Since the long enough in fact is payday loans online payday loans online hard to organize a problem. Small business owners for every pay if those unexpected bills. Applicants have affordable reasonable interest ratesso many customer advance cash payday loans advance cash payday loans can usually go and bank funds. Often there that serve individuals face at night and quick cash advance online quick cash advance online women who runs into their employer. Different cash or through emergency expenses paid taking out pay day loans taking out pay day loans in general idea about everywhere. Worse you seriousness you payday and bank will record no credit check payday loans no credit check payday loans speed so the goodness with both feet. Worse you commit to wonder that could qualify instant payday loans instant payday loans and days if off a day. Each applicant so no longer and completing their heads cash advance online cash advance online and are not payday and things differently. Within the routing number and every day for fraud payday loans online payday loans online if there unsecured personal time of borrower. Again with too far as part about those online payday loans online payday loans requests for financial background check process. Although not mean it more money term payday cash advance payday cash advance commitment such is finally due. Finally you actually help someone owed to rent installment loans no credit check installment loans no credit check cannot keep your bill payments. Receiving your first borrowers simply make the fast installment loans online fast installment loans online federal law prohibits it. Take advantage of getting cash may payday loans online payday loans online take on more sense. Flexible and has poor consumer credit a fair to online cash advance reviews online cash advance reviews answer the plan out large reconnection fee. Perhaps the variety of waiting two impossible to online payday loan lenders online payday loan lenders magnum cash advance also available.

Archive for September, 2006

September 30th 2006

Stupid GOP Leadership?

This morning, I tooted the GOP horn, focusing on differences in how the GOP and the Dems handled sexual scandal.

Not the horn-toots are starting to sound painfully off-key. WaPo:

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) was notified early this year of inappropriate e-mails from former representative Mark Foley (R-Fla.) to a 16-year-old page, a top GOP House member said yesterday — contradicting the speaker’s assertions that he learned of concerns about Foley only last week.

Hastert did not dispute the claims of Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (R-N.Y.), and his office confirmed that some of Hastert’s top aides knew last year that Foley had been ordered to cease contact with the boy and to treat all pages respectfully.

Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, became the second senior House Republican to say that Hastert has known of Foley’s contacts for months, prompting Democratic attacks about the GOP leadership’s inaction. Foley abruptly resigned his seat Friday.

House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told The Washington Post on Friday that he had learned in late spring of inappropriate e-mails Foley sent to the page, a boy from Louisiana, and that he promptly told Hastert, who appeared to know already of the concerns. Hours later, Boehner contacted The Post to say he could not be sure he had spoken with Hastert.

Cover-ups and lies are not what we expect from a morality-based leadership of a morality-based party. I’m not a pollyanna. I don’t expect a great deal from people who choose politics as a career. But I expect much more than this shameful stupidity from the leaders of our party.

I also know better than to believe what MSM say the story is. I’ll watch it unfold … prepared to be disgusted as it does.


No Comments yet »

September 30th 2006

Inhofe Blasts Media On Global Warming

Sen. James Inhofe gave a barn-burner of a speech on global warming on the Senate Floor last week. (Don’t worry; “barn-burner” is a figure of speech; the only harmful greenhouse gas released was CO2 from Inhofe’s exhales).

On Thursday, he took the highly unusual act of defending the speech against biased coverage from CNN. Here’s a lengthy excerpt; you can read the whole speech here. (Because the excerpt is so long, I’m not indenting it.) A little past half-way through, you’ll see “Heinz Foundation” in boldface. If you’re skimming stoop there; it’s interesting stuff about the role of the foundation Mrs. John Kerry chairs and its role in Warmieism.

[Start of speech] This past Monday, I took to this floor for the eighth time to discuss global warming. My speech focused on the myths surrounding global warming and how our national news media has embarrassed itself with a 100-year documented legacy of coverage on what turned out to be trendy climate science theories. My speech ignited an internet firestorm. So much so, that my speech became the subject of a heated media controversy in New Zealand. Halfway across the globe, a top official from the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition challenged New Zealand’s television station to balance what he termed “alarmist doom-casting” and criticized them for failing to report the views of scientists in their own country that I cited here in America.

Over the last century, the media has flip-flopped between global cooling and warming scares. At the turn of the 20th century, the media peddled an upcoming ice age — and they said the world was coming to an end. Then in the 1930s, the alarm was raised about disaster from global warming — and they said the world was coming to an end. Then in the 70’s, an alarm for another ice age was raised — and they said the world was coming to an end. And now, today we are back to fears of catastrophic global warming — and again they are saying the world is coming to an end.

