not! The industry dedicated to exploiting race is far too profitable and successful to disband simply because a black man has become leader of the free world. On the contrary, race baiters will be emboldened and cries of racism will only get louder.

Reminiscing
Posted here for 2-25-08

Oh, the good old days. That sentiment is rather trite now, I suppose, but the longing does have validity. Remember the good old days of not so long ago . . .

. . . when Congress didn't feel the need to tamper with the First Amendment and pass or try to pass campaign finance reform legislation, hate-crime laws, and the "Fairness" Doctrine?
. . . when being illegal (as in "illegal alien") meant police were looking for you to put you in jail?
. . . when the United Nations was just a debating society and wasn't an agency determined to rule the world?
. . . when Democrats and Republicans alike wanted the U.S. to win the wars it was fighting?
. . . when a hot day didn't mean global warming was coming?
. . . when wedding vows were understood to be vows to remain wedded?
. . . when killing an unborn child was considered a crime?
. . . when the U.S. dollar was the strongest currency in the world?
. . . when a politician could give a speach without a backdrop of smiling-faced people?
. . . when Senator Joseph McCarthy was "wrong" about the Communists?
. . . when the mainstream media could be trusted?
. . . when out-of-wedlock births resulted in disgrace rather than money from the government?
. . . when we were careful about whom we would allow to immigrate to America?
. . . when it was understood Congress would act to honor the wishes of the people regarding illegal immigration, English-only, and the North American Union?
. . . when homosexuality was not praised, encouraged, and taught in kindergarten?
. . . when giving away new hypodermic needles and condoms was understood to encourage bad behavior?
. . . when the world's scientists warned us about the upcoming dangers of global cooling?
. . . when taking drugs meant first getting a prescription filled?
. . . when incandescent light bulbs were not scheduled to be banned?
. . . when you could flush as much water as you wanted?
. . . when smoking was a bad habit, but it wasn't illegal?
. . . when you would think of fuel for your car and you wouldn't think of corn?
. . . when drilling for oil in a far-off desolate, frozen region was considered a good place to drill for oil?
. . . when even liberals thought terrorists were bad?
. . . when wearing a fur coat was a sign of wealth and extravagance, not a sign of cruelty to animals?
. . . when all U.S. citizens were comfortable with "In God We Trust" on our currency?
. . . when feminists did not have the authority to tell women how to live their lives?
. . . when no one wanted Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. to be merged?
. . . when you called an American company and you didn't talk to someone in India?
. . . when anyone with Hillary's and Obama's socialist ideas was ridiculed?
. . . when all politicians who believed as McCain believes were Democrats?
. . . when citizens understood all cultures are not equal, even if the concept is called "multiculturalism"?
. . . when the spending of taxpayer money for favors (i.e. "earmarks") was understood to be illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional?
. . . when Republicans were principled?
. . . when grade schools and high schools didn't force students to watch propaganda movies about the environment?
. . . when a kid in school could draw a picture of a gun and not be disciplined?
. . . when Islam wasn't taught in any grade schools in America?
. . . when the ACLU seemed to like Christmas and wasn't intent on banning it?
. . . when Hollywood was pro-America?
. . . when movie stars considered themselves actors and actresses and not political experts?
. . . when you didn't have to press "one" for English?
. . . when the labels on products in the supermarket weren't 50% or more in a foreign language?
. . . when it was unthinkable for an American to criticize this country when on foreign soil?
. . . when college professors used classroom time to educate students, not to indoctrinate them?
. . . when no one knew what a carbon footprint was?
. . . when airplanes were a fast, convenient, even fun means of transportation?
and
. . . when conservatives had cause for hope?

Ah, yes, the good old days. Those days are gone. Forever?

Belief Versus Reality
Posted here for 2-18-08

All liberals say Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (though not too many years ago, they all said he did have them). The mainstream media say the same thing. Most conservatives concede the point. Indeed, the Bush Administration agrees: no WMD in Iraq -- we goofed. It is now an indisputable "fact." Everyone agrees.

But what if everyone is wrong?

In my "Thoughts" page for November 14, 2005, I stated:

A book has recently been published, Disinformation, by Richard Miniter, which reveals that WMDs have indeed been discovered in Iraq: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium, 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents, 17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas), over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas, bombs loaded with mustard and sarin gas, among other weapons.

The media have chosen to ignore this catastrophically important news item, so their clients, liberals, don't lose face, and so they themselves don't lose face.

