Sunday, June 29, 2008

Just in case you think John Rockefeller still runs the Oil industry

Thursday, June 26, 2008

June 26, 2008
"Because only Spartan women give birth to real men."

The people who fight for civilization, and those who seek its destruction.
By Christopher Cook


For those of you have yet to see 300, do yourselves a favor and see it. (Warning: Spoiler Alert)

This movie is not just about the past. It's about today. Right now.

It's about each one of you who stands in the breach against the enemy.

And it's about each one of you who stands against the enemy within, who would happily widen that breach.

Today's enemy is Islamofascism, but it is little different from the hordes following the tyrannical King Xerxes.

Today's enemy within is the left, both at home and across the globe. And they too are little different from the scheming legislator Theron and the vile Ephori, who were willing—even eager—to see all Sparta kneel before Xerxes, just to gain power.

How is the left today any different? Do they not see their own nation, their own people, their own military as the enemy? Do they not seek to withdraw us from the field, to give the enemy the day?

And just as Sparta was the lynchpin that defended all Greece—that great cradle of democracy—is not the United States today the last bastion of freedom defending Western civilization?

But what care the left for Western civilization? They HATE Western civilization. They hate the men and women who defend it. They hate themselves.


But truly, this analogue is only the beginning — for what happened at Thermopylae may fairly be said to be the reason we are all breathing the fresh air of freedom today:

Xerxes is on the march. Land after land, king after king is falling under the Persian yoke. And now, Xerxes has set his eyes on Greece.

The Spartan King Leonides knows that the only way to save Greece is to fight. His Queen knows it too:

Queen Gorgo: "Freedom isn't free at all, that it comes with the highest of costs. The cost of blood."


Leonides must seek the approval of the Ephori, but these venal magistrates have already been corrupted by Persian gold, as has Theron.

Ephor #1: Sparta wages no war at the time of the Carneia.

King Leonidas: Sparta will burn! Her men will die at arms and her women and children will be slaves or worse!

Ephor #2: Trust the gods, Leonidas.

King Leonidas: I'd prefer you trusted your reason.


Having been denied permission, but knowing they must fight, Leonides is wracked with conflict. He leaves his bed, deep in thought, but his Queen calls him back.

Queen Gorgo: There's only one woman's words that should affect the mood of my husband. Those are mine. ...

King Leonidas: Then what must a king do to save his world when the very laws he has sworn to protect force him to do nothing?

Queen Gorgo: It is not a question of what a Spartan citizen should do, nor a husband, nor a king. Instead, ask yourself, my dearest love, what should a free man do?


So Leonides finds a way to do what free men must do.

Statesman: My good king! My good king! The oracle has spoken.

Second Statesman: The Ephors have spoken. There must be no march!

Theron: It is the law, my lord. The Spartan army must not go to war.

King Leonidas: Nor shall it. I've issued no such orders. I'm here, just taking a stroll, stretching my legs. These, uh, 300 men are my personal bodyguard.


And so Leonides will defend Sparta, and by extension all Greece, by taking his brave 300 to try to hold off Xerxes at the Hot Gates (Thermopylae). He hopes that his actions will awaken the Spartan legislature and people, to mobilize the rest of the army, to act as one against the enemy.

And so they did, eventually, though every single one of the 300 died doing so.


Now stop a moment and think.

These Greek city-states are showing the first stirrings of real democratic governance. A much greater percentage of people in Greece enjoy true freedom than in any of the neighboring lands. And it is about to fall under the yoke of a dictatorship.

What happens if Leonides fails? Does the Grecian experiment in democracy fail too, as Greece is trampled under by Xerxes and his army of slaves?

If the Greek cradle of democracy had fallen, Rome would not have absorbed its ideals.

If Rome hadn't taken those ideals and spread them into the Western world, where would those ideals be today? How far along would the ideas of representative governance be?

Without the Roman example, what would Great Britain have become? Would she have produced the Magna Carta? Would she have produced us, or any of the other nations of the Anglosphere—the freest nations in human history?


A great king knows what he must do, but the enemy within seeks to prevent him. And so it is his wife's words that tip the scales. A single moment—words spoken in a bedchamber 2500 years ago—changes history. Leonides knew the stakes all too well:

Leonidas: A new age has begun, an age of freedom. And all will know that 300 Spartans gave their last breath to defend it.


And so we see the how our freedom is dependent on the acts of brave men......and brave women.

One of the greatest moments in the film comes early on, during the meeting with the Persian messenger:

Messenger: What makes this woman think she can speak among men?

Queen Gorgo: Because only Spartan women give birth to real men.



