Moronic Pelosi , Weak Bush

Nancy Pelosi is off to Syria. The White House is upset, but that is all. Foreign policy is in the realm of the Executive Branch. Why should a Congressman be allowed to visit a hostile foriegn country, who is supplying jihadis in Iraq with bombs.

The Secretary of State likely has a foreign policy strategy in dealing with Syria, and when Pelosi or Dodd or Kerry go to Syria, it usurps their authority. If Bush was a stronger leader, he should say "no," not "we don't like it." You can bet your bottom dollar that Pelosi would scream if Bush tried to do anything that is her job.

The Canada Free Press had a funny commentary on it:

Speaker Pelosi has left Washington, D.C., to visit Syria. That is the good news.

The bad news: She is coming back!

Pelosi's sojourn has gossipmongers and political pundits working overtime to answer the $60,000 question: Why?

Doesn't Pelosi realize that she has already done enough damage to the United States with her mind-numbing surrender?

Experts say Pelosi is probably going to Syria for one or more of the following reasons:
# Promote the Pelosi Doctrine for the middle east which calls for the impeachment of George W. Bush and the resurrection of Saddam Hussein, both on Easter Sunday;
# Explain the surrender bills passed in the House and the Senate, and to set a "Date Certain" for resolving all differences into a final bill that terrorists can live with;
# Celebrate First Quarter achievements with Islamofascist sponsors and get marching orders for 2nd Quarter;
# Offer the full time services of William J. Jefferson as Ethics and Banking adviser to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Jefferson's salary and all living expenses to be paid by the DNC, provided Jefferson does not return to U.S. before the day after the elections on November 4, 2008;
# Formally apologize to Syria for the shameful behavior of the Bush administration with regard to 14 innocent Syrian musicians who were viscously harassed during a Northwest Airlines flight from Detroit to Los Angeles in 2004. Pelosi will refer the Syrian government to the San Francisco chapter of the ACLU for further action.

As a gesture of goodwill, Pelosi will also offer to hire the 14 musicians (at minimum wage) to perform at the Gay Pride festivities in San Francisco on June 20;
# Get fitted for a Niqab, the traditional Muslim face wear for women, just in case the "Islam thing" takes hold in the U.S.
# Demonstrate her Islam-friendly politics by traveling with Rep. Keith Ellison, America's first and only Muslim elected to Congress. Pelosi plans to keep a detailed account of all racial profiling and other discrimination suffered by Ellison at airports, in bars, and on the plane in order to argue for repeal of the Patriot Act, and
# Fly in one of those cool 757 air force jets that the Air Force refuses to let her use for fund raising scams in San Francisco.

All in all, Pelosi's trip is good for America because while she is out of the country at least she is not making stupid "Tax and Surrender" laws!

Go, Nancy, Go.

Stay there, Nancy, Stay there!

Flying Imam Lawsuit

In reference to the bolded quote below, it's a move designed, to discourage travelers from speaking up. It should be obvious to every rational person that this was a stunt design to quiet people and companies from speaking up. I hope the FBI is investigating these frauds.

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) - Six Muslim men removed from a plane last fall after being accused of suspicious behavior are suing not only the airline but the passengers who complained—a move some fear could discourage travelers from speaking up when they see something unusual.

The civil rights lawsuit, filed earlier this month, has so alarmed some lawyers that they are offering to defend the unnamed "John Doe" passengers free of charge. They say it is vital that the flying public be able to report suspicious behavior without fear of being dragged into court.

"When you drive up the road towards the airport, there's a big road sign that says, `Report suspicious behavior,'" said Gerry Nolting, a Minneapolis lawyer. "There's no disclaimer that adds, `But beware if you do that, you might get sued.'"

The six imams were taken off a Phoenix-bound US Airways flight on Nov. 20 while returning home from a conference of Islamic clerics in Minneapolis.