Now Kenneth Timmerman in his new book, Shadow Warriors: The Untold Story of Traitors, Saboteurs, and the Party of Surrender, makes the same revelation: Iraq had WMD, and he documents the assertion with evidence. (See today's "Must-Read" item.)

And the media's reaction: silence.

There are several vital lessons here. One, of course, the media lie. There's no reason for them to reveal the truth if George Bush or Republicans would benefit. They have found, in accord with Adolf Hitler's teachings, that a big lie spoken over and over becomes a perceived truth. (Mein Kampf: If a lie is big enough, no one will believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.")

The second lesson: the media lie for a purpose. Their propaganda isn't a game, it's a deadly-serious battle. It's a fight for their philosophy and agenda versus their enemy's -- conservative's -- philosophy and agenda.

The third lesson: What else that you know for sure to be true . . . isn't? Was JFK shot by Lee Harvey Oswald and Oswald alone? The media loudly trumpet: yes, of course. Did Vince Foster commit suicide? The media are unequivocal: absolutely! Was TWA 800 blown out of the sky by a faulty fuel tank? Most assuredly. Is global warming created by man and is it causing irreparable damaging to the planet? No question about it. And on and on.

The fourth lesson: If you have determined that the media lie, how can you ever again believe anything they say?

All is fair in love and war, and the media have no intention of losing the culture war. They will fight to the death for leftist principles and values. What once was an honorable and respectable profession -- journalism -- has deteriorated into a unprincipled, biased, corrupt, cadre of partisans. Sadly, their power remains strong and their influence oppressive.

Hillsdale College
Posted here for 2-11-08

A number of years ago, when I first learned Hillsdale College refuses to take government funds, I became an instant admirer. Then, over the years, as I learned more about the institution, my admiration grew.

I've contributed to the college on an annual basis for some time now, but last year I decided I wanted to do something a little special. I decided to make what was for me a rather sizable donation. Hillsdale people responded by suggesting the amount could sponsor an office in Harry and Marguerite Kendall Hall. I was thrilled.


Not too long ago I received a photograph of the office I'm sponsoring. It's occupied by Mr. Tracy Simmons, director of the Herbert H. Dow II Program in American Journalism and lecturer in journalism. A plaque with my name is posted right by the door. This pleases me beyond words.

I believe Hillsdale represents the very best of American higher education. It honors and advances the principles upon which our country was founded. Its anti-descrimination policies are some of the oldest in the nation. It staunchly defends its independence and it is determined to set policy without government interference (hence its refusal to accept government funds). Only four colleges have required classes that teach the U.S. Constitution. They are the U.S. Military Academy (West Point), the U.S. Naval Academy (Annapolis), the U.S. Air Force Academy (Colorado Springs), and Hillsdale.

I'm proud to be a supporter of Hillsdale College.

(College profile. History and mission. President. Hillsdale's future.)

Hillary Speaks
Posted here for 2-4-08

As Hillary prances toward the finish line as the Democrat presidential candidate, I wonder if folks know some of the things she has said. I doubt it. I doubt her popularity is a result of her stand on issues or her utterances. Rather, it's her name and her gender that seem to have Democrats all a-titter.

Here is a sampling of her statements. They reveal some of her thinking and suggest how she will rule.

“The oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits, and I want to put them in an alternative energy fund.” [She seems to have no hesitancy about interfering with private enterprises.]

“The unfettered free market has been the most radically disruptive force in American life in the last generation.” [Again quite a disrespect for free enterprise and free markets.]

“There’s no such thing as other people’s children.” [She sees the state as having ultimate responsibility for raising kids.]

“Where is the g**d*** f**k*** flag? . . . I want the g**d*** f**k*** flag up every f**k*** morning at f**k*** sunrise.” [I guess she is not the sweet, gentle lady she'd like us to believe she is.]

“[We must] remold society by redefining what it means to be a human being . . . [which will require] remaking the American way of politics, government, indeed life.” [No, I don't think so.]

“We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” [Ah, the true Marxist core belief shines through.]

“The basic rationale for depriving people of their rights in a dependency relationship, is that certain individuals are incapable of or undeserving of the right to take care of themselves and consequently need social institutions specifically designed to safeguard their position. . . . Along with the family, past and present examples of such arrangements include marriage, slavery and the Indian reservation system.” [My, my! Though said many years ago, these remarks sound pretty frightening to me.]

“Extremists [those who insist on clinging to our Founding Fathers’ vision of America] fail to provide a viable pathway from the cold war to the global village.” [She seems to be willing to throw overboard our Constitution and the wisdom in our Declaration of Independence.]