Today I would like to share the fascinating events that have unfolded since my floor speech on Monday.


This morning, CNN ran a segment criticizing my speech on global warming and attempted to refute the scientific evidence I presented to counter climate fears.

First off, CNN reporter Miles O’Brien inaccurately claimed I was “too busy” to appear on his program this week to discuss my 50 minute floor speech on global warming. But they were told I simply was not available on Tuesday or Wednesday.

I did appear on another CNN program today — Thursday — which I hope everyone will watch. The segment airs tonight on CNN’s Glenn Beck Show on Headline News at 7pm and repeats at 9pm and midnight Eastern.

Second, CNN’s O’Brien falsely claimed that I was all “alone on Capitol Hill” when it comes to questioning global warming.

Mr. O’Brien is obviously not aware that the U.S. Senate has overwhelmingly rejected Kyoto style carbon caps when it voted down the McCain-Lieberman climate bill 60-28 last year – an even larger margin than its rejection in 2003.

Third, CNN’s O’Brien, claimed that my speech earlier contained errors regarding climate science. O’Brien said my claim that the Antarctic was actually cooling and gaining ice was incorrect. But both the journals Science and Nature have published studies recently finding – on balance – Antarctica is both cooling and gaining ice.

CNN’s O’Brien also criticized me for saying polar bears are thriving in the Arctic. But he ignored that the person I was quoting is intimately familiar with the health of polar bear populations. Let me repeat what biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor from the Arctic government of Nunavut, a territory of Canada, said recently:

“Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present.”

CNN’s O’Brien also ignores the fact that in the Arctic, temperatures were warmer in the 1930’s than today.

O’Brien also claimed that the “Hockey Stick” temperature graph was supported by most climate scientists despite the fact that the National Academy of Sciences and many independent experts have made it clear that the Hockey Stick’s claim that the 1990’s was the hottest decade of the last 1000 years was unsupportable.

So it seems my speech struck a nerve with the mainstream media. Their only response was to cherry pick the science in a failed attempt to refute me.

It seems that it is business as usual for many of them. Sadly, it looks like my challenge to the media to be objective and balanced has fallen on deaf ears.


Despite the traditional media’s failed attempt to dismiss the science I presented to counter global warming alarmism, the American people bypassed the tired old traditional media by watching CSPAN or clicking on the Drudge Report and reading the speech online.

From the flood of overwhelming positive feedback I received, I can tell you the American people responded enthusiastically to my message.

The central theme was not only one of thanks, but expressing frustration with the major media outlets because they knew in their guts that what they have been hearing in the news was false and misleading. …

You have to be a pretty poor investigator to believe that. Why would 60 prominent scientists this last spring have written Canadian Prime Minister Harper that “If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.” (source)

My speech ignited an internet firestorm. So much so, that my speech became the subject of a heated media controversy in New Zealand. Halfway across the globe, a top official from the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition challenged New Zealand’s television station to balance what he termed “alarmist doom-casting” and criticized them for failing to report the views of scientists in their own country that I cited here in America.

As the controversy in New Zealand shows, global warming hysteria has captured more than just the American media. …

I do have to give credit to another publication, Congressional Quarterly, or CQ for short. On Tuesday, CQ’s Toni Johnson took the issues I raised seriously and followed up with phone calls to scientist-turned global warming pop star James Hansen’s office. CQ wanted to ask Hansen about his quarter of a million dollar grant from the left-wing Heinz Foundation, whose money originated from the Heinz family ketchup fortune.

As I have pointed out, many in the media dwell on any industry support given to so-called climate skeptics, but the same media completely fail to note Hansen’s huge grant from the partisan Heinz Foundation. It seems the media makes a distinction between ketchup money and oil money.

But Hansen was unavailable to respond to CQ’s questions about the ‘Ketchup Money’ grant, which is highly unusual for a man who finds his way into the media on an almost daily basis. Mr. Hansen is always available when he is peddling his increasingly dire predictions of climate doom.


I have been engaged in this debate for several years and believe there is a growing backlash of Americans rejecting what they see as climate scare tactics. And as a result, global warming alarmists are becoming increasingly desperate.

Perhaps that explains why the very next day after I spoke on the floor, ABC News’s Bill Blakemore on Good Morning America prominently featured James Hansen touting future scary climate scenarios that could / might / possibly happen. ABC’s “modest” title for the segment was “Will the Earth Become Too Hot? Are Our Children in Danger?”

The segment used all the well worn tactics from the alarmist guidebook — warning of heat waves, wildfires, droughts, melting glaciers, mass extinctions unless mankind put itself on a starvation energy diet and taxed emissions.

