12:07 am [permalink]
I’m For Fred Thompson... It’s been a very long time since I’ve seen a presidential candidate that I felt I could trust to respect our Constitution, defend our borders, reduce the burdens of government on our families – and at the same time that has the natural ability to reach the millions of voters who feel that neither party stands for these principles any longer.
Ronald Reagan’s brilliance was a combination of two things: his heartfelt belief in traditional Republican principles and his ability to communicate those beliefs to others. He didn’t change his positions from one election to the next. He steered a steady course and no one had to guess where he would stand tomorrow. And because he was honestly dedicated to that uniquely American view of individual liberty, he could communicate it to voters who never considered themselves Republicans, but who believe as we believe.
After spending months watching the field of presidential candidates develop, I have become convinced that only one combines these two vital qualities. For that reason, I have decided to do everything I can to support Fred Thompson’s campaign for the Presidency.
We simply can’t afford to get this election wrong. I believe that our basic values and freedoms as Americans are at stake on the outcome of this election. Every one of us has a right to expect something much more than the same establishment candidates that both parties have produced for the last 20 years. But that right isn’t automatic: it has to be claimed by exertions equal to its importance. And I don’t remember a campaign since 1980 that has been more important to the future of our nation.
So I am going to do everything I can to rally behind Fred Thompson’s campaign, and I hope that you agree that this is the most important chance we’ve had to renew the Reagan coalition for this next generation.
If you haven’t already done so, please join me today at www.Fred08.com.
12:07 am [permalink]
The Fruits of Post-Partisanship... Who says the California legislature isn’t business-friendly? California’s salons just got glowing words of approval for their work in promoting business investment and relocation…from the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
The Nevada newspaper credits California’s left-wing legislature with delivering “a gift basket with a bright bow” to Nevada’s business recruiters. The editorial gloats: “California businesses fed up with costly regulation already represent low-hanging fruit for the folks at the Nevada Development Authority, who’ve plucked plenty of companies from our neighbor to the west. But these legislators seemingly have redoubled their efforts to chase away industry and play nanny to their constituents.”
The paper concludes: “…it’s mighty neighborly of (California’s) representatives to show industry the door – and the road to Nevada.”
Finally, a little appreciation for the hard work of California’s post-partisan pioneers.
in the ebag-from Shawn Steel] 12:01 am [permalink]
LA Times goes bonkers or just another day at the office? L.A.Times Publisher David Hiller must have whipped his reporters into a Leftist frenzy for today's paper. This must be part of the publisher's bold strategy to win over the Move On Dot Com crowd to increase circulation.
On the front page alone are 4 major articles ranging from the growing popularity of Hillary contrasted to the boom-let for Che's legacy in Latin America. Normally Janet Hook and Mark Barabak demonstrate a little independence but not in today's lead article. Two reporters who should know better, happily interview a sole democrat in their first 3 paragraphs of why all democrats are now more comfortable with Hillary. Ultimately, they point out that Clinton is ahead of Obama. That's the lead story !
Patrick McDonnell writes glowingly of a new Stalinesque statue of serial murderer Che Guevara in Marxist Bolivia. He reports that " Socialism is in, the Cubans are on the march, and Che is the defiant embodiment of it all." McDonnell is not quoting anyone. He is quoting himself. He probably wouldn't pass high school journalist with that.
Another front page obligatory story interviews a couple of Iraqis calling Blackwater guards to task for protecting Americans. I wonder who the Times hires to protect reporter Tina Susman?
Finally, a puff piece on faithful hard working Muslims forced to work in Egypt''s racy resorts. Their faith compromised amid the sin and salaciousness for serving tourists alcohol. . Usually reporter Jeffrey Fleischman is more competent. He fails to mention that most of the tourists are Muslims or non Christians. Fleischman implies that the only guests at Sharm el Sheik are Christians. The biggest spenders, as everyone knows [except Fleishman] are the Saudis
Once you stagger through the these PC pieces you will find inside; a full page devoted to Che's revolution; a second story against Blackwater by Tina Susman ; a story by Paul Watson blaming the US for unexploded ordnance hurting villagers in Laos. Only one mention that the communists ruled Laos since 1975. Because of that Laos remains one of the poorest countries in the world. David Savage chimes in from Washington with another America-is-guilty Rendition Story. Where was David in WW2?