“[This plan to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens] makes a lot of sense.” [I guess that the word "illegal" doesn't carry for Hillary the meaning it carries for me.]

“I'm not going to run for anything; I'm too hardheaded.” [Well, she got that half right.]

“If I didn’t kick his ass [Bill Clinton's] every day, he wouldn’t be worth anything.” [Modesty, thy name is not Hillary.]

“Let's not leave an educational vacuum to be filled by religious extremists who go to families who have no other option and offer meals, housing and some form of education. If we are going to combat extremism then we must educate those very same children.” [In other words, the government can do a better job of education than private institutions.]

“It takes a village to raise a child.” [Ditto.]

“There is a great deal of political pressure to only talk about abstinence, and to deny support for condoms and education on using them. This policy will lead to the unnecessary deaths of many people.” [No, abstinence is one hundred percent effective!]

“We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.” [But the success of this country is based on individual freedom and responsibility, not the Marxist view.]

“What are you doing inviting these people [Republicans] into my home? These people are our enemies! They are trying to destroy us!” [And this is the woman who's going to "unite" us?]

“Come on Bill, put your dick up. You can't **** her here.” [Smooth.]

“You sold out, you mother******! You sold out.” [Likewise.]

“(We) . . . can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people.” [That old Marxist concept keeps emerging.]

“The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they're not.” [Apparently not.]

And this is the woman millions of Americans wish to be president of the United States.

Hate Crimes
Posted here for 1-28-08

When someone commits a hate crime, he or she ostensibly does so because of the victim's membership in a certain group, defined by race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation. At least that's how Wikipedia describes it.

Note that hate-crime legislation punishes wrong-doers because of their thoughts. Can you believe it? The justice system is now looking into your inner-most mental ruminations with the intent of determining whether or not they're hateful. Isn't it strange: if I hate a white man because of something he did to me, that's allowed hate. But if I hate a black man because of something he did to me, that's not-allowed hate. If I commit a crime against the white man, I get one punishment. If I commit the same crime against the black man, I get a more severe punishment.

Is it just me or is this pure bosh? The First Amendment says we can say what we please, but hate-crime legislation says we can't think what we please. This is sheer lunacy. But this is what goes for liberal intellectual "thought" and compassion.

Alright. If we can have hate crimes, can we have love crimes? If I feel an overwhelmingly strong passion for the rights of women, for women's causes, for feminism in general, but I injure a teen-aged girl with my car, shouldn't I be given a lighter punishment than someone who has no particular feelings one way or the other toward the fairer sex?

Now you're being silly, you may say. Yes, of course, but no more silly than those who wish to impose hate crimes on us all.

Remember when, years ago, the idea of equal justice under the law was advanced and acclaimed? Our founders constructed our entire justice system around the principle. Now we have unequal justice under the law. And that's just fine with liberals.

The University of Delaware indoctrinates its students to believe all whites are racist. It follows then, that all white crimes against certain groups (those protected with special rights) are hate crimes and deserve extra punishment. How absurd! Yet many politicians on the left nod their heads in agreement.

(Read about hate-crime legislation dealing with homosexuals here.)

Forecasting Temperatures
Posted here for 1-21-08

I decided to perform a very simple experiment. On January 3rd I looked up the ten-day AccuWeather high-temperature forecasts for twelve selected cities around the U.S. (Anchorage, Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Honolulu, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Seattle, and St. Louis). I thought these locations provided a pretty good sampling of temperatures across the country.

Then I waited ten days and checked the same source for the actual high temperatures in each city. Of course the question was: how good were the temperature forecasts? The answer: pretty bad.

Honolulu's was the best prediction: 79 degrees. The actual temperature on the 13th: 78. But for Honolulu if you predict the high 70s, you're likely to be pretty close for every day in January.

The worst prediction: Anchorage. It was 25 degrees off! The projection was 30, the actual: 5. The next worst: St. Louis. The projection was 30, the actual: 51, an error of 21 degrees! The average error predicting highs for 1-13-08 was 11.9 degrees F. (I did the same analysis for the eleven-day forecast. The average error predicting highs for 1-14 was 10.5 degrees F.)

You may say predicting temperature ten days ahead of time is a really difficult task. Even with all the sophisticated computer equipment and forecasting techniques employed now, forecasting actual temperatures for a specific location is incredibly complicated. Of course it is. Any sensible person would have to agree.