Other passengers had gotten nervous when the men were seen praying and chanting in Arabic as they waited to board. Some passengers also said that the men spoke of Saddam Hussein and cursed the United States; that they requested seat belt extenders with heavy buckles and stowed them under their seats; that they were moving about and conferring with each other during boarding; and that they sat separately in seats scattered through the cabin.

Britian's Poor Public Reaction is Appauling

The Daily Mail had an article on the current hostage crisis in Iran. Among other things to note, is that the one woman hostage, has been seperated from the group, stripped of her uniform, and forced to wear Islamic headwear.

However, I was quite shocked at some of the online comments. Some think the Chamberlainesque "it wouldn't of happened if hadn't invaded Iraq." Some even more ludicrious are the commenters who think its a grand plot to start a war with Iran.

So Iran is complicate in the conspiracy for them to get invaded? No one forced Iran to kidnap the sailors, parade them on TV, or strip the woman of her uniform. Even if the British sailors strayed into Iranian waters a wee bit, a rationale response would be for the Iranians to announce that they were in Iranian waters and escort them back to the border. The Iranian response is like a shop owner shooting a customer if they shoplifted a pack of gum.

Is it a cynical ploy to start a war with Iran? Someone needs to speak up before the two B's stir up another hornets nest! - Fyodor, Congleton

The sailors crisis is "very serious" says Blair, what does he think we are thinking that they are just having an away day? We know it's damn well serious just as we know if it weren't for him and his bosom buddy george they would not be there in the first place. - Rose Howard, England

Blair calls the detention of the sailors as unjustified and wrong. Does the same not apply to the Guantanamo detainees? These double standards do not help the situation. Justice is a universal thing and does not just apply to one small group.- Eb, England


This smells of deliberate provocation. I'm sure Bliar will be doing anything to scupper a peaceful resolution. They must be rubbing their hands in Israel. - Stuart, Manchester, England

This is a plot between the two "Bs" to start a war with Iran. Let them put themselves up as hostages so that the war does not start as if it does then God help us all. - Ron Turner, Blackpool Lancs

Let's hope the Iranians don't follow the US example and keep them locked up for years without trial. Best way out is a 'cold war' type solution, we swap them for the five Iranians currently held prisoner in Iraq. - Andrew, UK

Someone get a straight jacket and take Blair away before he and his crony Bush start WW3. - Kate, Newcastle

Or else what? An excuse to invade Iran? - Cww, Ipswich

If B'liar won't go himself, perhaps he can send his children then he would know how other parents are feeling since he got this country into the mess it is in now? - Carol, Chalfont St. Peter.

Thankfully there is some sanity left. However, 99% of Britian should be outraged, not 50%:

If the diplomacy fails, what next? Iran wants to trade these British personnel for the Iranians seized in Iraq. This, if it happens will leave the UK soldiers everywhere forever exposed to kidnap, so should we deal with terrorists/blackmailers? I work in Iraq, and the Iranians have already de facto taken over here, our wonderful leaders gave this country to them on a plate, simply because they are not sophiscated voters, they vote according to religion and tribe, so they have an Iranian back Government. This Iranian Government can affect whether we have fuel for cars or heating for homes, if they were not in this powerful position, they would never attack the Royal Navy outside their waters, and the RN would not of watched it happen from HMS Cornwall. Iran has to be dealt with one day, and it's better to do this before that get anything nuclear at all in my opinion. - Steve, Maidstone, Kent

I pray that the West will wake up, but I have all but given up on Western Europe. I do believe that Iran could behead these fine people and show the video at the UN General Assembly, and France and Germany would huff that, "This type of thing is regretable and could lead to serious repurcusions." Islamo-fascim is real and coming to a street corner near you. - Doug, Jacksonville, FL USA

Ostrich syndrome will prevail - England has lost its "nuts" - a toothless bulldog - lots of noise but no bite! - Ali, Mustapha Sho'Fti, Hydrabad, AE