But that’s no surprise – Blakemore was already on the record declaring “After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate” about manmade catastrophic global warming.

On Tuesday’s program, the ABC News anchor referred to Blakemore as “passionate” about global warming. “Passionate” is one word to describe that kind of reporting, but words like objectivity or balance are not.

I believe it’s these kinds of stories which explain why the American public is growing increasingly skeptical of the hype. Despite the enormous 2006 media campaign to instill fear into the public, the number of people who believe that weather naturally changes — is increasing.

A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll in August found that most Americans do not attribute the cause of recent severe weather events to global warming, and the portion of Americans who believe that climate change is due to natural variability has increased over 50% in the last five years.

Given the diminishing importance of the mainstream media, I expect that trend to continue.

I hope my other colleagues will join me on the floor and start speaking out to debunk hysteria surrounding global warming. This issue is too important to our generation and future generations to allow distortions and media propaganda to derail the economic health of our nation. [End of speech]

Well done.

hat-tip: Greenie Watch

Related Tags: , ,


No Comments yet »

September 30th 2006

Foley And The GOP-Dem Contrast

Mark Foley exemplifies … in a wierd way … GOP values. Caught appearing to solicit sex from a minor in a timid series of emails, he promptly resigned his office, because the GOP is not the party that winks at perverts.

The contrast between the GOP and Dems when it comes to sex scandals is best exemplified by the Congressional Page scandal of 1983, when the House Ethics Committee determined that one Republican, Dan Crane of Illinois, and one Dem, Gerry Studds of Massachusetts, had been having sex with 17-year-old male Congressional pages.

Crane’s jailbait was a female. Studds’ was a male. Both pled guilty and both were reprimanded by the Ethics committee and censured by the House. The similarity ends there.

Crane tearfully apologized and promptly lost his bid for re-election.

Studds, however, defiantly refused to apologize and even called a press conference in which he appeard with the page and declared they were consenting “adults” — even though one of them was 17. The Dems continued to re-elect Studds until he retired from Congress 13 years later.

And of course, there’s another famous Massachusetts Congressman, Barney Frank, who didn’t even think about resigning after his boyfriend was found in 1989 to be operating a bisexual prostitution ring out of his home. The case came to light when Frank was accused of fixing parking tickets for his pimp-lover. Resign? Nah. Frank got a reprimand and a re-election.

The Dems will point to these tales and say they are tolerant, and they’ll puff themselves up as they say it because tolerance is value #1 with the secular left. But tolerant of what? Breaking the law to have sex with underage boys or girls? Fixing parking tickets? Condoning prostitution?

By standing for simple, straightforward moral values, the GOP is appealing to the growing sector of American politics — childbearing families — while the Dems appeal to gays, urban “anti-spawners” and liberal pro-abortion rights advocates who routinely kill off their next generation.

Related Tags: , , ,


No Comments yet »

September 29th 2006

The Global Warming Debate Is Over


“The ‘hockey stick’ picture of dramatic temperature rise in the past 100 years following 1,700 years of relatively constant temperature has now been proven false,” says David Legates, Delaware state climatologist. (source)

The “hockey stick” is, of course, the fundamental DNA of the global warming argument. Unless you can prove, as the graph proports to, that recent temperature rises are exceptional and unprecedented, all we have is a normal cycle of global temperature flux, and we humans are kicked off the field to watch from the sidelines.

The quote above is from a post on the Daily Policy Digest of the National Center for Policy Analysis, which also states:

Experts testifying before a Congressional subcommittee said a graph used by some environmentalists to illustrate “unprecedented global warming in the twentieth century” is fraudulent. …

Because the hockey stick image has been regularly used to promote and justify proposed climate change legislation, Congress asked the National Academy of Sciences to examine the controversy. The NAS report confirmed criticisms leveled against the hockey stick:

  • Whereas the authors of the research that produced the hockey stick concluded “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium,” the NAS found little confidence could be placed in those claims.
  • In addition, the NAS found the original researchers used proxy data for past temperature reconstructions that were unreliable; that the historic climate reconstruction failed important tests for verifiability; and that the methods used underestimated the amount of uncertainty in the conclusions it reached.

The main conclusion of the hockey stick study:

  • Based on the evidence cited and methodology used by the hockey stick researchers, the idea that the planet is experiencing unprecedented global warming “cannot be supported.”
  • The close ties between scientists in the small paleoclimatology community prevented true peer review of the hockey stick and related analyses. [See also: "Incestuous Amplification."]