So what would you say about forecasting temperatures 100 days from today? It's silly to even raise the question.

Yet there are those [examples] who suggest they know what the temperatures are going to be over 33,500 days from today -- in the year 2100. Not the temperature in Atlanta or Seattle, but the average temperature for the entire world.

I'd say such a prediction is akin to stating precisely when a fly will alight on a certain spot, just how far a wave will splash up on a beach at a given moment in the future, or the exact time a future U.S. president will be born. Certain things are simply impossible to predict: when Mount St. Helens will next erupt, how many Category 3 hurricanes will hit the U.S. next year, how many gallons of water will flow out the mouth of the Mississippi River on any future day, and the average temperature of Planet Earth in 2100.

City	Actual High Temperature 1-3-08	Predicted High Temperature for 1-13-08	Actual High Temperature 1-13-08	Error in Degrees F
Anchorage	22	30	5	25
Atlanta	42	40	58	18
Boston	17	28	44	16
Chicago	23	26	40	14
Dallas	47	42	60	18
Denver	50	43	40	3
Honoululu	77	79	78	1
Los Angeles	68	69	76	7
Miami	62	72	83	11
New York	23	38	45	7
Seattle	48	48	50	2
St Louis	36	30	51	21

How Liberal, How Conservative?
Posted here for 1-14-08

Here are some voting record scores as registered by various political groups. Scores 1-4 are those of basically conservative groups; scores 5-6 are those of basically liberal groups. Giuliani, Huckabee, and Romney are excluded from scores 1-6, because they are based on votes in Congress.

1: American Conservative Union Lifetime Score; Source, or Source, or Source (0=worst; 100=best)
2: Americans for Tax Reform; Source, or Source, or Score (0%=lowest; 100%=highest)
3: National Taxpayers Union; Source, or Source, or Source (0%=lowest; 100%=highest)
4: Citizens Against Government Waste; Source (0%=lowest; 100%=highest)
5: Environmental Voting Record Lifetime Score; Source (0=lowest; 100=highest)
6: NARAL [National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws] voting record for 2002, 2004, or 2006: Source (0=lowest; 100=highest)
7: Global warming is a world-wide crisis. Source.
8: Kyoto Protocol Should Be Ratified; Source.
9: For Drilling in ANWR; Source.
10: For Use of Nuclear Energy; Source.
* Voted on less than 50% of the selected legislation.
** Wants a different treaty in place of Kyoto.

Candidate	1 American Conserv- ative Union	2 Americans for Tax Reform	3 National Tax- payers Union	4 Citizens Against Govern- ment Waste	5 Environ- mental Voting Record	6 NARAL Voting Record	7 Global Warming Is a World-Wide Crisis	8 Kyoto Protocol Should Be Ratified	9 For Drilling in ANWR	10 For Use of Nuclear Energy
Hillary Clinton	9.0	10%	9.0%	14%	90	100%	Yes	Yes	No	Maybe
John Edwards	10.0	0%	*	--	59	100%	Yes	**	No	No
Rudy Giuliani	--	--	--	--	--	--	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
Mike Huckabee	--	--	--	--	--	--	No	No	Yes	Yes
John McCain	82.3	80%	78%	95%	26	0.0%	Yes	No	No	Yes
Barack Obama	8.0	15%	6.0%	30%	96	100%	Yes	**	No	Yes
Mitt Romney	--	--	--	--	--	--	No	No	Yes	Yes
Fred Thompson	86.0	70%	73%	--	12	0.0%	No	No	Yes	Yes

Changes for 2008 Posted here for 1-7-08. You've noticed, I trust, that I've made some changes to the website. I've deleted the "Ten Words or Less" and "Ten Words or More" items from the homepage. I've added six analog clocks to show the various times around the U.S. and I've added a digital clock which registers the time as recorded by your computer. The digital clock display also shows day and date. (You may notice, as did I, that the analog and digital readings don't agree. I believe the analog clocks are correct.) I've added some AccuWeather information (in the left column on the homepage). I've added new graphics to many of the web pages. I've changed some colors (slightly) and the font size of "You Don't Say" on the homepage. I've made some other minor adjustments and "refinements". And I've added a poll, which I plan to change every week. I hope you'll participate in the poll (at right and also on the home page) and tell me what you think of all these alterations. And I hope you'll add your opinion to subsequent polls (which I'll only post on the homepage).

You Don't Say Poll What do you think of the changes I've made to the You Don't Say website? They're good. Some are good, some are bad. They're bad. No opinion. Current Results