When I was a student at London University, I could never quite understand why more than 50% of my fellow students were foreigners. I had some particularly good friends from Iran, but at the same time could never understand the sense in letting them attend courses in Nuclear Engineering. Today, the UK is full of Iranians - and it just seem very strange to me the situation the UK finds itself in. I don't think we can give our leaders the label clever - Anon, Hamburg, Germany

What did you expect with two lame ducks, Blair and Bush? Perhaps if the sailors had the right equipment the attack could have been avoided. Why was HMS Cornwall there if it did nothing or was to late to help. Shame on you again. Is this what happens when girlie-men run governments? - Mike, London

Britian's Naval Embarrasement

Back in January, Britian had devised a plan that would have prevented the HMS Cornwall's sailors from being shanghai'd, but the plan wasn't implement soon enough. That plan was to cut the size of the Royal Navy in half. Those ships scheduled to become razor blades would have included the HMS Cornwall
Right now, besides support ships, they have 2 small carriers, 25 destroyers and frigates, and 13 submarines. However, if you don't have a Navy, you can never get your sailors kidnapped and they can't be paraded on Iranian TV.

While Tony Blair has been a solid ally of the US, he has systematically been dismantling his armed forces. A oft-heard opinion in Britian is "well who is going to invade Britian?" No one is going to be landing troops in Southhampton, but the British are losing their ability to project power. A third world despot could blow a bomb in London, take credit for it, and not fear an invasion.

The British are a long way from the days of the Horatio Nelson. Here are some quotes of his, which are as applicable today as they were then:

Never break the neutrality of a port or place, but never consider as neutral any place from whence an attack is allowed to be made. This is Iran right now. They are causing all sorts of problems in Iraq, yet they are not recognized as an enemy. That is the formula for failure. It was in Korea and Vietnam.

Our country will, I believe, sooner forgive an officer for attacking an enemy than for letting it alone. - This is the attitude the CO of the Cornwall should have taken. Whilst it was against the British's "Rules of Engagement", sometimes the rules must be broken.

If a man consults whether he is to fight, when he has the power in his own hands, it is certain that his opinion is against fighting.

Gentlemen, when the enemy is committed to a mistake we must not interrupt him too soon.

Why Have a Navy If You Are Not Willing to Use It?

Robert Frost once eloquently said, "A liberal is someone too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel." Handcuffed by political correctness, the British navy did nothing. Why have a Navy if you are not willing to use it? The British are along way from WWII and soured the sacrifies of brave soldiers such as Forest Frederick Edward Yeo-Thomas

The captain of the HMS Cornwall is Commodore Nick Lambert, a more modern sort. He did nothing as six Iranian speedboats seized the boarding party from his ship as they were leaving the freighter they had inspected in Iraqi territorial waters.

The 14 men and one woman have been taken to Tehran, where the mullahs are threatening to try them as spies.

U.S. Navy Lt. Commander Erik Horner, executive officer of the USS Underwood, which shares patrol duty in the Shatt al Arab with the HMS Cornwall, expressed surprise that the British let their sailors and marines be taken without a fight.

"U.S. Navy rules of engagement say we not only have a right to self defense, but also an obligation to self defense," LtCdr Horner told the British newspaper the Independent. "Our reaction was 'Why didn't your guys defend themselves?'

... Former British first sea lord, Admiral Sir Alan West, compared British "de-escalatory" rules and U.S. Navy rules of engagement, which spell out the obligation to self-defense."Rather than roaring into action and sinking everything in sight, we Brits try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were effectively able to be captured and taken away," "

The British are so sophisticated that they are willing to be captured than fire back. Firing back when you are about to be kidnapped is a long way from "sinking everything in sight"... and the British deserve an Admiral that knows the difference.

Flying Imams

Well the flying imams are back and now they are suing U.S. Air. Getting kicked off a plane for acting like the 9/11 terrorists is "extreme harm" according to one of the incredible flying imams.

U.S. Air Customer Relations

I called and emailed my support. I suggest others do so as well.

Is Sanity Starting to Enter the Global Warming Debate?