Finally, the news merges marginally into the Editorial Page with a blast against Bush's ""Heartless and clueless" veto of the phony SCHIP bill.
The dinosaur LA Times media continues to lose readership. That's easy to understand. Readers don't have the patience to trudge through of dozens of column inches of festering anti American propaganda.
12:07 am [permalink]
An Inconvenient Invitation... In Al Gore’s academy-award winning “Inconvenient Truth,” he portrays himself as an indefatigable, lonely sentinel wandering the planet trying desperately to awaken the world to the danger it faces. “I’ve given this speech a thousand times,” he says about a thousand times.
But according to the Chicago Sun-Times, this pious paragon of truth – who assures us that he’s willing to go anywhere and talk to anybody to save us from our mortal folly – is strangely UNwilling to take up a think tank’s publicized offer to host an international debate on the subject. The Heartland Institute wants Gore to take on any one of three authorities who dispute his claims, and it’s willing to front all costs. One of the invitations is to debate at Oxford University in a format of Gore’s own choosing.
After all, Gore’s new book extols the importance of science and reason in the public policy debate, so what better way to deliver the coup de grace to the “skeptics” than to expose their fallacies in front of an international audience? How hard could it be, after all, to humiliate those who Ellen Goodman has equated to “Holocaust deniers” and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has called “traitors.”
And yet, Al Gore, who has given his speech “a thousand times,” won’t give it just once more in a forum where it might be questioned by a knowledgeable authority.
The Sun-Times reports that this “is not the first time Gore has ducked a forum. Earlier this year he canceled an interview with Denmark’s largest newspaper when he learned it would include questions from Bjorn Lomborg.” Lomborg is former director of the Environmental Assessment Institute in Copenhagen and author of The Skeptical Environmentalist.
Meanwhile, Gov. Schwarzenegger keeps telling us that “the debate over global warming is over.” How can the debate be over when the foremost spokesman for global warming won’t … debate? Maybe the Governator would stand in for him.
12:07 am [permalink]
If at first you don't deceive... Dr. James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, is without rival as the father of the global “warm-monger” movement. His dire warnings that human-produced carbon dioxide is creating “run-away” and catastrophic global warming have been the centerpiece of much of the polemic on the subject, enormously amplified by the gravitas afforded him through his affiliation with NASA. His claims are widely featured in “warm-mongering” propaganda, including the alarming observation that nine of the ten hottest years on record in the continental United States since 1880 have occurred since 1995.
So it sent a shock-wave through the Left last month when a Canadian statistician discovered that Hansen had failed to adjust for such obvious variables as location or time of day. NASA was forced to quietly retract Hansen’s claim: it turns out that four of the ten hottest years since 1880 were in the 1930’s – and only three in the last ten years.
But now there’s more on James Hansen.
The Washington Times reported last week that a researcher plowing though old issues of the Washington Post had discovered a July 9, 1971 article with the lurid headline, “U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming.” It reported a prediction from NASA scientists that human-produced particulates from the use of fossil fuels would trigger a new ice age within the next 50 years – by 2021. The scientists? S.I. Rasool, based on computer modeling developed by a young research associate, none other than Dr. James Hansen.
The article went on to warn that sustained emissions over just five to ten years “could be sufficient to trigger an ice age.” Funny, just three months ago, Hansen published a paper claiming that just ten years of sustained emissions would trigger a run-away greenhouse effect.
Hansen recently called his critics “court jesters,” hardly the language of dispassionate science. But then, again, neither is the shtick, “World to end…details to follow.