Just like the sacrifice of Leonides and the 300 reverberates to this very day, in the free air we breathe, so too does a comparison between two women of today:

Recently, MoveOn.org put out an ad called "Not Alex." It features a young mother, holding her son. It is, needless to say, an "anti-war" ad. Here is the text:

"Hi, John McCain; this is Alex. He's my first. So far, his talents include trying any new food and chasing after our dog — that, and making my heart pound every time I look at him. So, John McCain, when you said you would stay in Iraq for 100 years, were you counting on Alex? Because, if you were, you can't have him."


This women says that John McCain—and by extension this great nation—cannot have her son.

But this cowardly woman—who most likely mated with a cowardly wisp of a man—doesn't realize something vital: John McCain won't take her son. Neither will the military. She doesn't decide for him, at age 18 months or 18 years.

When he grows, he will decide—as a free man—whether to wear the uniform of his country.

It will be up to him to choose, not her or her accomplices at MoveOn.org. Perhaps, when he grows, he will throw off the corrosive ideology of his mother and recognize what Queen Gorgo did: "Freedom isn't free at all, that it comes with the highest of costs."


Contrast that with another brave woman of today. She is Ania Egland, wife of Air Force Major Eric Egland. Having grown up under the oppressive heel of communism, she knows the value and the price of freedom.

And she has responded to MoveOn.org's craven ad with an ad of her own. Here is the text:

"Hello Senator McCain, these are my precious boys Noah and Daniel. Their daddy served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I grew up under communism. So, when you say we have to protect freedom in Iraq, I understand. And, someday, I would be proud if they volunteered to serve this great country. Senator, thank you for your leadership."

Now THAT'S a woman. A mother of free men.

It is hard for a mother, even a mother who recognizes the cost of freedom, to see her child or her husband go off to war.

You think Ania Egland wants to see her sons die in war?

You think that when Queen Gorgo says to Leonides, "come back with your shield, or on it," that she wants him dead?

If you're on the left—with your warped and twisted way of seeing everything—you probably do.

Gorgo desperately wants her man back, but she understands the necessity of his fight. And Leonides' last words reflect his desire to live and be with her again: My Queen! My wife. My love...

And yet still, he sacrifices himself for the rest of us, so that we can live in freedom.

His Queen understood that. So does Ania Egland.


So now, I say to you, defenders of freedom everywhere—Remember Dilios' words...

Dilios: And so my king died, and my brothers died, barely a year ago. Long I pondered my king's cryptic talk of victory. Time has proven him wise, for from free Greek to free Greek, the word was spread that bold Leonidas and his three hundred, so far from home, laid down their lives. Not just for Sparta, but for all Greece and the promise this country holds.
[takes his spear from a soldier]

Dilios: Now, here on this ragged patch of earth called Plataea, Xerxes's hordes face obliteration!

Spartan Army: HA-OOH!

Dilios: Just there the barbarians huddle, sheer terror gripping tight their hearts with icy fingers... knowing full well what merciless horrors they suffered at the swords and spears of three hundred. Yet they stare now across the plain at *ten thousand* Spartans commanding thirty thousand free Greeks! HA-OOH!

Spartan Army: HA-OOH! HA-OOH! HA-OOH!

Dilios: The enemy outnumber us a paltry three to one, good odds for any Greek. This day we rescue a world from mysticism and tyranny and usher in a future brighter than anything we can imagine.
[puts on his helmet]

Dilios: Give thanks, men, to Leonidas and the brave 300! TO VICTORY!
[the Greek army roars and charges]



The left would see us all destroyed for nothing more than their own vile power and purposes. It is up to us—all of us—to stop them.


If 300 can hold of a million, you can make a difference.

You are the tip of the spear. You are Leonides.

Feel like the left is too powerful? Keep fighting.

Does it seem like their arrows are blotting out the sun? Fight in the shade.

Does Obama loom like the god-king Xerxes? Never kneel.


And so I say to the left:

We are the tip of the spear. We will fight you. We will never yield.

This will not be over quickly. You will not enjoy this.

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

The Imitators: Part II
By Thomas Sowell

It must be a bitter disappointment to those in the media and in politics who have been dying to use the word "recession" that, for the second quarter in a row, there has been no downturn in the economy, though growth has been slow.

Alarmists have been reduced to quoting other alarmists on the supposedly impending recession but that is still not the real thing.

The definition of a "recession" is very clear and straightforward: Two consecutive quarters of negative growth. We have not yet had one consecutive quarter of negative growth.

The fault-finding brigades of critics of the American economy and society are among the reasons why there is so much talk about how we ought to do things that are being done in Europe.

We need to understand America first, before we start imitating Europe.

The American economy produces the largest output in the world-- more than Japan, Germany, and Great Britain combined.
more good stuff from Professor Williams:

Measured by purchasing power, output per capita in the United States is the highest of any large nation.