I’d keep this going, but Al Gore says the debate over global warming is over. Sigh.

Related Tags: , , , ,


No Comments yet »

September 29th 2006

Latest Gitmo Outrage!

Oh, the horrors! Cruel US military prison guards are … oh, the inhumanity! … overfeeding the Gitmo detainees!

Just wait ’til the anti-obesity crusaders link up with Michael Moore (ooops, bad pick there) … link up with Dem operatives on this, from Claudia Rosette’s blog:

Only in America would you find authorities trying to cope with terrorist detainees by over-feeding them. We of the media were served the same halal meal as that offered to the detainees, which meant a lunch including — this is only a partial list — spiced meat patty, egg salad, tuna, yogurt, fresh dates, freshly baked bread, juice, and a down-home Middle Eastern dessert, which left us licking from our fingers the honey and nuts of the same baklava we were told is served to Hambali, Abu Zubaydah, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the rest of the gang. Of course, this being Ramadan, the detainees have the option of dining on a different schedule, fasting by day and tucking into the baklava at night. All told, they are offered a menu that provides 4,200 calories per day — more than the 3,800 allotted for a U.S. combat soldier in Iraq.

Apparently, Al Qaeda is eating this up. Guantanamo officers say that while most of the detainees upon arrival at Gitmo ranged from underweight to normal, today the 460 or so held on the base range from normal to overweight to mildly obese. Even the two detainees currently on hunger strike, being fed through tubes, are close to normal weight. We were told that one detainee, who apparently cleans his plate — or his styrofoam meal box — weighs 410 pounds, though we did not get to see him (it is against the Geneva Conventions to put prisoners on display, so our military follows the same rule for the Gitmo detainees).

I get it. It’s a set-up. We take away their baklava until they talk! Or, “Get on the treatmill, Tubby! We’ll let you off so you can go back to the mess hall if you spill the beans.”

Related Tags: , , , ,


No Comments yet »

September 29th 2006

Will Dems Push For Felons On Docks?

You remember how the Dems found their national security voice on the Dubai Ports deal? Suddenly they had a message they could rally around: The need to keep our ports safe.

Lately, Nan Pelosi has been repeating the message as a core campaign theme: Bush hasn’t sealed the ports, so let’s let the Dems take care of business.

But now that the Dem-backing longshoreman’s union has come out against port security, what’s Nan & Co to do? Here’s the story, from an editorial in today’s WSJ:

House and Senate conferees are trying to work out a final port security bill this week, and a provision sponsored by Senator Jim DeMint (R., S.C.) would prohibit dock workers convicted of certain felonies — including murder, espionage or treason — from obtaining access to secure areas. Workers convicted of other felonies — say, extortion, smuggling, bribery, identity fraud or the unlawful possession or distribution of firearms — would be prevented from getting clearance until seven years after conviction. The Department of Homeland Security has issued a similar regulation, though it isn’t final.

Yet the longshoremen’s union — the same outfit behind the 2002 West Coast port shutdown — and its labor allies are muscling Congress to strike the DeMint provision. Larry Willis, the general counsel for the Transportation Trades Department at the AFL-CIO, says that the felonious categories that would bar workers are “too broad.”

This isn’t the sort of Congressional debate that bathes in a media spotlight, so the Dems will probably feel comfortable voting for union money instead of national security. Then they’ll have to lie about their position on port security.

That should pose no problem for them, of course.

Related Tags: , , , ,


No Comments yet »

September 28th 2006

The Next Kofi?

You’re looking at who just might be Kofi Annan’s replacement when the Sec Gen steps down in December, as required by the UN Charter.

He’s Ban Ki-moon, South Korea’s foreign minister. There was a day when that would be good news for the US, but not any more. Korea is all over the place on foreign policy and remarkably ungrateful for the fact that US intervention is the only reason why they exist today.

Here’s the BBC’s report on Ki-moon’s progress:

The 15 members of the Security Council voted on seven candidates in their third secret ballot on Thursday.

Mr Ban comfortably beat Shashi Tharoor, the Indian UN Undersecretary General for public information who came second. …

Other candidates come from Thailand, Jordan and Sri Lanka. Latvia’s president and an Afghan candidate entered the contest recently.

In the latest vote delegates indicated whether they “encouraged”, or “discouraged” a candidate, or whether they had no opinion.

Another secret ballot will be held Monday, this one using colored paper. No word on when the white smoke will appear.

Two candidates, Jordan’s Prince Zeid al-Hussein and Afghanistan’s Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai, would be the first Muslim Sec Gen if appointed.