Well written and well said. I had to post the whole thing before ABC realized they posted an anti-global warming hysteria article.

I love the term ecocondria.

March 9, 2007 — From the Babylon of Gilgamesh to the post-Eden of Noah, every age has viewed climate change cataclysmically, as retribution for human greed and sinfulness.

In the 1970s, the fear was "global cooling." The Christian Science Monitor then declaimed, "Warning: Earth's climate is changing faster than even experts expect," while The New York Times announced, "A major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable." Sound familiar? Global warming represents the latest doom-laden "crisis," one demanding sacrifice to Gaia for our wicked fossil-fuel-driven ways.

But neither history nor science bolsters such an apocalyptic faith.

Extreme weather events are ever present, and there is no evidence of systematic increases. Outside the tropics, variability should decrease in a warmer world. If this is a "crisis," then the world is in permanent "crisis," but will be less prone to "crisis" with warming.

Sea levels have been rising since the end of the last ice age, most rapidly about 12,000 years ago. In recent centuries, the average rate has been relatively uniform. The rate was higher during the first half of the 20th century than during the second. At around a couple of millimeters per year, it is a residual of much larger positive and negative changes locally. The risk from global warming is less than that from other factors (primarily geological).

The impact on agriculture is equivocal. India warmed during the second half of the 20th century, yet agricultural output increased markedly. The impact on disease is dubious. Infectious diseases, like malaria, are not so much a matter of temperature as of poverty and public health. Malaria remains endemic in Siberia, and was once so in Michigan and Europe. Exposure to cold is generally more dangerous.

So, does the claim that humans are the primary cause of recent warming imply "crisis"? The impact on temperature per unit CO2 goes down, not up, with increasing CO2. The role of human-induced greenhouse gases does not relate directly to emission rate, nor even to CO2 levels, but rather to the radiative (or greenhouse) impact. Doubling CO2 is a convenient benchmark. It is claimed, on the basis of computer models, that this should lead to 1.1 - 6.4 C warming.

What is rarely noted is that we are already three-quarters of the way into this in terms of radiative forcing, but we have only witnessed a 0.6 (+/-0.2) C rise, and there is no reason to suppose that all of this is due to humans.

Indeed the system requires no external driver to fluctuate by a fraction of a degree because of ocean disequilibrium with the atmosphere. There are also alternative drivers relating to cosmic rays, the sun, water vapor and clouds. Moreover, it is worth remembering that modelers even find it difficult to account for the medieval warm period.

Our so-called "crisis" is thus neither a product of current observations nor of projections.

But does it matter if global warming is a "crisis" or not? Aren't we threatened by a serious temperature rise? Shouldn't we act anyway, because we are stewards of the environment?

Herein lies the moral danger behind global warming hysteria. Each day, 20,000 people in the world die of waterborne diseases. Half a billion people go hungry. A child is orphaned by AIDS every seven seconds. This does not have to happen. We allow it while fretting about "saving the planet." What is wrong with us that we downplay this human misery before our eyes and focus on events that will probably not happen even a hundred years hence? We know that the greatest cause of environmental degradation is poverty; on this, we can and must act.

The global warming "crisis" is misguided. In hubristically seeking to "control" climate, we foolishly abandon age-old adaptations to inexorable change. There is no way we can predictably manage this most complex of coupled, nonlinear chaotic systems. The inconvenient truth is that "doing something" (emitting gases) at the margins and "not doing something" (not emitting gases) are equally unpredictable.

Climate change is a norm, not an exception. It is both an opportunity and a challenge. The real crises for 4 billion people in the world remain poverty, dirty water and the lack of a modern energy supply. By contrast, global warming represents an ecochondria of the pampered rich.

We can no longer afford to cling to the anti-human doctrines of outdated environmentalist thinking. The "crisis" is the global warming political agenda, not climate change.

Philip Stott is an Emeritus Professor from the University of London, UK. For the last 18 years he was the editor of the Journal of Biogeography. For more information about the debate series, go to www.iq2us.org