There are some very small places like Luxembourg or the Cayman Islands with higher purchasing power per capita but, as Professor Benjamin M. Friedman of Harvard put it, places like Luxembourg are "technically countries but are more like large suburbs." Luxembourg's total population is about the same as that of Long Beach, California. Wal-Mart has more employees than the total population of Luxembourg.

Some other small places like the Cayman Islands are tax havens that attract the wealth of people who are not really Cayman Islanders.

Among countries at all comparable to the United States in size or population, none has achieved as high an output per capita. New Jersey produces more than Egypt. California produces more than Canada or Mexico. Desperate efforts to depict all the prosperity and progress in the United States as being monopolized by "the rich" have led to all kinds of statistical mumbo jumbo, such as comparing the changing ratios between statistical categories over time and ignoring the fact that most of the people in those categories move from one category to another over the years.

Studies that follow given individuals over time show the exact opposite of what is being said in the mainstream media and in politics. That is, most of the working people in the bottom fifth of the income distribution rise into the top half, and the rate of increase of their incomes is greater than that of most of the people initially in the top fifth. Those individuals in the top one percent, as of a given time, actually have an absolute decline in income over time. As they drop out of the top one percent, they are replaced by others, so the statistical category can be doing great, while the flesh-and-blood people who pass in and out of that category are by no means gaining on those further down the income distribution.

None of this is rocket science. But most people in politics, in the media and in academia still insist on using statistics based on the fate of abstract categories over time-- households, families, income brackets-- even when other statistics, based on following specific individuals over time, are available.

Households and families vary in size from group to group and are generally declining in size over time, but an individual always means one person. Income per household or family can be stagnant, or even declining, while income per person is rising.

That has in fact been a general pattern in recent decades, which may be why the nay-sayers are forever citing household and family income statistics, while ignoring statistics on income per person.

Amid a general undermining of American economic performance, it is hardly surprising that so many people think we should imitate what the Europeans are doing-- whether in the economy, in foreign policy or in other areas.

We can always learn particular things from other countries, whether in Europe, in Asia or elsewhere. But imitating Europeans when they are not doing as well as Americans makes no sense.

Monday, June 16, 2008

If Bush Lied About WMD, Kerry And 77% Of The Senate Lied Also
By Mary Mostert (08/18/04)


In recent weeks I have received e-mail from readers asking me if a list of quotes making the rounds via e-mail that purport to be from anti-Bush politicians are actually œfor real. The quotes are from Democrats who have attacked the President for œlying about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction and invading Iraq when he was œnot a threat to the United States..

So, I researched the quotes. I found the origin of all but one or two of the quotes sent. However, in those cases, I easily found direct quotes, often made on the floor of Congress, that made the same point and made substitutions. Since Bush™s invasion of Iraq has become a core issue in the current presidential campaign, it is time to set the record straight. We live in the information age. What politicians have said is easily traceable via Internet search engines. Any news person willing to find out what the candidates actually have said, but now don™t seem to remember having said them, can find their quotes.

Below are the quotes, plus several interesting additions I found in the Congressional Record. In October 2002 the House passed Joint Resolution 114 to authorize the President to use military force in Iraq by more than a two-thirds majority - 266 to 133. The Senate passed the resolution 77-23.

Both Senators John Kerry and John Edwards voted for Resolution HJ 114 which puts Congress on record as approving President Bush's actions. It specifically states that the action was necessary primarily because "Iraq has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people" and because "Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens." The resolution also specifically mentions that Iraq was harboring "members of Al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq."

If, as the Democrats now claim, President Bush was lying about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction, 77% of the Senate, including those now running for president, were also lying. In fact, it was a Democrat, Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut that introduced the amendment listing the "findings" of weapons of mass destruction as justification for the resolution.

Mary Mostert, Analyst, Banner of Liberty (www.bannerofliberty.com)

Quotes from Democrats about WMD

1. "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

Quoted on CNN

2. "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." “
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Quoted on CNN

3. Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

Transcript of remarks made at a Town Hall meeting in Columbus, Ohio “ from USIA

4. "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten time since 1983." -
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb 18,1998

Transcript of remarks made at a Town Hall Meeting in Columbus, Ohio “ From USIA

5. œWe urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D - MA), and others Oct. 9,1998

See letter to Clinton by Levin, Daschle, Kerry and others

6. "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

Statement by Rep. Nancy Pelosi “ House of Representative website

7. "Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Answer to a question at the Chicago Council of Foreign Affairs

8. "There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." “
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

Letter to President George W. Bush signed by 9 Congressmen, including Democrats Harold Ford, Jr., Joseph Lieberman, and Benjamin Gilman.