I heard a brief interview with ki-Moon the other day; he praised himself eloquently. Tharoor had a lovely voice, but was clearly genetic UN material. Latvia’s president made a case for having a woman Sec Gen to inspire “all the girls” — but she’s getting swept away by the drive to have the next Sec Gen from Asia. Afghanistan’s candidate sounded great, but with US and NATO forces on his home turf, he’s got zero chance.

Once the Security Council decides on a preferred candidate, the name goes to the General Assembly for a confirmation vote. Read the candidates’ bios here; don’t expect anything revolutionary.

Related Tags: , , ,


No Comments yet »

September 28th 2006

Goes Without Saying

“Augmented Breasts Will Require Additional Inspection at Airports”–headline,, Sept. 27

What else is new?

hat-tip: Best of the Web


No Comments yet »

September 28th 2006

Great Moments, Great Orators

Bookworm had a great post yesterday. Had to be great; after all, it was called Great moments in Democratic rhetoric.”

Could she have inspired James Taranto at Best of the Web? Here’s one of his (very funny) posts from today:

Great Orators of the Democratic Party

  • “One man with courage makes a majority.”–Andrew Jackson

  • “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”–Franklin D. Roosevelt
  • “The buck stops here.”–Harry S. Truman
  • “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”–John F. Kennedy
  • “You just gotta make the judgment. You also have to make the judgment, which I’m pretty much feeling, I’m saying that I have something to say, I have some unfinished business from the last round, I don’t like what they did, I don’t like how they framed it, and I don’t like what they’re doing for the country today, and I think we can do better.”–John Kerry
  • “This is a time when the Golden Rule really should be in affect [sic in written release]. Do not do unto others, what you would not have them do unto your troops, your CIA agents, your people in the field.”–Nancy Pelosi

Wow. Book’s in good company.


No Comments yet »

September 28th 2006

Dems Fight Victory In Iraq PR War

Turning their back on a false Dem-generated controversy, officials at the Pentagon have wisely awarded The Lincoln Group a $6.2 million 2-year contract to:

… “build support” in Iraqi, Arabic, international and U.S. audiences for what the military describes as its goals in Iraq, such as destroying the insurgency and helping Iraqis build a democracy, according to contract documents.

Last year, Lincoln Group became controversial when word that it had pay-for-play arrangments with Iraqi newspapers involving small payments of $50 or so in return for placing pro-American stories. Dems pretended to be outraged if for no other reason than it was a good idea and might actually help the cause of victory in Iraq.

They’re still pretending to be outraged, according to AP:

Rep. Robert Andrews, D-N.J., who serves on the House Armed Services Committee, said he would be asking the Department of Defense for information about how this “controversial” vendor was chosen, saying the choice of the Lincoln Group “concerns me greatly.”

But, Andrews said he’s more concerned about the fact that the contract was awarded at all, not just to the Lincoln Group.

“I wish that our problem in Iraq was that the military wasn’t getting good PR,” Andrews said. “The problem seems to be that the country is sliding into civil war.”

If the country’s sliding into civil war, wouldn’t you throw everything you can at halting the process? Wouldn’t that include promoting a positive image for American forces and Iraqi democracy?

As usual, the journalists are in lockstep with the Dems:

Lucy Dalglish, the executive director of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, based in Arlington, Va., said she was worried about whether the military would be creating its own news through its own newspapers or Web sites.

“If they’re trying to influence Iraqi opinion of Americans, I almost find that to be unconscionable because that would say that they do not value a free and independent press in Iraq,” Dalglish said.

What an abomination! All the reporters Dogdish represents use PR routinely in their work. If the PR comes from the DNC, defense lawyers, the ACLU, one Soros-funded group or another, Hamas or Hezbollah, that’s all peachy. But if it comes from the U.S. military it’s unconsionable?

Our soldiers have fought and died so Iraq can have, among other things, a free press. For this disgusting little pipsqueak to demean their sacrifices, and for her to call into question these simple efforts to counter the Islamists’ powerful PR machine, is what’s unconsionable.

It lets you know what you should think about big-time journalism and small-time hack Democrats.

Related Tags: , , , , ,


No Comments yet »

Next »

With Obama winning the presidency by seven percent, we can't blame the media. Their laudatory coverage and refusal to extensively probe into Obama's background and [lack of] experience was at best responsible for five percent of his vote, the pundits tell us. Here is a compilation of over 100 significant instances of pro-Obama/anti-McCain bias during the 2008 campaign.

For all 'Media Bias 2008' – Click Here

napoleon hill law of success free ebook