9. " We should be hell bent on getting those weapons of mass destruction, hell bent on having a credible approach to them, but we should try to do it in a way which keeps the world together and that achieves our goal which is removing the... defanging Saddam.." -
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Dec. 9, 2002

Online with Jim Lehrer “ Public Broadcasting Service

10. "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Transcript of Gore™s speech, printed in USA Today

11. "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Transcript of Gore™s speech, printed in USA Today

12. "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

U.S. Senate - Ted Kennedy

13. "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

Congressional Record “ Robert Byrd

14. "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable." -
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002

Congressional Record “ Sen. John F. Kerry

15. "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."-
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

Congressional Record “Sen. Jay Rockefeller

16. "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" “
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

Congressional Record “ Rep. Henry Waxman

17." In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad. In the 4 years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

œIt is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein wiill continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East which, as we know all too well, affects American security.
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

Congressional Record “ Sen. Hillary Clinton

18.The Joint Chiefs should provide Congress with casualty estimates for a war in Iraq as they have done in advance of every past conflict. These estimates should consider Saddam's possible use of chemical or biological weapons against our troops.

Unlike the gulf war, many experts believe Saddam would resort to chemical and biological weapons against our troops in a desperate -attempt to save his regime if he believes he and his regime are ultimately threatened.
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Oct. 8, 2002

Congressional Record - Sen. Ted Kennedy

19." There is one thing we agree upon, and that is that Saddam Hussein is an evil man. He is a tyrant. He has used chemical and biological weapons on his own people. He has disregarded United Nations resolutions calling for inspections of his capabilities and research and development programs. His forces regularly fire on American and British jet pilots enforcing the no-fly zones in the north and south of his country. And he has the potential to develop and deploy nuclear weapons... “
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

Congressional Record “ Sen. Bob Graham

20.But inspectors have had a hard time getting truthful information from the Iraqis they interview. Saddam Hussein terrorizes his people, including his weapons scientists, so effectively that they are afraid to be interviewed in private, let alone outside the country. They know that even the appearance of cooperation could be a death sentence for themselves or their families.

œTo overcome this obstacle, and to discover and dismantle Saddam Hussein™s weapons of mass destruction, UNMOVIC and the IAEA must interview relevant persons securely and with their families protected, even if they protest publicly against this treatment. Hans Blix may dislike running ``a defection agency,'' but that could be the only way to obtain truthful information about Saddam™s weapons of mass destruction -
Sen. Joseph Biden “

Congressional Record “ Sen. Joseph Biden

21. "With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), October 9, 2002

Congressional Record “ Sen. John F. Kerry

22. œSaddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.

œIraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf war and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq™s efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction. “
Sen. John Edwards, October 10, 2002

Congressional Record “ Sen. John Edwards

Tuesday, June 03, 2008

Your CO2 Footprint - Grab the Microscope - an Illustration
Carbon footprint. Carbon credits. Funny looking light bulbs. They say that human-produced CO2 in the atmosphere is causing accelerated global warming and/or climate change. Yea, right! If you buy into this ludicrous notion, it may be time to give the claim a reality check.

If the Earth's atmosphere were to be represented on a 100 yard (91.44 meters) football field (an American football field), the make-up would look like something this:

From the goal line, go down 78 yards to the 22 yard line on the other end, and you have nitrogen.

Go 21 yards further, to the 1 yard line, and you have oxygen (99 yards total so far).

From the 1 yard line to the 3 inch line, you have argon.

From the 3 inch line to the 1 inch line, you have other gasses.

The last 1" would be representative of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

Let's switch our units from inch to millimeters. One inch equals 25.4mm

95 percent of that last inch (25.4mm) is CO2 that comes from water vapor - that is, evaporation from oceans, lakes, rain water, and so on.

That leaves 1.27mm left on the field.

Out of that remainder, 0.678mm is CO2 from natural sources - volcanoes and other stuff from the earth.

That leaves 0.591mm - just over one-half of one millimeter - which is CO2 produced by human (and other creature) activity.

Out of that 0.591mm, about half is from CO2 exhaled (and/or exhausted) from living creatures, including us dastardly, planet-destroying, humans.

Which leaves 0.295mm - about one-fourth of one millimeter - of CO2 emissions from automobiles, power plants, SUVs, and anyone driving a Toyota Prius. (I wonder what the overall percentage difference would be between a Ford F250 pick-up and a Toyota Prius? It probably couldn't even be measured as a percentage of the whole.)

And they claim we're destroying the planet. Yea, right. The more you look into the claim, the sillier it gets. And the more you consider the real motives ........ the more it makes you wonder.
Posted: 05/17/2008 @ 09:13 AM (PDT) (edited 05/17/2008 @ 09:22 AM (PDT))